Search

Background: Secondary prevention therapy for patients with coronary artery disease using an antiplatelet agent, β-blocker, renin-angiotensin system blocker (RASB), or statin plays an important role in the reduction of coronary events after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We analyzed the status and effects of secondary prevention after coronary revascularization in Taiwan. Methods: This national population-based cohort study was conducted by analyzing the Longitudinal Health Insurance Database 2000 from the National Health Insurance Research Database of Taiwan. Patients who underwent CABG or PCI from 2004 to 2009 were included in the analysis. The baseline characteristics of the patients and ACC/AHA class I medication use at 12 months were analyzed. The primary endpoints were a composite of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events. Results: A total of 5544 patients comprising 895 CABG and 4649 PCI patients were evaluated. CABG patients had more comorbidities and a higher rate of major adverse event during the follow-up period. However, use of antiplatelet agents and RASB at 12 months was significantly lower in CABG patients than in PCI patients (44.2% vs. 50.9% and 38.6% vs. 48.9%, both p < 0.01). Age, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease were independent risk factors while statin use was a protective factor for the primary endpoints in both PCI and CABG groups. Conclusion: There is still much room to improve class I medication use in secondary prevention for patients after revascularization in Taiwan. Statin could be an effective treatment to improve the outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RAS) drugs have a proteinuria-reducing effect that could prevent the progression of kidney disease in diabetic patients. Our study aimed to assess the budget impact based on healthcare payer perspective of increasing uptake of RAS drugs into the current treatment mix of standard anti-hypertensive treatments to prevent progression of kidney disease in patient’s comorbid with hypertension and diabetes. Methods: A Markov model of a Malaysian hypothetical cohort aged ≥30 years (N = 14,589,900) was used to estimate the total and per-member-per-month (PMPM) costs of RAS uptake. This involved an incidence and prevalence rate of 9.0% and 10.53% of patients with diabetes and hypertension respectively. Transition probabilities of health stages and costs were adapted from published data. Results: An increasing uptake of RAS drugs would incur a projected total treatment cost ranged from MYR 4.89 billion (PMPM of MYR 27.95) at Year 1 to MYR 16.26 billion (PMPM of MYR 92.89) at Year 5. This would represent a range of incremental costs between PMPM of MYR 0.20 at Year 1 and PMPM of MYR 1.62 at Year 5. Over the same period, the care costs showed a downward trend but drug acquisition costs were increasing. Sensitivity analyses showed the model was minimally affected by the changes in the input parameters. Conclusion: Mild impact to the overall healthcare budget has been reported with an increased utilization of RAS. The long-term positive health consequences of RAS treatment would reduce the cost of care in preventing deterioration of kidney function, thus offsetting the rising costs of purchasing RAS drugs. Optimizing and increasing use of RAS drugs would be considered an affordable and rational strategy to reduce the overall healthcare costs in Malaysia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dual renin angiotensin system (RAS) blockade using angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) in combination with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) is reported to improve proteinuria in both diabetic and non-diabetic patients. However, its renoprotective effect and safety remain uncertain in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD). From January 1, 2000 through June 30, 2009, we enrolled 14,117 pre-dialytic stage 5 CKD patients with serum creatinine >6mg/dL and hematocrit <28% under the treatment with erythropoiesis stimulating agents and RAS blockade. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to estimate the hazard ratios (HRs) against the commencement of long-term dialysis and all-cause mortality for ACEI/ARB users. Over a median follow-up of 7 months, 9,867 patients (69.9%) required long-term dialysis and 2,805 (19.9%) died before progression to end-stage renal disease requiring dialysis. In comparison with the ARB-only users, dual blockade with ACEIs and ARBs was associated with a significantly higher risk of (1) death in all CKD patients (HR = 1.49, [95%CI, 1.30–1.71]; P = 0.02) and in diabetic subgroup (HR = 1.58, [95%CI, 1.34–1.86]; P = 0.02); (2) composite endpoint of long-term dialysis or death in diabetic subgroup (HR = 1.10, [95%CI, 1.01–1.20]; P = 0.04); (3) hyperkalemia-associated hospitalization in non-diabetic subgroup (HR, 2.74, [95%CI, 1.05–7.15]; P = 0.04). However, ACEIs users were associated with higher mortality than ARBs users in all CKD patients (HR = 1.17, [95%CI, 1.07–1.27]; P = 0.03) and in diabetic subgroup (HR = 1.32, [95%CI, 1.18–1.48]; P = 0.03). Monotherapy of RAS blockade, especially ARB, is more effective and safer than dual RAS blockade in pre-dialytic stage 5 CKD patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Medications aimed at inhibiting the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) have been used extensively for preventing cardiovascular and renal complications in patients with diabetes, but data that compare their clinical effectiveness are limited. We aimed to compare the effects of classes of RAS blockers on cardiovascular and renal outcomes in adults with diabetes.Methods and Findings: Eligible trials were identified by electronic searches in PubMed/MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (1 January 2004 to 17 July 2014). Interventions of interest were angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), and direct renin (DR) inhibitors. The primary endpoints were cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke-singly and as a composite endpoint, major cardiovascular outcome-and end-stage renal disease [ESRD], doubling of serum creatinine, and all-cause mortality-singly and as a composite endpoint, progression of renal disease. Secondary endpoints were angina pectoris and hospitalization for heart failure. In all, 71 trials (103,120 participants), with a total of 14 different regimens, were pooled using network meta-analyses. When compared with ACE inhibitor, no other RAS blocker used in monotherapy and/or combination was associated with a significant reduction in major cardiovascular outcomes: ARB (odds ratio [OR] 1.02; 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.90-1.18), ACE inhibitor plus ARB (0.97; 95% CrI 0.79-1.19), DR inhibitor plus ACE inhibitor (1.32; 95% CrI 0.96-1.81), and DR inhibitor plus ARB (1.00; 95% CrI 0.73-1.38). For the risk of progression of renal disease, no significant differences were detected between ACE inhibitor and each of the remaining therapies: ARB (OR 1.10; 95% CrI 0.90-1.40), ACE inhibitor plus ARB (0.97; 95% CrI 0.72-1.29), DR inhibitor plus ACE inhibitor (0.99; 95% CrI 0.65-1.57), and DR inhibitor plus ARB (1.18; 95% CrI 0.78-1.84). No significant differences were showed between ACE inhibitors and ARBs with respect to all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, angina pectoris, hospitalization for heart failure, ESRD, or doubling serum creatinine. Findings were limited by the clinical and methodological heterogeneity of the included studies. Potential inconsistency was identified in network meta-analyses of stroke and angina pectoris, limiting the conclusiveness of findings for these single endpoints.Conclusions: In adults with diabetes, comparisons of different RAS blockers showed similar effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs on major cardiovascular and renal outcomes. Compared with monotherapies, the combination of an ACE inhibitor and an ARB failed to provide significant benefits on major outcomes. Clinicians should discuss the balance between benefits, costs, and potential harms with individual diabetes patients before starting treatment.Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42014014404. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]