Search

Evidence for the effectiveness and safety of the third-generation beta-blockers other than atenolol in hypertension remains scarce. We assessed the effectiveness and safety of beta-blockers as first-line treatment for hypertension using three databases in the United States: two administrative claim databases and one electronic health record-based database from 2001 to 2018. In each database, comparative effectiveness of beta-blockers for the risks of acute myocardial infarction, stroke, and hospitalization for heart failure was assessed, using large-scale propensity adjustment and empirical calibration. Estimates were combined across databases using random-effects meta-analyses. Overall, 118,133 and 267,891 patients initiated third-generation beta-blockers (carvedilol and nebivolol) or atenolol, respectively. The pooled hazard ratios of acute myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, and most metabolic complications were not different between the third-generation beta-blockers versus atenolol after propensity score matching and empirical calibration (hazard ratio 1.07, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.55 for acute myocardial infarction; hazard ratio 1.06, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.31 for stroke; hazard ratio 1.46, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.24 for hospitalized heart failure). Third-generation beta-blockers were associated with significantly higher risk of stroke than angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (hazard ratio 1.29, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.72), and thiazide diuretics (hazard ratio 1.56, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.20). In conclusion, this study found many patients with first-line beta-blocker monotherapy for hypertension and no statistically significant differences in the effectiveness and safety comparing atenolol with third-generation beta-blockers. Patients on third-generation beta-blockers had a higher risk of stroke than those on angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and thiazide diuretics.

ACE (angiotensin-converting enzyme) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are equally guideline-recommended first-line treatments for hypertension, yet few head-to-head studies exist. We compared the real-world effectiveness and safety of ACE inhibitors versus ARBs in the first-line treatment of hypertension. We implemented a retrospective, new-user comparative cohort design to estimate hazard ratios using techniques to minimize residual confounding and bias, specifically large-scale propensity score adjustment, empirical calibration, and full transparency. We included all patients with hypertension initiating monotherapy with an ACE inhibitor or ARB between 1996 and 2018 across 8 databases from the United States, Germany, and South Korea. The primary outcomes were acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, stroke, and composite cardiovascular events. We also studied 51 secondary and safety outcomes including angioedema, cough, syncope, and electrolyte abnormalities. Across 8 databases, we identified 2 297 881 patients initiating treatment with ACE inhibitors and 673 938 patients with ARBs. We found no statistically significant difference in the primary outcomes of acute myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 1.11 for ACE versus ARB [95% CI, 0.95-1.32]), heart failure (hazard ratio, 1.03 [0.87-1.24]), stroke (hazard ratio, 1.07 [0.91-1.27]), or composite cardiovascular events (hazard ratio, 1.06 [0.90-1.25]). Across secondary and safety outcomes, patients on ARBs had significantly lower risk of angioedema, cough, pancreatitis, and GI bleeding. In our large-scale, observational network study, ARBs do not differ statistically significantly in effectiveness at the class level compared with ACE inhibitors as first-line treatment for hypertension but present a better safety profile. These findings support preferentially prescribing ARBs over ACE inhibitors when initiating treatment for hypertension. Refereed/Peer-reviewed

Summary Background Uncertainty remains about the optimal monotherapy for hypertension, with current guidelines recommending any primary agent among the first-line drug classes thiazide or thiazide-like diuretics, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, and non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, in the absence of comorbid indications. Randomised trials have not further refined this choice. Methods We developed a comprehensive framework for real-world evidence that enables comparative effectiveness and safety evaluation across many drugs and outcomes from observational data encompassing millions of patients, while minimising inherent bias. Using this framework, we did a systematic, large-scale study under a new-user cohort design to estimate the relative risks of three primary (acute myocardial infarction, hospitalisation for heart failure, and stroke) and six secondary effectiveness and 46 safety outcomes comparing all first-line classes across a global network of six administrative claims and three electronic health record databases. The framework addressed residual confounding, publication bias, and p-hacking using large-scale propensity adjustment, a large set of control outcomes, and full disclosure of hypotheses tested. Findings Using 4·9 million patients, we generated 22 000 calibrated, propensity-score-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) comparing all classes and outcomes across databases. Most estimates revealed no effectiveness differences between classes; however, thiazide or thiazide-like diuretics showed better primary effectiveness than angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors: acute myocardial infarction (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·75–0·95), hospitalisation for heart failure (0·83, 0·74–0·95), and stroke (0·83, 0·74–0·95) risk while on initial treatment. Safety profiles also favoured thiazide or thiazide-like diuretics over angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. The non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers were significantly inferior to the other four classes. Interpretation This comprehensive framework introduces a new way of doing observational health-care science at scale. The approach supports equivalence between drug classes for initiating monotherapy for hypertension—in keeping with current guidelines, with the exception of thiazide or thiazide-like diuretics superiority to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and the inferiority of non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers. Funding US National Science Foundation, US National Institutes of Health, Janssen Research & Development, IQVIA, South Korean Ministry of Health & Welfare, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

Objectives To characterize the demographics, comorbidities, symptoms, in-hospital treatments, and health outcomes among children/adolescents diagnosed or hospitalized with COVID-19. Secondly, to describe health outcomes amongst children/adolescents diagnosed with previous seasonal influenza. Design International network cohort. Setting Real-world data from European primary care records (France/Germany/Spain), South Korean claims and US claims and hospital databases. Participants Diagnosed and/or hospitalized children/adolescents with COVID-19 at age <18 between January and June 2020; diagnosed with influenza in 2017-2018. Main outcome measures Baseline demographics and comorbidities, symptoms, 30-day in-hospital treatments and outcomes including hospitalization, pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), multi-system inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C), and death. Results A total of 55,270 children/adolescents diagnosed and 3,693 hospitalized with COVID-19 and 1,952,693 diagnosed with influenza were studied. Comorbidities including neurodevelopmental disorders, heart disease, and cancer were all more common among those hospitalized vs diagnosed with COVID-19. The most common COVID-19 symptom was fever. Dyspnea, bronchiolitis, anosmia and gastrointestinal symptoms were more common in COVID-19 than influenza. In-hospital treatments for COVID-19 included repurposed medications (<10%), and adjunctive therapies: systemic corticosteroids (6.8% to 37.6%), famotidine (9.0% to 28.1%), and antithrombotics such as aspirin (2.0% to 21.4%), heparin (2.2% to 18.1%), and enoxaparin (2.8% to 14.8%). Hospitalization was observed in 0.3% to 1.3% of the COVID-19 diagnosed cohort, with undetectable (N<5 per database) 30-day fatality. Thirty-day outcomes including pneumonia, ARDS, and MIS-C were more frequent in COVID-19 than influenza. Conclusions Despite negligible fatality, complications including pneumonia, ARDS and MIS-C were more frequent in children/adolescents with COVID-19 than with influenza. Dyspnea, anosmia and gastrointestinal symptoms could help differential diagnosis. A wide range of medications were used for the inpatient management of pediatric COVID-19.