Jenny I Shen1,2, Anjali B Saxena3, Maria E Montez-Rath3, Lynn Leng4, Tara I Chang3, Wolfgang C Winkelmayer3,5. 1. Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, 1000 W. Carson St., Box 406, Torrance, CA, 90509, USA. jshen@labiomed.org. 2. Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, USA. jshen@labiomed.org. 3. Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, USA. 4. Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, 1000 W. Carson St., Box 406, Torrance, CA, 90509, USA. 5. Selzman Institute for Kidney Health, Section of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is evidence that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin-II receptor blockers (ARB) may reduce cardiovascular (CV) risk in patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis (PD), but no studies have compared the effectiveness between these drug classes. In this observational cohort study, we compared the association of ARB vs. ACEI use on CV outcomes in patients initiating PD. METHODS: We identified from the US Renal Data System all adult patients who initiated PD from 2007 to 2011 and participated in Medicare Part D, a federal prescription drug benefits program, for the first 90 days of dialysis. Patients who filled a prescription for an ACEI or ARB in those 90 days were considered users. We excluded patients who used both ACEI and ARB. We applied Cox proportional hazards regression to an inverse probability of treatment-weighted cohort to estimate the hazard ratios (HR) for the combined outcome of all-cause death, ischemic stroke, or myocardial infarction; all-cause mortality; and CV death. RESULTS: Among 1892 patients using either drug class, 39 % were ARB users. We observed 624 events over 2,898 person-years of follow-up, for a composite event rate of 22 events per 100 person-years. We observed no differences between ARB vs. ACEI users: composite outcome HR 0.94, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.79-1.11; all-cause mortality HR 0.92, 95 % CI 0.76-1.10; CV death HR: 1.06, 95 % CI 0.80-1.41. CONCLUSION: We identified no significant difference in the risks of CV events or death between users of ARBs vs. ACEIs in patients initiating PD, thus supporting their mostly interchangeable use in this population.
BACKGROUND: There is evidence that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin-II receptor blockers (ARB) may reduce cardiovascular (CV) risk in patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis (PD), but no studies have compared the effectiveness between these drug classes. In this observational cohort study, we compared the association of ARB vs. ACEI use on CV outcomes in patients initiating PD. METHODS: We identified from the US Renal Data System all adult patients who initiated PD from 2007 to 2011 and participated in Medicare Part D, a federal prescription drug benefits program, for the first 90 days of dialysis. Patients who filled a prescription for an ACEI or ARB in those 90 days were considered users. We excluded patients who used both ACEI and ARB. We applied Cox proportional hazards regression to an inverse probability of treatment-weighted cohort to estimate the hazard ratios (HR) for the combined outcome of all-cause death, ischemic stroke, or myocardial infarction; all-cause mortality; and CV death. RESULTS: Among 1892 patients using either drug class, 39 % were ARB users. We observed 624 events over 2,898 person-years of follow-up, for a composite event rate of 22 events per 100 person-years. We observed no differences between ARB vs. ACEI users: composite outcome HR 0.94, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.79-1.11; all-cause mortality HR 0.92, 95 % CI 0.76-1.10; CV death HR: 1.06, 95 % CI 0.80-1.41. CONCLUSION: We identified no significant difference in the risks of CV events or death between users of ARBs vs. ACEIs in patients initiating PD, thus supporting their mostly interchangeable use in this population.
Authors: Clyde W Yancy; Mariell Jessup; Biykem Bozkurt; Javed Butler; Donald E Casey; Mark H Drazner; Gregg C Fonarow; Stephen A Geraci; Tamara Horwich; James L Januzzi; Maryl R Johnson; Edward K Kasper; Wayne C Levy; Frederick A Masoudi; Patrick E McBride; John J V McMurray; Judith E Mitchell; Pamela N Peterson; Barbara Riegel; Flora Sam; Lynne W Stevenson; W H Wilson Tang; Emily J Tsai; Bruce L Wilkoff Journal: Circulation Date: 2013-06-05 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Kevin F Erickson; Kelvin B Tan; Wolfgang C Winkelmayer; Glenn M Chertow; Jay Bhattacharya Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2013-02-21 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Tara I Chang; David Shilane; Dhruv S Kazi; Maria E Montez-Rath; Mark A Hlatky; Wolfgang C Winkelmayer Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Kevin E Chan; T Alp Ikizler; Jorge L Gamboa; Chang Yu; Raymond M Hakim; Nancy J Brown Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2011-07-20 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Jenny I Shen; Anjali B Saxena; Maria E Montez-Rath; Tara I Chang; Wolfgang C Winkelmayer Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2017-05-01 Impact factor: 5.992