Effectiveness and risk of ARB and ACEi among different ethnic groups in England: A reference trial (ONTARGET)...

Guidelines by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommend an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) rather than an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) for the treatment of hypertension for people of African and Caribbean descent, due to an increased risk of angioedema associated with ACEi use observed in US trials. However, the effectiveness and risk of these drugs in Black populations in UK routine care is unknown.

We applied a reference trial emulation approach to UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum data (linked with data from Hospital Episode Statistics and Office for National Statistics) to study the comparative effectiveness of ARB and ACEi in ethnic minority groups in England, after benchmarking results against the ONTARGET trial. Approximately 17,593 Black, 30,805 South Asian, and 524,623 White patients receiving a prescription for ARB/ACEi between 1 January 2001 and 31 July 2019 were included with a median follow-up of 5.2 years. The primary composite outcome was cardiovascular-related death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalisation for heart failure with individual components studied as secondary outcomes. Angioedema was a safety endpoint. We assessed outcomes using an inverse-probability-weighted Cox proportional hazards model for ARB versus ACEi with heterogeneity by ethnicity assessed on the relative and absolute scale. For the primary outcome, 27,327 (18.0%) events were recorded in the ARB group (event rate: 25% per 5.5 person-years) and 80,624 (19.1%) events (event rate: 26% per 5.5 person-years) in the ACEi group. We benchmarked results against ONTARGET and observed hazard ratio (HR) 0.96 (95% CI: 0.95, 0.98) for the primary outcome, with an absolute incidence rate difference (IRD)% of -1.01 (95% CI: -1.42, -0.60) per 5.5 person-years. We found no evidence of treatment effect heterogeneity by ethnicity for the primary outcome on the multiplicative (Pint = 0.422) or additive scale (Pint = 0.287). Results were consistent for most secondary outcomes. However, for cardiovascular-related death, which occurred in 37,554 (6.6%) people, there was strong evidence of heterogeneity on the multiplicative (Pint = 0.002) and additive scale (Pint < 0.001). Compared to ACEi, ARB were associated with more events in Black individuals (HR 1.20 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.40); IRD% 1.07 (95% CI: 0.10, 2.04); number-needed-to-harm (NNH): 93) and associated with fewer events in White individuals (HR 0.91 (95% CI: 0.88, 0.93); IRD% -0.87 (95% CI: -1.10, -0.63); number-needed-to-treat (NNT): 115), and no differences in South Asian individuals (HR 0.97 (95% CI: 0.86, 1.09); IRD% -0.17 (95% CI: -0.87, 0.53)). For angioedema, HR 0.56 (95% CI: 0.46, 0.67) with no heterogeneity for ARB versus ACEi on the multiplicative scale (Pint = 0.306). However, there was heterogeneity on the additive scale (Pint = 0.023). Absolute risks were higher in Black individuals (IRD% -0.49 (95% CI: -0.79, -0.18); NNT: 204) compared with White individuals (IRD% -0.06 (95% CI: -0.09, -0.03); NNT: 1667) and no difference among South Asian individuals (IRD% -0.05 (95% CI: -0.15, 0.05) for ARB versus ACEi.

These results demonstrate variation in drug effects of ACEi and ARB for some outcomes by ethnicity and suggest the potential for adverse consequences from current UK guideline recommendations for ARB in preference to ACEi for Black individuals.