Effect of initiation and continuous adherence to ARBs vs. 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 Pruzin, Jordana B Cohen, Adam P Bress
{"title":"Effect of initiation and continuous adherence to ARBs vs. 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 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 vs. ACEI on adjudicated amnestic mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and probable dementia (PD) in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial. 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 non-adherent 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 vs. ACEI were 0.94 (95% CI: 0.66-1.29) and 0.79 (95% CI: 0.58-1.06). ARB vs. ACEI initiation and adherence was associated with a weighted RR of 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 vs. 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":"2025-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","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 vs. ACEI on adjudicated amnestic mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and probable dementia (PD) in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial. 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 non-adherent 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 vs. ACEI were 0.94 (95% CI: 0.66-1.29) and 0.79 (95% CI: 0.58-1.06). ARB vs. ACEI initiation and adherence was associated with a weighted RR of 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 vs. ACEI on adjudicated clinical cognitive outcomes.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Impact of a hearing intervention on the levels of leisure-time physical activity and T.V. viewing in older adults: results from a secondary analysis of the ACHIEVE trial. Effect of initiation and continuous adherence to ARBs vs. ACEIs on risk of adjudicated mild cognitive impairment or dementia. Testosterone concentration and incident depression in older men: a longitudinal cohort study. Symposia Report of The Annual Biological Sciences Section Meeting of the Gerontological Society of America 2023, Tampa, Florida. Implementing the WHO ICOPE Program in Clinical Practice: Three Years of Lessons From Monitoring 27 082 Participants Using the ICOPE Monitor Digital Tool.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1