Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22147122›Full record

SynthesisJournal of general internal medicine2012

Updated report on comparative effectiveness of ACE inhibitors, ARBs, and direct renin inhibitors for patients with essential hypertension: much more data, little new information.

Benjamin J Powers, Remy R Coeytaux, Rowena J Dolor, Vic Hasselblad, Uptal D Patel, William S Yancy, Rebecca N Gray, R Julian Irvine, Amy S Kendrick, Gillian D Sanders

Open access · bronzeAbstract readCase ReportsComparative StudyMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of general internal medicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. All in on ARBs: Is it time to fold the ACEIs?Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Adherence to cardiovascular medication: a review of systematic reviews.Journal of public health (Oxford, England) · 2019
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. ACE inhibitors versus ARBs versus DRIs: a systematic update.Journal of general internal medicine · 2012
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Benjamin J PowersDurham VA Medical Center, 508 Fulton Street, Durham, NC 27705, USA. ben.powers@duke.edu
Remy R Coeytaux
Rowena J Dolor
Vic Hasselblad
Uptal D Patel
William S Yancy
Rebecca N Gray
R Julian Irvine
Amy S Kendrick
Gillian D Sanders
Duke University · USDurham VA Medical Center · US

Funding

PHS HHS 290-02-0025
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesA 2007 systematic review compared angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) in patients with hypertension. Direct renin inhibitors (DRIs) have since been introduced, and significant new research has been published. We sought to update and expand the 2007 review. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE (through December 2010) and selected other sources for relevant English-language trials. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS, AND

interventionsWe included studies that directly compared ACE inhibitors, ARBs, and/or DRIs in at least 20 total adults with essential hypertension; had at least 12 weeks of follow-up; and reported at least one outcome of interest. Ninety-seven (97) studies (36 new since 2007) directly comparing ACE inhibitors versus ARBs and three studies directly comparing DRIs to ACE inhibitor inhibitors or ARBs were included. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS

methodsA standard protocol was used to extract data on study design, interventions, population characteristics, and outcomes; evaluate study quality; and summarize the evidence.

resultsIn spite of substantial new evidence, none of the conclusions from the 2007 review changed. The level of evidence remains high for equivalence between ACE inhibitors and ARBs for blood pressure lowering and use as single antihypertensive agents, as well as for superiority of ARBs for short-term adverse events (primarily cough). However, the new evidence was insufficient on long-term cardiovascular outcomes, quality of life, progression of renal disease, medication adherence or persistence, rates of angioedema, and differences in key patient subgroups. LIMITATIONS: Included studies were limited by follow-up duration, protocol heterogeneity, and infrequent reporting on patient subgroups. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY

findingsEvidence does not support a meaningful difference between ACE inhibitors and ARBs for any outcome except medication side effects. Few, if any, of the questions that were not answered in the 2007 report have been addressed by the 36 new studies. Future research in this area should consider areas of uncertainty and be prioritized accordingly.

Indexed as

Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme InhibitorsAngiotensin Receptor AntagonistsAntihypertensive AgentsCardiovascular DiseasesEvidence-Based MedicineFemaleHumansHypertensionMedication AdherenceMiddle AgedProtease InhibitorsRenin InhibitorsAngiotensin-Converting Enzyme InhibitorsAngiotensin Receptor AntagonistsAntihypertensive AgentsProtease InhibitorsRenin Inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID22147122
PMCPMC3358398
OpenAlexW1990862526

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.