-
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2021Acute kidney injury (AKI) may increase the risk of chronic kidney disease (CKD), development of end-stage renal disease (ESRD), and mortality. However, the impact of... (Review)
Review
The Impact of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors or Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers on Clinical Outcomes of Acute Kidney Disease Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Acute kidney injury (AKI) may increase the risk of chronic kidney disease (CKD), development of end-stage renal disease (ESRD), and mortality. However, the impact of exposure to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blocker (ACEi/ARB) in patients experiencing AKI/acute kidney disease (AKD) is still unclear. In this systematic review, we searched all relevant studies from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Medline, Collaboration Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials, Cochrane Systematic Reviews, and ClinicalTrials.gov until July 21, 2020. We evaluated whether the exposure to ACEi/ARB after AKI onset alters recovery paths of AKD and impacts risks of all-cause mortality, recurrent AKI, or incident CKD. We rated the certainty of evidence according to Cochrane methods and the GRADE approach. A total of seven articles, involving 70,801 patients, were included in this meta-analysis. The overall patient mortality rate in this meta-analysis was 28.4%. Among AKI patients, all-cause mortality was lower in ACEi/ARB users than in ACEi/ARB nonusers (log odds ratio (OR) -0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.42--0.32, p < 0.01). The risk of recurrent adverse kidney events after AKI was lower in ACEi/ARB users than in nonusers (logOR -0.25, 95% CI: -0.33--0.18, p < 0.01). The risk of hyperkalemia was higher in ACEi/ARB users than in nonusers (logOR 0.43, 95% CI: 0.27-0.59, p < 0.01). Patients with continued use of ACEi/ARB after AKI also had lower mortality risk than those prior ACEi/ARB users but who did not resume ACEi/ARB during AKD (logOR -0.36, 95% CI: -0.4--0.31, p < 0.01). Exposure to ACEi/ARB after AKI is associated with lower risks of all-cause mortality, recurrent AKI, and progression to incident CKD. Patients with AKI may have a survival benefit by continued use of ACEi/ARB; however, a higher incidence of hyperkalemia associated with ACEi/ARB usage among these patients deserves close clinical monitoring.
PubMed: 34354583
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2021.665250 -
PloS One 2017Calcium channel blocker (CCB) or two renin angiotensin aldosterone system blockades (RAAS), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Effects of calcium channel blockers comparing to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers in patients with hypertension and chronic kidney disease stage 3 to 5 and dialysis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Calcium channel blocker (CCB) or two renin angiotensin aldosterone system blockades (RAAS), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), are major potent and prevalently used as initial antihypertensive agents for mild to moderate hypertension, but no uniform agreement as to which antihypertensive drugs should be given for initial therapy, especially among chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients.
DESIGN
A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing CCBs and the two RAAS blockades for hypertensive patients with CKD stage 3 to 5D. The inclusion criteria for this systematic review was RCT that compared the effects of CCBs and the two RAAS blockades in patients with hypertension and CKD. The exclusion criteria were (1) renal transplantation, (2) CKD stage 1 or 2, (3) combined therapy (data cannot be extracted separately). Outcomes were blood pressure change, mortality, heart failure, stroke or cerebrovascular events, and renal outcomes.
RESULTS
21 randomized controlled trials randomized 9,492 patients with hypertensive and CKD into CCBs and the two RAAS blockades treatments. The evidence showed no significant differences in blood presser change, mortality, heart failure, stroke or cerebrovascular events, and renal outcomes between CCBs group and the two RAAS blockades group. The publication bias of pooled mean blood presser change that was detected by Egger's test was non-significant.
CONCLUSIONS
CCBs has similar effects on long term blood pressure, mortality, heart failure, stroke or cerebrovascular events, and renal function to RAAS blockades in patients CKD stage 3 to 5D and hypertension.
Topics: Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Calcium Channel Blockers; Humans; Hypertension; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Renal Dialysis
PubMed: 29240784
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0188975 -
Clinical Cardiology Aug 2020An association among the use of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) with the clinical outcomes of coronavirus disease... (Review)
Review
Association of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers with risk of COVID-19, inflammation level, severity, and death in patients with COVID-19: A rapid systematic review and meta-analysis.
An association among the use of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) with the clinical outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unclear. PubMed, EMBASE, MedRxiv, and BioRxiv were searched for relevant studies that assessed the association between application of ACEI/ARB and risk of COVID-19, inflammation level, severity COVID-19 infection, and death in patients with COVID-19. Eleven studies were included with 33 483 patients. ACEI/ARB therapy might be associated with the reduced inflammatory factor (interleukin-6) and elevated immune cells counts (CD3, CD8). Meta-analysis showed no significant increase in the risk of COVID-19 infection (odds ratio [OR]: 0.95, 95%CI: 0.89-1.05) in patients receiving ACEI/ARB therapy, and ACEI/ARB therapy was associated with a decreased risk of severe COVID-19 (OR: 0.75, 95%CI: 0.59-0.96) and mortality (OR: 0.52, 95%CI: 0.35-0.79). Subgroup analyses showed among the general population, ACEI/ARB therapy was associated with reduced severe COVID-19 infection (OR: 0.79, 95%CI: 0.60-1.05) and all-cause mortality (OR: 0.31, 95%CI: 0.13-0.75), and COVID-19 infection (OR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.66-1.08) were not increased. Among patients with hypertension, the use of an ACEI/ARB was associated with a lower severity of COVID-19 (OR: 0.73, 95%CI: 0.51-1.03) and lower mortality (OR: 0.57, 95%CI: 0.37-0.87), without evidence of an increased risk of COVID-19 infection (OR: 1.00). On the basis of the available evidence, ACEI/ARB therapy should be continued in patients who are at risk for, or have COVID-19, either in general population or hypertension patients. Our results need to be interpreted with caution considering the potential for residual confounders, and more well-designed studies that control the clinical confounders are necessary to confirm our findings.
PubMed: 32757246
DOI: 10.1002/clc.23421 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2017Beta-blockers refer to a mixed group of drugs with diverse pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties. They have shown long-term beneficial effects on mortality and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Beta-blockers refer to a mixed group of drugs with diverse pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties. They have shown long-term beneficial effects on mortality and cardiovascular disease (CVD) when used in people with heart failure or acute myocardial infarction. Beta-blockers were thought to have similar beneficial effects when used as first-line therapy for hypertension. However, the benefit of beta-blockers as first-line therapy for hypertension without compelling indications is controversial. This review is an update of a Cochrane Review initially published in 2007 and updated in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of beta-blockers on morbidity and mortality endpoints in adults with hypertension.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials up to June 2016: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2016, Issue 6), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), and ClinicalTrials.gov. We checked reference lists of relevant reviews, and reference lists of studies potentially eligible for inclusion in this review, and also searched the the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 06 July 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least one year of duration, which assessed the effects of beta-blockers compared to placebo or other drugs, as first-line therapy for hypertension, on mortality and morbidity in adults.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We selected studies and extracted data in duplicate, resolving discrepancies by consensus. We expressed study results as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and conducted fixed-effect or random-effects meta-analyses, as appropriate. We also used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. GRADE classifies the certainty of evidence as high (if we are confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of effect), moderate (if the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of effect), low (if the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of effect), and very low (if we are very uncertain about the estimate of effect).
MAIN RESULTS
Thirteen RCTs met inclusion criteria. They compared beta-blockers to placebo (4 RCTs, 23,613 participants), diuretics (5 RCTs, 18,241 participants), calcium-channel blockers (CCBs: 4 RCTs, 44,825 participants), and renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors (3 RCTs, 10,828 participants). These RCTs were conducted between the 1970s and 2000s and most of them had a high risk of bias resulting from limitations in study design, conduct, and data analysis. There were 40,245 participants taking beta-blockers, three-quarters of them taking atenolol. We found no outcome trials involving the newer vasodilating beta-blockers (e.g. nebivolol).There was no difference in all-cause mortality between beta-blockers and placebo (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.11), diuretics or RAS inhibitors, but it was higher for beta-blockers compared to CCBs (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.14). The evidence on mortality was of moderate-certainty for all comparisons.Total CVD was lower for beta-blockers compared to placebo (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.97; low-certainty evidence), a reflection of the decrease in stroke (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.96; low-certainty evidence) since there was no difference in coronary heart disease (CHD: RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.07; moderate-certainty evidence). The effect of beta-blockers on CVD was worse than that of CCBs (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.29; moderate-certainty evidence), but was not different from that of diuretics (moderate-certainty) or RAS inhibitors (low-certainty). In addition, there was an increase in stroke in beta-blockers compared to CCBs (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.40; moderate-certainty evidence) and RAS inhibitors (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.53; moderate-certainty evidence). However, there was little or no difference in CHD between beta-blockers and diuretics (low-certainty evidence), CCBs (moderate-certainty evidence) or RAS inhibitors (low-certainty evidence). In the single trial involving participants aged 65 years and older, atenolol was associated with an increased CHD incidence compared to diuretics (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.32). Participants taking beta-blockers were more likely to discontinue treatment due to adverse events than participants taking RAS inhibitors (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.54; moderate-certainty evidence), but there was little or no difference with placebo, diuretics or CCBs (low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Most outcome RCTs on beta-blockers as initial therapy for hypertension have high risk of bias. Atenolol was the beta-blocker most used. Current evidence suggests that initiating treatment of hypertension with beta-blockers leads to modest CVD reductions and little or no effects on mortality. These beta-blocker effects are inferior to those of other antihypertensive drugs. Further research should be of high quality and should explore whether there are differences between different subtypes of beta-blockers or whether beta-blockers have differential effects on younger and older people.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Adult; Aged; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Antihypertensive Agents; Atenolol; Calcium Channel Blockers; Coronary Disease; Diuretics; Heart Arrest; Humans; Hypertension; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stroke
PubMed: 28107561
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002003.pub5 -
British Journal of Cancer Jan 2023The association between the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and lung cancer risk remains controversial. This study evaluated the association... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The association between the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and lung cancer risk remains controversial. This study evaluated the association between the use of ACEIs and lung cancer risk.
METHODS
Records from five databases were searched from inception to 26 January 2022. Clinical studies involving persons aged ≥18 years with at least one year of follow-up and reporting adverse events, including lung cancer, were recorded with separate outcome reports supplied for the ACEIs and control groups. Data were extracted independently by three authors and pooled using a random-effects model. The primary outcome was lung cancer development. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and lung cancer-related morbidity were calculated.
RESULTS
Of 2400 records screened, 13,061,226 patients were included from seven cohort studies and four case-control studies. Pooled results showed that ACEIs use was linked to increased lung cancer risk (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.05-1.36; P = 0.008), with high heterogeneity (I = 98%).
CONCLUSIONS
ACEI usage is a greater risk factor for lung carcinogenesis than angiotensin receptor blocker use, especially in Asian patients. Further randomised controlled trials are needed to confirm the causal association between the use of ACEIs and lung cancer risk.
Topics: Humans; Adolescent; Adult; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Risk Factors; Lung Neoplasms; Case-Control Studies
PubMed: 36396817
DOI: 10.1038/s41416-022-02029-5 -
Journal of the... Sep 2014Many reported studies have been conducted to investigate the association of angiotensin II type 1 receptor (AT1R) A1166C gene polymorphism with myocardial infarction... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND AIM
Many reported studies have been conducted to investigate the association of angiotensin II type 1 receptor (AT1R) A1166C gene polymorphism with myocardial infarction (MI) susceptibility. However, the results from those reports are still conflicting. This meta-analysis was performed to study the relationship between AT1R A1166C gene polymorphism and MI risk.
METHOD
The databases of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched as of 1 March 2012, and eligible investigations were recruited into this meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Eighteen investigations were identified for the analysis of association between AT1R A1166C gene polymorphism and MI risk, 11 in Caucasians, three in Asians, two in Africans, one in the population of Brazil and one in the population of Durban, South Africa . There was a marked association between AT1R C allele and MI susceptibility for overall populations (odds ratio (OR)=1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.01-1.25, p=0.03), and AT1R AA genotype was associated with a lower risk of MI in overall populations (OR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.78-0.98, p=0.02). However, AT1R A1166C gene polymorphism was not associated with MI risk in the sub-groups of Caucasians, Asians, Africans, Brazil and Durban populations.
CONCLUSIONS
C allele is a risk factor for the MI susceptibility in overall populations, and AA genotype might be a protective factor against the MI risk in overall populations. However, more case-control association investigations on larger, stratified populations are required in the future.
Topics: Genetic Association Studies; Genetic Predisposition to Disease; Humans; Myocardial Infarction; Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide; Publication Bias; Receptor, Angiotensin, Type 1; Risk Factors; White People
PubMed: 23178513
DOI: 10.1177/1470320312466927 -
BMC Nephrology Jan 2014Structured comparison of pharmacoeconomic analyses for ACEIs and ARBs in patients with type 2 diabetic nephropathy is still lacking. This review aims to systematically... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Structured comparison of pharmacoeconomic analyses for ACEIs and ARBs in patients with type 2 diabetic nephropathy is still lacking. This review aims to systematically review the cost-effectiveness of both ACEIs and ARBs in type 2 diabetic patients with nephropathy.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE and EMBASE for the period from November 1, 1999 to Oct 31, 2011. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of the articles included and extracted data. All cost-effectiveness results were converted to 2011 Euros.
RESULTS
Up to October 2011, 434 articles were identified. After full-text checking and quality assessment, 30 articles were finally included in this review involving 39 study settings. All 6 ACEIs studies were literature-based evaluations which synthesized data from different sources. Other 33 studies were directed at ARBs and were designed based on specific trials. The Markov model was the most common decision analytic method used in the evaluations. From the cost-effectiveness results, 37 out of 39 studies indicated either ACEIs or ARBs were cost-saving comparing with placebo/conventional treatment, such as amlodipine. A lack of evidence was assessed for valid direct comparison of cost-effectiveness between ACEIs and ARBs.
CONCLUSION
There is a lack of direct comparisons of ACEIs and ARBs in existing economic evaluations. Considering the current evidence, both ACEIs and ARBs are likely cost-saving comparing with conventional therapy, excluding such RAAS inhibitors.
Topics: Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Diabetic Neuropathies; European Union; Health Care Costs; Humans
PubMed: 24428868
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2369-15-15 -
Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System Inhibitors and COVID-19: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.Cureus Feb 2021Introduction Increased virulence, the severity of illness, and mortality have all been hypothesized with respect to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor...
Introduction Increased virulence, the severity of illness, and mortality have all been hypothesized with respect to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi)/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) use in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. Our study aims to assess whether ACEi/ARB use in patients with COVID-19 conferred worsened severity of illness or increased mortality. Additionally, we explore the possibility of an unearthed protective benefit due to their interruption of the RAS signaling pathway as observed in cardiovascular diseases. Methods The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched for studies relevant to COVID-19 severity, mortality, and inflammation in the context of ACEi/ARB use. Eight studies were included with a total of 17,943 patients, 4,292 (23.9%) of which were taking an ACEi or an ARB. The study population was 47.9% female and the average age across all studies was 65. The studies chosen had a sample size of at least 100 patients. Results Mortality outcomes were assessed in six studies and showed no significant difference in mortality among the ACEi/ARB and control groups (odds ratio [OR]: 0.99, 95%CI: 0.48-2.04). Seven studies assessed the severity of COVID-19 and showed no statistically significant difference in disease severity when comparing the ACEi/ARB group to the control group (odds ratio [OR]: 1.30, 95% CI 0.87-1.94). Four studies reported the length of stay with no significant difference between the ACEi/ARB groups as compared to non-users. Four studies included inflammatory markers C-reactive protein (CRP) and D-Dimer, which were noted to be consistently lower in the ACEi/ARB groups when compared to control groups, however, this was not statistically significant. Conclusion Our study found no significant difference in mortality, severity of illness, or length of stay between ACEi/ARB users and non-users with COVID-19 infection. These results support the continuation of ACEi and ARBs in the setting of COVID-19 as advised by the American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA). The decrease in CRP and D-dimer suggests a possible protective effect related to ACEi/ARB use in COVID-19, however, more studies with larger sample sizes are needed to establish this effect.
PubMed: 33728141
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.13124 -
Annals of Palliative Medicine Apr 2022Some studies have speculated that patients on angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are more susceptible to adverse... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The divergent protective effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers on clinical outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Some studies have speculated that patients on angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are more susceptible to adverse outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Here, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of administering ACEIs and ARBs to patients with COVID-19.
METHODS
Studies of COVID-19 were collected from the PubMed, Embase, medRxiv and BioRxiv databases. The pooled relative risk odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated. Subgroup analyses were conducted by medication (ACEIs and ARBs) and geographical location (China and outside China). Inter-study heterogeneity was assessed using meta-regression. Begg's test, Egger's test and funnel plots were adopted to evaluate possible publication bias.
RESULTS
Thirty studies containing 10,434 adult patients were included in our meta-analysis. The pooled result indicated that the administration of ACEIs or ARBs reduced the risk of severe/death outcomes for COVID-19 patients. Meanwhile, a significant reduction in the risk of severe/death outcomes was observed to be associated with the administration of ACEIs or ARBs among COVID-19 patients in China, but this association was weaker for studies outside China. Furthermore, ACEI therapy was found to carry a significantly lower risk of an adverse clinical outcome.
DISCUSSION
Our systematic review and meta-analysis found that neither ACEIs nor ARBs worsen the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 patients. On the contrary, we found that patients treated with ACEIs or ARBs have a reduced risk of severe/death outcomes, especially in Asia. Furthermore, ACEIs may reduce the risk of severe/death outcomes. Therefore, treatment interruption of ACEI or ARB therapy during COVID-19 infection is not recommended.
Topics: Adult; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Humans; Hypertension; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 34775774
DOI: 10.21037/apm-21-972 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Jul 2012To systematically review longitudinal studies evaluating use of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and risk of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review longitudinal studies evaluating use of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and risk of pneumonia.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Medline through PubMed, Web of Science with conference proceedings (inception to June 2011), and US Food and Drug Administration website (June 2011). Systematic reviews and references of retrieved articles were also searched.
STUDY SELECTION
Two reviewers independently selected randomised controlled trials and cohort and case-control studies evaluating the use of ACE inhibitors or ARBs and risk of pneumonia and retrieved characteristics of the studies and data estimates.
DATA SYNTHESIS
The primary outcome was incidence of pneumonia and the secondary outcome was pneumonia related mortality. Subgroup analyses were carried according to baseline morbidities (stroke, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease) and patients' characteristics (Asian and non-Asian). Pooled estimates of odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were derived by random effects meta-analysis. Adjusted frequentist indirect comparisons between ACE inhibitors and ARBs were estimated and combined with direct evidence whenever available. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I(2) test.
RESULTS
37 eligible studies were included. ACE inhibitors were associated with a significantly reduced risk of pneumonia compared with control treatment (19 studies: odds ratio 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.55 to 0.80; I(2) = 79%) and ARBs (combined direct and indirect odds ratio estimate 0.69, 0.56 to 0.85). In patients with stroke, the risk of pneumonia was also lower in those treated with ACE inhibitors compared with control treatment (odds ratio 0.46, 0.34 to 0.62) and ARBs (0.42, 0.22 to 0.80). ACE inhibitors were associated with a significantly reduced risk of pneumonia among Asian patients (0.43, 0.34 to 0.54) compared with non-Asian patients (0.82, 0.67 to 1.00; P<0.001). Compared with control treatments, both ACE inhibitors (seven studies: odds ratio 0.73, 0.58 to 0.92; I(2)=51%) and ARBs (one randomised controlled trial: 0.63, 0.40 to 1.00) were associated with a decrease in pneumonia related mortality, without differences between interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
The best evidence available points towards a putative protective role of ACE inhibitors but not ARBs in risk of pneumonia. Patient populations that may benefit most are those with previous stroke and Asian patients. ACE inhibitors were also associated with a decrease in pneumonia related mortality, but the data lacked strength.
Topics: Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Asian People; Heart Failure; Humans; Incidence; Odds Ratio; Pneumonia; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic; Risk; Stroke; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 22786934
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.e4260