ArticleJournal of human hypertension2014
Diabetes and CVD risk during angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blocker treatment in hypertension: a study of 15,990 patients.
Article in Journal of human hypertension, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Letter to the Editor on "Reducing the Risk of Developing Diabetes: The Role of Angiotensin Receptor Blockers and Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors in Patients with Hypertension Combined Prediabetes".Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2025Article
- Assessing Covariate Balance With Small Sample Sizes.Statistics in medicine · 2025Article
- Assessing Covariate Balance with Small Sample Sizes.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Adjusting for indirectly measured confounding using large-scale propensity score.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2022Article
- Combating the Coronavirus Pandemic: Early Detection, Medical Treatment, and a Concerted Effort by the Global Community.Research (Washington, D.C.) · 2020Review
- Observational
- Resveratrol provides benefits in mice with type II diabetes-induced chronic renal failure through AMPK signaling pathway.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2018Article
- Comparative risk of new-onset diabetes mellitus for antihypertensive drugs: A network meta-analysis.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2017Article
- Azilsartan compared to ACE inhibitors in anti-hypertensive therapy: one-year outcomes of the observational EARLY registry.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2016Observational
- Impact of Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitor versus Angiotensin Receptor Blocker on Incidence of New-Onset Diabetes Mellitus in Asians.Yonsei medical journal · 2016Article
- Opposing tissue-specific roles of angiotensin in the pathogenesis of obesity, and implications for obesity-related hypertension.American journal of physiology. Regulatory, integrative and comparative physiology · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Differences in clinical effectiveness between angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in the primary treatment of hypertension are unknown. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to assess the prevention of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease (CVD) in patients treated with ARBs or ACEis. Patients initiated on enalapril or candesartan treatment in 71 Swedish primary care centers between 1999 and 2007 were included. Medical records data were extracted and linked with nationwide hospital discharge and cause of death registers. The 11,725 patients initiated on enalapril and 4265 on candesartan had similar baseline characteristics. During a mean follow-up of 1.84 years, 36,482 patient-years, the risk of new diabetes onset was lower in the candesartan group (hazard ratio (HR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69-0.96, P=0.01) compared with the enalapril group. No difference between the groups was observed in CVD risk (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87-1.13, P=0.86). More patients discontinued treatment in the enalapril group (38.1%) vs the candesartan group (27.2%). In a clinical setting, patients initiated on candesartan treatment had a lower risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes and lower rates of drug discontinuation compared with patients initiated on enalapril. No differences in CVD risk were observed.
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.