ArticleClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2011
Angiotensin receptor blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors: challenges in comparative effectiveness using Medicare data.
Article in Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using Previous Medication Adherence to Predict Future Adherence.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2018Article
- Comparative Effectiveness of Renin-Angiotensin System Antagonists in Maintenance Dialysis Patients.Kidney & blood pressure research · 2016Article
- Comparative effectiveness of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers for hypertension on clinical end points: a cohort study.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
An evidence gap exists in comparing the effectiveness of angiotensin receptor II blockers (ARBs) for hypertension with that of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs). We identified elderly hypertensive patients in whom ACEI/ARB therapy had been initiated after hospitalization for coronary artery disease (CAD), heart failure (HF), or stroke and who were eligible for Medicare and state pharmacy assistance programs. Of 18,801 initiators of ACEIs and 2,641 initiators of ARBs, 2,535 died during the follow-up. We observed substantial differences in characteristics between ARB and ACEI initiators, suggesting that ARB users were more health seeking. The incidence of death and sudden cardiac death (SCD) in ACEI initiators was 77 and 22 per 1,000 person-years, respectively. The relative risk for SCD comparing ARB initiators to ACEI initiators was 0.69 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50-0.96); when the analysis was restricted to patients with low ejection fraction (EF), the relative risk was 1.1. The reduced risk of SCD can be explained, at least partly, by (i) residual confounding because ARB users were healthier on unobserved domains and (ii) lack of data on EF.
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.