The use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors vs. angiotensin receptor blockers and cognitive decline in Alzheimer’s disease: the importance of blood-brain barrier penetration and APOE ε4 carrier status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The antihypertensive angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-Is) have similar indications and mechanisms of action, but prior work suggests divergence in their effects on cognition. METHODS: Participants in the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center database with a clinical diagnosis of dementia due to Alzheimer's disease (AD) using an ACE-I or an ARB at any visit were selected. The primary outcome was delayed recall memory on the Wechsler Memory Scale Revised - Logical Memory IIA. Other cognitive domains were explored, including attention and psychomotor processing speed (Trail Making Test [TMT]-A and Digit Symbol Substitution Test [DSST]), executive function (TMT-B), and language and semantic verbal fluency (Animal Naming, Vegetable Naming, and Boston Naming Tests). Random slopes mixed-effects models with inverse probability of treatment weighting were used, yielding rate ratios (RR) or regression coefficients (B), as appropriate to the distribution of the data. Apolipoprotein (APOE) ε4 status and blood-brain barrier (BBB) penetrance were investigated as effect modifiers. RESULTS: Among 1689 participants with AD, ARB use (n = 578) was associated with 9.4% slower decline in delayed recall performance over a mean follow-up of 2.28 years compared with ACE-I use (n = 1111) [RR = 1.094, p = 0.0327]; specifically, users of BBB-crossing ARBs (RR = 1.25, p = 0.002), BBB-crossing ACE-Is (RR = 1.16, p = 0.010), and non-BBB-crossing ARBs (RR = 1.20, p = 0.005) had better delayed recall performance over time compared with non-BBB-crossing ACE-I users. An interaction with APOE ε4 status (drug × APOE × time RR = 1.196, p = 0.033) emerged; ARBs were associated with better delayed recall scores over time than ACE-Is in non-carriers (RR = 1.200, p = 0.003), but not in carriers (RR = 1.003, p = 0.957). ARB use was also associated with better performance over time on the TMT-A (B = 2.023 s, p = 0.0004) and the DSST (B = 0.573 symbols, p = 0.0485), and these differences were significant among APOE ε4 non-carriers (B = 4.066 s, p = 0.0004; and B = 0.982 symbols, p = 0.0230; respectively). Some differences were seen also in language and verbal fluency among APOE ε4 non-carriers. CONCLUSIONS: Among APOE ε4 non-carriers with AD, ARB use was associated with greater preservation of memory and attention/psychomotor processing speed, particularly compared to ACE-Is that do not cross the blood-brain-barrier.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".