Meta-Analysis of Combined Therapy with Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists versus ACE Inhibitors Alone in Patients with Heart Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is insufficient evidence whether the benefit of adding angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) to angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors outweighs the increased risk of adverse effects in patients with heart failure. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Two independent reviewers searched and abstracted randomized controlled trials of ARBs and ACE inhibitors compared to ACE inhibitor therapy alone in patients with heart failure reporting mortality and hospitalizations having a follow-up of at least 6 months identified by a systematic literature search. Eight trials including a total of 18,061 patients fulfilled our inclusion criteria. There was no difference between patients treated with combination therapy and ACE inhibitor therapy alone for overall mortality, hospitalization for any reason, fatal or nonfatal MI. Combination therapy was, however, associated with fewer hospital admissions for heart failure (RR 0.81, 95%CI 0.72-0.91), although there was significant heterogeneity across trials (p-value for heterogeneity = 0.04; I(2) = 57% [95%CI 0-83%]). Patients treated with combination therapy had a higher risk of worsening renal function and symptomatic hypotension, and their trial medications were more often permanently discontinued. Lack of individual patient data precluded the analysis of time-to-event data and identification of subgroups which potentially benefit more from combination therapy such as younger patients with preserved renal function and thus at lower risk to experience worsening renal function or hyperkalemia. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Combination therapy with ARBs and ACE inhibitors reduces admissions for heart failure in patients with congestive heart failure when compared to ACE inhibitor therapy alone, but does not reduce overall mortality or all-cause hospitalization and is associated with more adverse events. Thus, based on current evidence, combination therapy with ARBs and ACE inhibitors may be reserved for patients who remain symptomatic on therapy with ACE inhibitors under strict monitoring for any signs of worsening renal function and/or symptomatic hypotension.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.025 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.057 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".