Affiliation:
1. Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Cardiovascular Center Seoul National University Bundang Hospital Seongnam‐si Gyeonggi‐do South Korea
2. Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine Seoul National University Hospital Seoul South Korea
3. Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kangdong Sacred Heart Hospital Hallym University Seoul South Korea
4. International Healthcare Center Seoul National University Bundang Hospital Seongnam‐si Gyeonggi‐do South Korea
5. Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Boramae Medical Center Seoul National University College of Medicine Seoul South Korea
Abstract
AbstractBackground and AimsAlthough many angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are widely used, comparative data regarding their impact on clinical outcomes are limited. We aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness of seven ARBs on long‐term cardiovascular outcomes in Korean patients with hypertension.MethodsUsing the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, the data of 780,785 patients with hypertension without cardiovascular disease (CVD) who initiated ARB treatment (candesartan, fimasartan, irbesartan, losartan, olmesartan, telmisartan, or valsartan) in 2014 and underwent this treatment for more than 6 months, were analyzed. Cox‐regression analysis was performed using Losartan as a comparator, as it was the most widely used drug, by adjusting age, sex, diabetes, dyslipidemia, smoking, alcohol drinking, exercise, body mass index, systolic blood pressure, albuminuria, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and concomitant medications. The occurrence of mortality and the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) of the six ARBs was compared with that of losartan.ResultsThe median follow‐up duration was 5.94 (interquartile range, 5.87–5.97) years. In the crude analysis of all‐cause mortality and MACEs, fimasartan exhibited the lowest event rates. In the Cox‐regression analysis with adjustment, there was no significant difference in all‐cause mortality among ARBs. The risk of MACEs with ARBs was similar to that with losartan, although the risks with irbesartan (hazard ratio [HR], 1.079; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.033–1.127; p = 0.007) and candesartan (HR: 1.066; 95% CI, 1.028–1.106; p = 0.015) were slightly higher.ConclusionIn a Korean population of patients with hypertension without CVD, six different ARBs showed similar efficacy to losartan in terms of long‐term mortality and MACEs. Further well‐designed prospective studies are required to confirm our findings.
Reference38 articles.
1. 2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA Guideline for the prevention, detection, evaluation, and management of high blood pressure in adults: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines;Whelton PK;Circulation,2018
2. 2018 ESC/ESH Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension
3. 2018 Korean Society of Hypertension Guidelines for the management of hypertension: part II-diagnosis and treatment of hypertension
4. Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor-Induced Cough
5. Korea hypertension fact sheet 2020: analysis of nationwide population-based data