Weihong Zeng, Tiansheng Wang, Til Stürmer, Na He, Peng Shen, Hongbo Lin, Xiaodong Guan, Yang Xu
{"title":"血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂和血管紧张素II受体阻滞剂对老年2型糖尿病患者心血管结局的比较效果:一项目标试验模拟研究","authors":"Weihong Zeng, Tiansheng Wang, Til Stürmer, Na He, Peng Shen, Hongbo Lin, Xiaodong Guan, Yang Xu","doi":"10.1186/s12933-025-02753-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) are both recommended as first-line antihypertensive agents for patients with diabetes. While pharmacological mechanisms suggest that ACEIs may provide better cardiovascular protection than ARBs, this potential benefit has not been fully established in previous observational studies of patients with diabetes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An active-comparator new-user design within target trial emulation framework was implemented using Yinzhou Regional Health Care Database (YRHCD). We compared risks of major cardiovascular events (MACE) between older patients (age ≥ 65 years) with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) newly exposed to ACEIs and ARBs from January 1, 2010 to May 31, 2023. The primary outcomes were 3-point MACE, including hospitalized myocardial infarction, hospitalized stroke, and all-cause mortality (a proxy for cardiovascular mortality). We also assessed 4-point MACE, which further included hospitalized heart failure. Propensity scores were calculated to balance 44 identified confounders. Marginal structure models were applied to estimate per-protocol hazard ratios.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 18,558 individuals were included, with 1,641 initiating ACEIs and 16,917 initiating ARBs. Their median age was 72 years and 45% were male. The adjusted hazard ratio for ACEIs vs. ARBs was 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68-1.10) for 3-point MACE and 0.83 (95% CI 0.69-0.99) for 4-point MACE. The 1-year absolute risk differences were - 0.30% (95% CI - 1.80-1.21%) for 3-point MACE and - 1.16% (95% CI - 2.97-0.66%) for 4-point MACE. Results were consistent across subgroup analyses (stratified by age, sex, as well as baseline major atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, heart failure, other antihypertensive therapy, insulin therapy, and calendar year) and sensitivity analyses.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Among older patients with T2DM, the initiation of ACEIs was associated with a trend toward lower risk of MACE compared to ARBs, implying the potential cardiovascular benefits of ACEIs in this population.</p>","PeriodicalId":9374,"journal":{"name":"Cardiovascular Diabetology","volume":"24 1","pages":"194"},"PeriodicalIF":10.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12057007/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative effectiveness of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers on cardiovascular outcomes in older adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a target trial emulation study.\",\"authors\":\"Weihong Zeng, Tiansheng Wang, Til Stürmer, Na He, Peng Shen, Hongbo Lin, Xiaodong Guan, Yang Xu\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12933-025-02753-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) are both recommended as first-line antihypertensive agents for patients with diabetes. While pharmacological mechanisms suggest that ACEIs may provide better cardiovascular protection than ARBs, this potential benefit has not been fully established in previous observational studies of patients with diabetes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An active-comparator new-user design within target trial emulation framework was implemented using Yinzhou Regional Health Care Database (YRHCD). We compared risks of major cardiovascular events (MACE) between older patients (age ≥ 65 years) with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) newly exposed to ACEIs and ARBs from January 1, 2010 to May 31, 2023. The primary outcomes were 3-point MACE, including hospitalized myocardial infarction, hospitalized stroke, and all-cause mortality (a proxy for cardiovascular mortality). We also assessed 4-point MACE, which further included hospitalized heart failure. Propensity scores were calculated to balance 44 identified confounders. Marginal structure models were applied to estimate per-protocol hazard ratios.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 18,558 individuals were included, with 1,641 initiating ACEIs and 16,917 initiating ARBs. Their median age was 72 years and 45% were male. The adjusted hazard ratio for ACEIs vs. ARBs was 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68-1.10) for 3-point MACE and 0.83 (95% CI 0.69-0.99) for 4-point MACE. The 1-year absolute risk differences were - 0.30% (95% CI - 1.80-1.21%) for 3-point MACE and - 1.16% (95% CI - 2.97-0.66%) for 4-point MACE. Results were consistent across subgroup analyses (stratified by age, sex, as well as baseline major atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, heart failure, other antihypertensive therapy, insulin therapy, and calendar year) and sensitivity analyses.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Among older patients with T2DM, the initiation of ACEIs was associated with a trend toward lower risk of MACE compared to ARBs, implying the potential cardiovascular benefits of ACEIs in this population.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9374,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cardiovascular Diabetology\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"194\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":10.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12057007/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cardiovascular Diabetology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12933-025-02753-1\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cardiovascular Diabetology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12933-025-02753-1","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂(ACEIs)和血管紧张素受体阻滞剂(ARBs)均被推荐作为糖尿病患者的一线降压药物。虽然药理学机制表明acei可能比arb提供更好的心血管保护,但这种潜在益处尚未在先前对糖尿病患者的观察性研究中得到充分证实。方法:利用鄞州地区卫生保健数据库(YRHCD),在目标试验仿真框架内实施主动比较器新用户设计。我们比较了2010年1月1日至2023年5月31日新暴露于ACEIs和arb的老年2型糖尿病(T2DM)患者的主要心血管事件(MACE)风险。主要结局为3点MACE,包括住院心肌梗死、住院卒中和全因死亡率(心血管死亡率的替代指标)。我们还评估了4点MACE,进一步包括住院心力衰竭。计算倾向得分来平衡44个确定的混杂因素。边际结构模型用于估计每个方案的风险比。结果:共纳入18558人,其中1641人启动acei, 16917人启动arb。他们的中位年龄为72岁,其中45%为男性。3点MACE调整后的acei与arb的风险比为0.86(95%可信区间[CI], 0.68-1.10), 4点MACE调整后的风险比为0.83(95%可信区间[CI], 0.69-0.99)。3点MACE的1年绝对风险差异为- 0.30% (95% CI - 1.80-1.21%), 4点MACE的1年绝对风险差异为- 1.16% (95% CI - 2.97-0.66%)。亚组分析(按年龄、性别、基线主要动脉粥样硬化性心血管疾病、心力衰竭、其他抗高血压治疗、胰岛素治疗和日历年分层)和敏感性分析的结果是一致的。结论:在老年T2DM患者中,与arb相比,acei的启动与MACE风险降低的趋势相关,这意味着acei在该人群中具有潜在的心血管益处。
Comparative effectiveness of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers on cardiovascular outcomes in older adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a target trial emulation study.
Background: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) are both recommended as first-line antihypertensive agents for patients with diabetes. While pharmacological mechanisms suggest that ACEIs may provide better cardiovascular protection than ARBs, this potential benefit has not been fully established in previous observational studies of patients with diabetes.
Methods: An active-comparator new-user design within target trial emulation framework was implemented using Yinzhou Regional Health Care Database (YRHCD). We compared risks of major cardiovascular events (MACE) between older patients (age ≥ 65 years) with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) newly exposed to ACEIs and ARBs from January 1, 2010 to May 31, 2023. The primary outcomes were 3-point MACE, including hospitalized myocardial infarction, hospitalized stroke, and all-cause mortality (a proxy for cardiovascular mortality). We also assessed 4-point MACE, which further included hospitalized heart failure. Propensity scores were calculated to balance 44 identified confounders. Marginal structure models were applied to estimate per-protocol hazard ratios.
Results: A total of 18,558 individuals were included, with 1,641 initiating ACEIs and 16,917 initiating ARBs. Their median age was 72 years and 45% were male. The adjusted hazard ratio for ACEIs vs. ARBs was 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68-1.10) for 3-point MACE and 0.83 (95% CI 0.69-0.99) for 4-point MACE. The 1-year absolute risk differences were - 0.30% (95% CI - 1.80-1.21%) for 3-point MACE and - 1.16% (95% CI - 2.97-0.66%) for 4-point MACE. Results were consistent across subgroup analyses (stratified by age, sex, as well as baseline major atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, heart failure, other antihypertensive therapy, insulin therapy, and calendar year) and sensitivity analyses.
Conclusions: Among older patients with T2DM, the initiation of ACEIs was associated with a trend toward lower risk of MACE compared to ARBs, implying the potential cardiovascular benefits of ACEIs in this population.
期刊介绍:
Cardiovascular Diabetology is a journal that welcomes manuscripts exploring various aspects of the relationship between diabetes, cardiovascular health, and the metabolic syndrome. We invite submissions related to clinical studies, genetic investigations, experimental research, pharmacological studies, epidemiological analyses, and molecular biology research in this field.