The incidence of all-cause, cardiovascular and respiratory disease admission among 20, 252 users of lisinopril vs. perindopril: A cohort study. (15th September 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Wong, Martin C.S.; Chan, David K.L.; Wang, Harry H.X.; Tam, Wilson W.S.; Cheung, Clement S.K.; Yan, Bryan P.; Coats, Andrew J.S.
• Is Part Of: International journal of cardiology. Volume 219(2016)
• Page Start: 410
• Page End: 416
• Publication Date: 2016-09-15
• Subjects: ACEI angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor -- PDC proportion of days covered -- CI confidence interval -- AHR adjusted hazard ratios; Cardiovascular disease -- Respiratory disease -- Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor -- Lisinopril -- Perindopril -- Hospital admission; Cardiology -- Periodicals; Electronic journals; 616.12
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.06.053
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0167-5273

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Major international guidelines do not offer explicit recommendations on any specific angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) agent over another within the same drug group. This study compared the effectiveness of lisinopril vs. perindopril in reducing the incidence of hospital admission due to all-cause, cardiovascular disease and respiratory disease. Methods: Adult patients who received new prescriptions of lisinopril or perindopril from 2001 to 2005 in all public hospitals and clinics in Hong Kong were included, and followed up for ≥ 2 years. The incidence of admissions due to all-cause, cardiovascular disease and respiratory disease were evaluated, respectively, by using Cox proportional hazard regression models. The regression models were constructed with propensity score matching to minimize indication biases. Results: A total of 20, 252 eligible patients with an average age of 64.5 years (standard deviation 15.0) were included. The admission rate at 24 months within the date of index prescription due to any cause, cardiovascular disease and respiratory disease among lisinopril vs. perindopril users was 24.8% vs. 24.8%, 13.7% vs. 14.0% and 6.9% vs. 6.3%, respectively. Lisinopril users were significantly more likely to be admitted due to respiratory diseases (adjusted hazard ratios [AHR] = 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.43, p = 0.002 at 12 months; AHR = 1.17, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.31, p = 0.009 at 24 months) and all causes (AHR = 1.12, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.19, p < 0.001 at 24 months) than perindopril users. Conclusions: These findings support intra-class differences in the effectiveness of ACEIs, which could be considered by clinical guidelines when the preferred first-line antihypertensive drugs are recommended. Highlights: The clinical effectiveness of two ACEIs (lisinopril vs. perindopril) was compared. Intra-class differences of ACEIs among Chinese hypertensive patients were reported. Lisinopril users were more likely to have a higher incidence of hospital admission. Lisinopril alone may not be adequate to represent as an "ACEI representative".