- Home
- Search for Research Summaries, Reviews, and Reports
EHC Component
- EPC Project
Topic Title
- Comparative Effectiveness of Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors or Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers Added to Standard Medical Therapy for Treating Stable Ischemic Heart Disease
Full Reports
- Research Review Oct. 16, 2009
- Appendixes Oct. 16, 2009
Related Products for this Topic
- Disposition of Comments Report Mar. 10, 2010
- Clinician Summary Jul. 9, 2010
- Consumer Summary Jul. 9, 2010
- La GuĂas Sumaria de los Consumidores Mar. 29, 2011
Related Links for this Topic
- CME Activity: Comparative Effectiveness of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors or Angiotensin II-Receptor Blockers Added to Standard Medical Therapy for Treating Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease and Preserved Left Ventricular Systolic Function
- CME Activity: Management of the Patient with Stable Ischemic Heart Disease and Preserved Left Ventricular Systolic Function
- Slide Talk: Comparative Effectiveness of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors or Angiotensin II-Receptor Blockers Added to Standard Medical Therapy for Treating Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease and Preserved Left Ventricular Systolic Function
- Slide Talk: Management of the Patient with Stable Ischemic Heart Disease and Preserved Left Ventricular Systolic Function
Executive Summary – Oct. 16, 2009
Comparative Effectiveness of Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors or Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers Added to Standard Medical Therapy for Treating Stable Ischemic Heart Disease
Formats
Table of Contents
- Background
- Conclusions (1)
- Conclusions (2)
- Conclusions (3)
- Conclusions (4)
- Remaining Issues
- Future Research
- Full Report
- For More Copies
Background
Nearly 2,400 Americans die of cardiovascular disease each day, an average of one death every 36 seconds. Cardiovascular disease claims more lives each year than cancer, chronic lower respiratory diseases, accidents, and diabetes mellitus combined. An estimated 79,400,000 American adults (one in three), of whom 37,500,000 are estimated to be age 65 or older, have one or more types of cardiovascular disease. Approximately 8,900,000 adults suffer from angina. Since 1900, cardiovascular disease has accounted for more deaths than any other single cause or group of causes of death in the United States in every year except one.
Based on clinical trial evidence, American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association guidelines support the use of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors in patients who have chronic heart failure or those with myocardial infarction and left ventricular dysfunction, while angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are reserved for those who cannot tolerate ACE inhibitors. Combined ACE inhibitor and ARB therapy has been shown to provide additional benefits over therapy with an ACE inhibitor alone among patients with heart failure. However, the combined use of an ACE inhibitor and ARB in post-myocardial-infarction patients with left ventricular dysfunction or heart failure was no better than the use of captopril alone and carried an increased risk of harms. Studies have been conducted that evaluate the use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs, either alone or in combination, in patients who have ischemic heart disease or an ischemic heart disease risk equivalent but without heart failure or left ventricular dysfunction. From this body of evidence, the benefits and harms associated with use of these therapies in this population of patients may be discerned.
This report summarizes the available evidence comparing the efficacy and safety of using ACE inhibitors, ARBs, or their combination vs. standard medical therapy in a population with stable ischemic heart disease, or an ischemic heart disease risk equivalent, and preserved left ventricular function. This report addresses the following questions:
Key Question 1. In patients with stable ischemic heart disease or ischemic heart disease risk equivalents who have preserved left ventricular systolic function, what is the comparative effectiveness of ACE inhibitors or ARBs added to standard medical therapy when compared to standard medical therapy alone in terms of total mortality, cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, the composite endpoint of the latter three items, and atrial fibrillation? What is the evidence of benefit on other outcomes such as symptom reporting, hospitalization, revascularization, and quality of life measures?
Key Question 2. In patients with stable ischemic heart disease or ischemic heart disease risk equivalents who have preserved left ventricular systolic function and are receiving standard medical therapy, what is the comparative effectiveness of combining ACE inhibitors and ARBs vs. either an ACE inhibitor or ARB alone in terms of total mortality, cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, the composite endpoint of the latter three items, and atrial fibrillation? What is the evidence of benefit on other outcomes such as symptom reporting, hospitalization, revascularization, and quality of life measures?
Key Question 3. In patients with ischemic heart disease and preserved left ventricular function who had to have recently undergone, or are set to undergo, a coronary revascularization procedure, what is the comparative effectiveness of ACE inhibitors or ARBs added to standard medical therapy when compared to standard medical therapy alone in terms of total mortality, cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, the composite endpoint of the latter three items, and atrial fibrillation? What is the evidence of benefit on other outcomes such as symptom reporting, hospitalization, revascularization, and quality of life measures?
Key Question 4. In patients with stable ischemic heart disease or ischemic heart disease risk equivalents who have preserved left ventricular systolic function, what are the comparative harms of adding ACE inhibitors or ARBs to standard medical therapy when compared to standard medical therapy alone?
Key Question 5. In patients with stable ischemic heart disease who have preserved left ventricular systolic function and are receiving standard medical therapy, what is the evidence of comparative harms of combination ACE inhibitor and ARB therapy vs. use with either an ACE inhibitor or ARB alone?
Key Question 6. In patients with ischemic heart disease and preserved left ventricular systolic function who had to have recently undergone, or are set to undergo, a coronary revascularization procedure, what are the comparative harms of ACE inhibitors or ARBs added to standard medical therapy when compared to standard medical therapy alone?
Key Question 7. What is the evidence that benefits or harms differ by subpopulations, including: demographics [sex, age, ethnicity, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF)], clinical course (previous treatment with a stent or coronary artery bypass surgery, degree and location of lesion, presence and pattern of symptoms), dose of the ACE inhibitor or ARB used, comorbidities (diabetes, renal dysfunction, hypertension), and other medications (vitamins, lipid lowering drugs, beta-blockers, anti-platelet agents)?
Conclusions (1)
Table A provides an aggregated view of the strength of evidence and brief conclusions from this review of the comparative long-term benefits and harms of ACE inhibitors, ARBs, or their combination vs. standard medical therapy in a population with stable ischemic heart disease and preserved left ventricular function.
Key Question 1
Patients with stable ischemic heart disease and preserved left ventricular function benefit from receiving ACE inhibitors, and perhaps ARBs as well, in addition to standard medical therapy, but may not benefit more than from using calcium channel blockers in addition to standard medical therapy. Future research is needed to determine if ACE inhibitors or ARBs offer additional benefits over other vasoactive drugs. The TRANSCEND (Telmisartan Randomized Assessment Study in ACE iNtolerant subjects with cardiovascular Disease) trial was the only placebo-controlled trial available to evaluate major efficacy outcomes for ARB therapy. ARB therapy was associated with reductions in the composite endpoint of cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and stroke similar to the pooled results from the HOPE (Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation) and PEACE (Prevention of Events with Angiotensin Converting Enzyme inhibition) trials comparing ACE inhibitors to placebo. While major ACE inhibitor trials utilized a run-in period to ensure that subjects tolerated ACE inhibitor therapy, subjects in TRANSCEND were intolerant of ACE inhibitors and may represent a distinct population. This reduces the confidence of indirect comparisons, and direct evidence comparing ACE inhibitors and ARBs (evaluated in Key Question 2) should be considered.
Key Question 2
There is direct comparative evidence from ONTARGET (Ongoing Telmisartan Alone in combination with Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial) that ACE inhibitors and ARBs provide similar benefits in major outcomes of interest in this population. Since ONTARGET directly compared the same drugs as were evaluated in the placebo-controlled HOPE and TRANSCEND trials (ramipril and telmisartan), the direct evidence of similar benefit is more compelling than indirect evidence of possible differences from Key Question 1.
Key Question 3
Trials compared the addition of ACE inhibitors or ARBs to standard medical therapy vs. standard medical therapy alone (with or without a placebo). For our base case analysis, we limited the trials to randomized, double-blinded comparisons of ACE inhibitors or ARBs to placebo. ACE inhibitors or ARBs did not significantly impact any of the endpoints evaluated. However, except for the endpoint “need for subsequent revascularization,” the incidence rates for the endpoints were low. Overall, the evidence from Key Question 3 suggests that initiation of ACE inhibitors or ARBs in close proximity to a revascularization procedure does not confer significant clinical benefit. However, findings for Key Question 1 suggested that patients with established ischemic heart disease do derive significant clinical benefits from ACE inhibitor or ARB therapy in addition to standard medical therapy. Thus the question becomes, At what point following a cardiac revascularization procedure does a patient with ischemic heart disease derive benefits from these agents? A majority of the trials included in Key Question 1, including HOPE, PEACE, and EUROPA (EURopean trial On reduction of cardiac events with Perindopril in stable coronary Artery disease), included patients who were at least 3 to 6 months removed from undergoing a coronary procedure. Thus it seems plausible that this period of time should be given following a revascularization procedure before ACE inhibitors or ARBs are initiated in these populations. However, no studies have prospectively investigated the optimal time to begin therapy, and more concrete interpretations cannot be made until this evidence becomes available.
Key Question 4
ACE inhibitors or ARBs significantly increase the risk of withdrawing due to adverse events, syncope, cough, and hyperkalemia compared with placebo. ACE inhibitors or ARBs significantly increase the risk of cough and hypotension compared with calcium channel blockers. A number of the included trials had run-in periods in their study design. Thus, the true incidence of harms with these therapies in environments outside of clinical trials may be higher than that reported here. The unique design of the TRANSCEND trial, which compared telmisartan to placebo, deserves special discussion. All of the patients included in TRANSCEND were intolerant to ACE inhibitors at baseline. Following a median followup of 56 months, the ARB telmisartan was relatively well tolerated, with only a statistically higher risk of hypotension symptoms compared with placebo (p=0.049). Thus it appears that ARBs may be a relatively safe alternative for patients with stable ischemic heart disease who cannot tolerate ACE inhibitors or are at an increased risk for harms. Given the benefits seen in Key Question 1, the balance of benefits to harms for the use of ACE inhibitors or ARBs in patients with stable ischemic heart disease seems favorable.
Key Question 5
The results of Key Questions 2 and 5 are evaluated together to discern the comparative balance of benefits and harms. ACE inhibitor therapy, represented by ramipril, provides efficacy similar to the combination of an ACE inhibitor plus an ARB, represented by ramipril and telmisartan, with a lower risk of patient harm. As such, current evidence does not support the use of combination therapy at this time. The ACE inhibitor ramipril and the ARB telmisartan have similar efficacy, similar risks of harms, and therefore a similar balance of benefits to harms.
Key Question 6
The constituent trials did not utilize a lengthy run-in period. Only the APRES (Angiotensin-converting Enzyme inhibition Post Revascularization Study) trial used a run-in period, and this was a single test dose. Since the only trial evaluating an ARB did not report adverse event results, our results cannot be applied to ARBs. The use of ACE inhibitors was associated with hypotension. While ACE inhibitors nonsignificantly increased the risk of cough, only three trials provided information on this. They all agreed on the direction of effect, and two of the three trials individually found ACE inhibitors to increase cough vs. placebo. Given the lack of significant benefits found in Key Question 3, the balance of benefits to harms for the initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB in close proximity to a revascularization procedure is not favorable.
Key Question 7
This Key Question provides important information regarding the applicability of the benefits data. Since there were no subgroup comparisons based on harms, the balance of benefits to harms in these subgroups is not known. While we cannot state with certainty that ARBs do not work as well in females as in males, the subgroup analyses of the TRANSCEND and ONTARGET trials support the need for more research in this area. Patients with renal dysfunction have at least as robust relative reductions in the risk of cardiovascular events as those without dysfunction when ACE inhibitors are given. Even in the PEACE trial, where the overall benefits associated with ACE inhibitor therapy was not as robust, a strong trend toward benefits was seen in the subgroup with renal dysfunction receiving ACE inhibitors vs. those receiving placebo. When we evaluated the impact of baseline risk on efficacy, there was a suggestion that ARBs might work better in lower risk patients while ACE inhibitors work better in higher risk patients. Perhaps the lowest risk group was least likely to receive aspirin therapy. The aspirin therapy itself may attenuate the benefits of ACE inhibitors. Lipid lowering therapy does not seem to negatively impact the benefits of ACE inhibitor or ARB therapy. This is important, since patients with stable ischemic heart disease are receiving higher intensity lipid lowering therapy than they did previously. Patients without a prior revascularization procedure may benefit more from ACE inhibitors than those with revascularization. More work is needed to evaluate the impact of different modalities of revascularization (bare metal stents, drug-eluting stents, coronary artery bypass grafting, atherectomy) on the benefits associated with ACE inhibitors and ARBs. The balance of benefits to harms derived from initiating ACE inhibitor or ARB therapy along with a revascularization procedure is not favorable.
Conclusions (2)
|
Table A. Summary of conclusions from evidence on the use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs in addition to standard medical therapy for stable ischemic heart disease
|
||
|---|---|---|
| KQ1. In patients with stable ischemic heart disease or ischemic heart disease risk equivalents who have preserved left ventricular systolic function, what is the comparative effectiveness of ACE inhibitors or ARBs added to standard medical therapy when compared to standard medical therapy alone in terms of total mortality, cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, the composite endpoint of the latter three items, and atrial fibrillation? What is the evidence of benefit on other outcomes such as symptom reporting, hospitalization, revascularization, and quality of life measures? | ||
| Strength of evidence | Key Question | Conclusions |
KQ1a. Total mortality |
High High Moderate |
|
| Moderate Moderate Insuffient |
|
|
| Low Low Insufficient |
|
|
KQ1b. Cardiovascular |
Moderate Moderate Moderate |
|
Moderate Moderate Insufficient |
|
|
KQ1b. Cardiovascular mortality |
Moderate Moderate Insufficient |
|
KQ1c. Nonfatal myocardial infarction |
High High Insufficient |
|
| Moderate Moderate Insufficient |
|
|
| Low Low Insufficient |
|
|
KQ1d. Stroke |
Moderate Moderate Moderate |
|
| Moderate Moderate Insufficient |
|
|
| Low Low Insufficient |
|
|
KQ1e. Composite of cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or stroke |
High Moderate Moderate |
|
| Insufficient |
|
|
| Low Low Insufficient |
|
|
KQ1f. Atrial fibrillation |
High |
|
| Insufficient |
|
|
| Insufficient |
|
|
KQ1g. Symptom reporting |
Moderate |
|
| Insufficient |
|
|
| Insufficient |
|
|
Q1h. Total hospitalization |
Moderate |
|
| Insufficient |
|
|
| Insufficient |
|
|
KQ1i. Hospitalization |
High |
|
Moderate |
|
|
| Insufficient |
|
|
KQ1j. Hospitalization for heart failure |
High High Moderate |
|
| Moderate Moderate Insufficient |
|
|
| Insufficient |
|
|
KQ1k. Revascularization |
High High Moderate |
|
| Moderate Moderate Insufficient |
|
|
| Insufficient |
|
|
KQ1l. Quality of life |
Insufficient |
|
Conclusions (3)
| Table A (Continued). Summary of conclusions from evidence on the use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs in addition to standard medical therapy for stable ischemic heart disease | ||
|---|---|---|
| KQ2. In patients with stable ischemic heart disease or ischemic heart disease risk equivalents who have preserved left ventricular systolic function and are receiving standard medical therapy, what is the comparative effectiveness of adding ACE inhibitors and ARBs vs. either an ACE inhibitor or ARB alone in terms of total mortality, cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, the composite endpoint of the latter three items, and atrial fibrillation? What is the evidence of benefit on other outcomes such as symptom reporting, hospitalization, revascularization, and quality of life measures? | ||
| Key Question | Strength of evidence | Conclusions |
| KQ2a. Total mortality | Moderate |
|
| KQ2b. Cardiovascular | Moderate |
|
| KQ2c. Fatal + nonfatal | Moderate |
|
| KQ2d. Fatal + nonfatal | Moderate |
|
| KQ2e. Composite of cardiovascular mortality, fatal + nonfatal myocardial infarction, and fatal + nonfatal stroke | Moderate |
|
| KQ2f. New atrial fibrillation | Moderate |
|
| KQ2g. Worsening or new angina | Moderate |
|
| KQ2h. Total hospitalization | Insufficient |
|
| KQ2i. Hospitalization | Moderate |
|
| KQ2j. Hospitalization for heart failure | Moderate |
|
| KQ2k. Revascularization | Moderate |
|
| KQ2l. Quality of life | Insufficient |
|
| KQ3. In patients with ischemic heart disease and preserved left ventricular function who had to have recently undergone, or are set to undergo, a coronary revascularization procedure, what is the comparative effectiveness of ACE inhibitors or ARBs added to standard medical therapy when compared to standard medical therapy alone in terms of total mortality, cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, the composite endpoint of the latter three items, and atrial fibrillation? What is the evidence of benefit on other outcomes such as symptom reporting, hospitalization, revascularization, and quality of life measures? | ||
| Key Question | Strength of evidence | Conclusions |
| KQ3a. Total mortality | Moderate |
|
| KQ3b. Cardiovascular | Low |
|
| KQ3c. Nonfatal myocardial infarction | Low |
|
KQ3d. Stroke |
Low |
|
KQ3e. Composite of cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and stroke |
Moderate |
|
| KQ3f. Atrial fibrillation | Moderate |
|
| KQ3g. Symptom reporting | Insufficient |
|
| KQ3h. Total hospitalization | Insufficient |
|
| KQ3i. Hospitalization for angina | Moderate |
|
KQ3j. Hospitalization for heart failure |
Low |
|
| KQ3k. Revascularization | High |
|
| KQ3l.Quality of life | Insufficient |
|
| KQ4. In patients with stable ischemic heart disease or ischemic heart disease risk equivalents who have preserved left ventricular systolic function, what are the comparative harms of adding ACE inhibitors or ARBs to standard medical therapy when compared to standard medical therapy alone? | ||
| Key Question | Strength of evidence | Conclusions |
|
|
Low |
|
| Low |
|
|
| Insufficient | ||
KQ4b. Hypotension |
Low |
|
| Low |
|
|
| Insufficient | ||
| KQ4c. Syncope | Low |
|
| Insufficient |
|
|
| Insufficient | ||
| KQ4d. Cough | Low |
|
| Low |
|
|
| Insufficient | ||
| KQ4e. Angioedema | Low |
|
| Insufficient |
|
|
| Insufficient | ||
| KQ4f. Hyperkalemia | Low | |
| Insufficient |
|
|
| Insufficient | ||
| KQ4g. Rash | Insufficient | |
| Insufficient |
|
|
| Insufficient | ||
| KQ4h. Blood dyscrasias | Insufficient | |
| Insufficient |
|
|
| Insufficient | ||
| KQ5. In patients with stable ischemic heart disease who have preserved left ventricular systolic function and are receiving standard medical therapy, what is the evidence of comparative harms of combination ACE inhibitor and ARB therapy vs. use with either an ACE inhibitor or ARB alone? | ||
| Key Question | Strength of evidence | Conclusions |
| KQ5a. Study withdrawal | Moderate |
|
| KQ5b. Hypotension | Moderate |
|
| KQ5c. Syncope withdrawal | Moderate |
|
| KQ5d. Cough withdrawal | Moderate |
|
| KQ5e. Angioedema | Low |
|
| KQ5f. Renal impairment | Moderate |
|
| KQ5g. Rash | Insufficient |
|
| KQ5h. Blood dyscrasias | Insufficient |
|
| KQ6. In patients with ischemic heart disease and preserved left ventricular systolic function who had to have recently undergone, or are set to undergo, a coronary revascularization procedure, what are the comparative harms of ACE inhibitors or ARBs added to standard medical therapy when compared to standard medical therapy alone? | ||
| Key Question | Strength of evidence | Conclusions |
| KQ6a. Study withdrawal | Low |
|
| KQ6b. Hypotension | Moderate |
|
| KQ6c. Syncope | Insufficient |
|
| KQ6d. Cough | Low |
|
| KQ6e. Angioedema | Insufficient |
|
| KQ6f. Renal impairment | Insufficient |
|
| KQ6g. Rash | Insufficient |
|
| KQ6h. Blood dyscrasias | Insufficient |
|
Conclusions (4)
| Table A (Continued). Summary of conclusions from evidence on the use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs in addition to standard medical therapy for stable ischemic heart disease | ||
|---|---|---|
| KQ7. What is the evidence that benefits or harms differ by subpopulations, including: demographics [sex, age, ethnicity, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF)], clinical course (previous treatment with a stent or coronary artery bypass surgery, degree and location of lesion, presence and pattern of symptoms), dose of the ACE inhibitor or ARB used, comorbidities (diabetes, renal dysfunction, hypertension), and other medications (vitamins, lipid lowering drugs, beta-blockers, anti-platelet agents). | ||
| Key Question | Strength of evidence | Conclusions |
| KQ7a. Sex | Moderate |
|
| Low |
|
|
| Low |
|
|
| Low |
|
|
| Low |
|
|
| Insufficient |
|
|
| KQ7b. Age | Low |
|
| Low |
|
|
| Low |
|
|
| Low |
|
|
| Insufficient |
|
|
| KQ7c. Ethnicity/genetic | Insufficient |
|
| KQ7d. Left ventricular | Insufficient |
|
| KQ7e. Degree and location | Insufficient |
|
| KQ7f. Presence and pattern | Insufficient |
|
| KQ7g. Dose of ACE inhibitor | Insufficient |
|
| KQ7h. Diabetes mellitus | Moderate |
|
| Low |
|
|
| Low |
|
|
| Low |
|
|
| Low |
|
|
| Insufficient |
|
|
| KQ7i. Renal dysfunction | Low |
|
| Insufficient |
|
|
| Insufficient |
|
|
| KQ7j. Hypertension | Moderate |
|
| Low |
|
|
| Low |
|
|
|
Low |
|
|
| Insufficient |
|
|
| KQ7k. Baseline risk | Low |
|
| Low |
|
|
| Low |
|
|
| Low |
|
|
| Insufficient |
|
|
| KQ7l. Antiplatelet therapy | Moderate |
|
| Insufficient |
|
|
| KQ7m. History of Moderate | Moderate |
|
| Insufficient |
|
|
| KQ7n. Beta-blockers | Moderate |
|
| Insufficient |
|
|
| Q7o. Lipid lowering | Moderate |
|
| Insufficient |
|
|
| KQ7p. Vitamin E therapy | Low |
|
| Insufficient |
|
|
1The JMIC-B (Japan Multicenter Investigation for Cardiovascular Diseases-B) trial compared the calcium channel blocker nifedipine to one of three ACE inhibitors (enalapril, imidapril, or lisinopril), while the CAMELOT (Comparison of Amlodipine vs. Enalapril to Limit Occurrences of Thrombosis) trial compared the calcium channel blocker amlodipine to the ACE inhibitor enalapril.
Abbreviations: ACE=angiotension converting enzyme; ARB= angiotensin receptor blocker.
Remaining Issues
While the trials included in the review were not designated as effectiveness trials, many were multicenter and multinational trials with long-term followup and included numerous subgroup analyses based on gender, age, comorbidities, and concurrent therapies. The use of run-in periods in several of these trials detracts from applicability, since those unable to tolerate therapy were eliminated before entering the trial. In addition, the TRANSCEND trial was limited to those who could not tolerate ACE inhibitors and represents a select group of subjects. This reduces applicability to the overall population, but the applicability to those unable to tolerate ACE inhibitors is high. While the participants in the trials were not ubiquitously receiving aspirin, statins, and beta-blockers (important components of standard medical therapy), they received benefits from ACE inhibitors regardless of the use of these agents in subgroup analyses. In addition, patients in the United States seldom receive all of the agents associated with mortality and morbidity reductions. So even with these limitations, we have confidence in the applicability of many of the efficacy results to populations with ischemic heart disease and preserved left ventricular function. However, for the evaluation of ACE inhibitors or ARBs vs. calcium channel blockers and the evaluation of ACE inhibitors or ARBs in patients with ischemic heart disease risk equivalents, we do not have the same degree of confidence in the applicability of the efficacy results. We also have less confidence in the applicability of the harms results, given the lack of data for several outcomes in many trials, the use of run-in periods, and the differing or unexplained definitions of harms outcomes.
Future Research
We believe that the following areas of future research are of particular importance to patient care.
- Either (1) an individual patient data meta-analysis of major placebo-controlled ACE inhibitor or
ARB trials or (2) future trials are needed to provide insight into the benefits and harms in African Americans and Latinos. We cannot determine the comparative benefits and harms associated with the use of these drugs in these populations based on the data provided to date. - Either (1) an individual patient data meta-analysis of major placebo-controlled ACE inhibitor or ARB trials or (2) future trials are needed to provide insight into the benefits and harms in patients with single vs. multivessel disease, and specifically to determine if left anterior descending artery disease is more important than disease in other vessels in predicting efficacy and harms.
- An individual patient data meta-analysis of major placebo-controlled ACE inhibitor or ARB trials is needed to determine if an association exists with a baseline ejection fraction between 40 percent and 70 percent and the benefits or harms associated with therapy.
- An individual patient data meta-analysis is needed to determine if ACE inhibitors provide greater benefits in patients taking adenosine diphosphate inhibiting drugs than in those taking no antiplatelet therapy to find out whether the interaction noted between antiplatelets and ACE inhibitors is applicable to all antiplatelets or just to aspirin. Determining the impact of antiplatelet therapy on ARB therapy efficacy is also needed.
- An individual patient data meta-analysis is needed to determine if a history of revascularization significantly reduces the benefits associated with ACE inhibitor or ARB therapy and to elucidate the impact on harms associated with these therapies in this population.
- Future trials are needed to discern if adding ACE inhibitors or ARBs to standard medical therapy in patients with stable ischemic heart disease and preserved left ventricular function is superior or inferior to adding other cardiovascular drugs such as calcium channel blockers. Information on the applicability of these results to subjects of different genders, age, comorbidities, and medications is needed.
- Future trials are needed to determine the benefits and harms associated with adding ACE inhibitors or ARBs to standard medical therapy in patients without proven stable ischemic heart disease but with ischemic heart disease risk equivalents. Information on the applicability of these results to subjects of different genders, age, comorbidities, and medications is needed.
- Future studies are needed to determine if the dosing intensity of ACE inhibitor or ARB therapy is related to the extent of efficacy and harms that patients receive.
- Future trials are needed to determine the impact of genetic polymorphisms within the ACE gene or the angiotensin II type 1 receptor and the benefits or harms associated with ACE inhibitors or ARBs in this population.
A review of trials registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov [accessed January 8th, 2009] revealed no ongoing trials that would have matched our inclusion criteria or answered any of the remaining clinical questions proposed in this section.
Full Report
This executive summary is part of the following document: Coleman CI, Baker WL, Kluger J, Reinhart K, Talati R, Quercia R, Mather J, Giovenale S, White CM. Comparative Effectiveness of Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors or Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers Added to Standard Medical Therapy for Treating Stable Ischemic Heart Disease. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 18. (Prepared by the University of Connecticut/Hartford Hospital Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2007-10067-I.) Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. October 2009. Available at: www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/
reports/final.cfm.
For More Copies
For more copies of Comparative Effectiveness of Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors or Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers Added to Standard Medical Therapy for Treating Stable Ischemic Heart Disease: Executive Summary No. 18 (AHRQ Pub. No. 10-EHC002-1), please call the AHRQ Clearinghouse at 1-800-358-9295.
Return to Top of Page

E-mail Updates