ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2006
Angiotensin inhibition after myocardial infarction: does drug class matter?
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System Inhibitors in COVID-19: A Review.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2021Review
- Article
- New prescriptions of spironolactone associated with angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors and/or angiotensin receptor blockers and their laboratory monitoring from 2001 to 2008: a population study on older people living in the community in Italy.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2013Article
- Angiotensin receptor blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors: challenges in comparative effectiveness using Medicare data.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2011Article
- Use of recommended medications after myocardial infarction in Austria.European journal of epidemiology · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAngiotensin converting enzyme-inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin-II-receptor blockers (ARB) are equally efficacious in reducing mortality after MI, although the latter are far more costly. Little is known about their relative use after MI in typical care settings, and about their relative effectiveness outside the clinical trial setting.
objectivesTo assess temporal trends in the relative use of ACEI and ARB after myocardial infarction, and to test for differences in 1-year survival between users of these drug classes.
designRetrospective closed cohort study. PATIENTS: Medicare beneficiaries who survived >90 days after myocardial infarction, had full prescription drug coverage, and who filled a prescription for either ACEI or ARB within 90 days of myocardial infarction. MEASUREMENTS: Relative use of ACEI versus ARB over time. Adjusted relative 1-year mortality between ACEI and ARB users.
resultsBetween 1995 and 2004, 14,190 patients met inclusion criteria. Mean age was 80 years, 75% were female, and 90% were white. Overall, 88% received an ACEI, and 12% an ARB, with the proportion receiving an ARB increasing from 2% (1995) to 25% (2004; P<.001). Multivariate-adjusted 1-year mortality did not differ between ARB and ACEI users (HR: 1.04; 95% confidence interval: 0.88 to 1.22). The findings were similar for new users of ACEI/ARB, and for those with preexisting heart failure.
conclusionsARB users had the same 1-year mortality after myocardial infarction as ACEI users in routine care. Use of more costly ARB has increased dramatically over time, to a quarter of ACEI/ARB users, despite the lack of a therapeutic advantage for most patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.