Effect of Initiation and Continuous Adherence to ARBs Versus ACEIs on Risk of Adjudicated Mild Cognitive Impairment or Dementia.

Catherine G Derington, Ransmond O Berchie, Daniel O Scharfstein, Ryan M Andrews, Tom H Greene, Yizhe Xu, Jordan B King, Mark A Supiano, Joshua A Sonnen, Jeff Williamson, Nicholas M Pajewski, Jeremy J Pruzin, Jordana B Cohen, Adam P Bress
{"title":"Effect of Initiation and Continuous Adherence to ARBs Versus ACEIs on Risk of Adjudicated Mild Cognitive Impairment or Dementia.","authors":"Catherine G Derington, Ransmond O Berchie, Daniel O Scharfstein, Ryan M Andrews, Tom H Greene, Yizhe Xu, Jordan B King, Mark A Supiano, Joshua A Sonnen, Jeff Williamson, Nicholas M Pajewski, Jeremy J Pruzin, Jordana B Cohen, Adam P Bress","doi":"10.1093/gerona/glaf028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Whether the differing mechanistic effects between angiotensin-2 receptor blockers (ARBs) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) on the renin-angiotensin system translate to differential effects on clinical cognitive outcomes is unclear.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We employed an active comparator, new-user cohort study to emulate a target trial evaluating the per-protocol effect of initiating and continuously adhering to an ARB versus ACEI on adjudicated amnestic mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and probable dementia (PD) in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT). Inverse probability of treatment and censoring weighted cumulative incidence functions accounted for confounding, the competing risk of death, adherence, and loss to follow-up.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 9,361 SPRINT participants (mean age 67.1 ± 9.5 years, 36.7% female, 58.7% non-Hispanic White), 710 and 1,289 were new users of an ARB or ACEI. Overall, 291 (41.0%) ARB initiators and 854 (66.3%) ACEI initiators were nonadherent during follow-up. The IP-weighted 4-year probabilities of full adherence and being alive among ARB was 56.0% (95% CI: 52.2%-59.9%) and 30.5% (95% CI: 28.0%-33.1%) for ACEI. The 4-year weighted risk ratios (RR) for amnestic MCI/PD and for amnestic MCI/PD/death with initiation and full adherence to ARB versus ACEI were 0.94 (95% CI: 0.66-1.29) and 0.79 (95% CI: 0.58-1.06). The weighted 4-year weighted RR for all-cause death with ARB versus ACEI initiation and adherence was 0.36 (95% CI: 0.14-0.76).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this target trial emulation of older adults at high risk for cardiovascular disease, there was insufficient evidence to conclude a beneficial effect of initiating and continuously adhering to an ARB versus ACEI on adjudicated clinical cognitive outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":94243,"journal":{"name":"The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12287627/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glaf028","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Whether the differing mechanistic effects between angiotensin-2 receptor blockers (ARBs) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) on the renin-angiotensin system translate to differential effects on clinical cognitive outcomes is unclear.

Methods: We employed an active comparator, new-user cohort study to emulate a target trial evaluating the per-protocol effect of initiating and continuously adhering to an ARB versus ACEI on adjudicated amnestic mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and probable dementia (PD) in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT). Inverse probability of treatment and censoring weighted cumulative incidence functions accounted for confounding, the competing risk of death, adherence, and loss to follow-up.

Results: Of 9,361 SPRINT participants (mean age 67.1 ± 9.5 years, 36.7% female, 58.7% non-Hispanic White), 710 and 1,289 were new users of an ARB or ACEI. Overall, 291 (41.0%) ARB initiators and 854 (66.3%) ACEI initiators were nonadherent during follow-up. The IP-weighted 4-year probabilities of full adherence and being alive among ARB was 56.0% (95% CI: 52.2%-59.9%) and 30.5% (95% CI: 28.0%-33.1%) for ACEI. The 4-year weighted risk ratios (RR) for amnestic MCI/PD and for amnestic MCI/PD/death with initiation and full adherence to ARB versus ACEI were 0.94 (95% CI: 0.66-1.29) and 0.79 (95% CI: 0.58-1.06). The weighted 4-year weighted RR for all-cause death with ARB versus ACEI initiation and adherence was 0.36 (95% CI: 0.14-0.76).

Conclusions: In this target trial emulation of older adults at high risk for cardiovascular disease, there was insufficient evidence to conclude a beneficial effect of initiating and continuously adhering to an ARB versus ACEI on adjudicated clinical cognitive outcomes.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

开始和持续坚持arb与ACEIs对判定轻度认知障碍或痴呆风险的影响。
背景:血管紧张素-2受体阻滞剂(ARBs)和血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂(ACEIs)对肾素-血管紧张素系统的不同机制作用是否转化为对临床认知结果的不同影响尚不清楚。方法:我们采用了一项积极的比较研究,新用户队列研究来模拟一项目标试验,评估在收缩压干预试验中,启动和持续坚持ARB与ACEI对已确诊的遗忘性轻度认知障碍(MCI)和可能的痴呆(PD)的每方案效果。治疗的逆概率和审查加权累积发生率函数考虑了混杂、竞争死亡风险、依从性和随访损失。结果:在9361名SPRINT参与者中(平均年龄67.1±9.5岁,36.7%为女性,58.7%为非西班牙裔白人),710名和1289名是ARB或ACEI的新使用者。总体而言,291例(41.0%)ARB启动者和854例(66.3%)ACEI启动者在随访期间无依从性。ACEI患者的ip加权4年完全依从性和存活概率分别为56.0% (95% CI: 52.2%-59.9%)和30.5% (95% CI: 28.0%-33.1%)。遗忘性MCI/PD和遗忘性MCI/PD/死亡开始和完全坚持ARB与ACEI的4年加权风险比(RR)分别为0.94 (95% CI: 0.66-1.29)和0.79 (95% CI: 0.58-1.06)。ARB与ACEI的起始和依从性的加权RR为0.36 (95% CI: 0.14-0.76)。结论:在这项针对心血管疾病高风险老年人的目标试验模拟中,没有足够的证据表明开始并持续坚持ARB与ACEI对已确定的临床认知结果有有益的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信