ReviewCureus2026
Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors Versus Angiotensin Receptor Blockers for Cardiovascular and Renal Protection in Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- [Burden of Diabetic Kidney Disease at Global, Regional, and National Levels From 1990 to 2021].Sichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) increases the risk of cardiovascular morbidity and end-stage renal disease. Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors, specifically angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), are standard therapies for organ protection. However, uncertainty remains regarding their comparative efficacy and the safety of combination therapy. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of ACEIs versus ARBs in reducing cardiovascular and renal events in patients with T2DM and to assess the safety of dual blockade. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to 2025 comparing ACEIs, ARBs, or their combination against placebo or active controls in T2DM patients. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and renal failure. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Data were synthesized using frequentist pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analyses. Heterogeneity was explored via meta-regression, and trial sequential analysis (TSA) was used to assess the sufficiency of evidence. In total, 16 RCTs involving 47,406 participants were included. In pairwise analysis, both ACEIs (risk ratio (RR) = 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.81-0.94) and ARBs (RR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.83-0.98) significantly reduced the risk of the primary composite endpoint compared to control. Network meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference between ACEIs and ARBs (RR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.88-1.09). Although ACEIs ranked slightly higher in probability for reducing all-cause mortality (surface under the cumulative ranking = 78% vs. 65%), this difference was not statistically significant. Dual blockade (ACEI + ARB) increased the risk of hyperkalemia (RR = 2.8) and acute kidney injury (RR = 1.7) without improving efficacy. Meta-regression identified baseline systolic blood pressure as a significant modifier of treatment benefit (p = 0.04). TSA indicated that the evidence for the RAAS blockade's benefit is conclusive. ACEIs and ARBs exhibit comparable efficacy in preventing cardiovascular and renal events in patients with T2DM, with a marginal mortality benefit favoring ACEIs. Dual blockade is associated with increased harm and is not recommended. Monotherapy with either agent remains the preferred strategy for organ protection.
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.