Abstract
We aimed to explore whether the ONTARGET trial results, which led to an end of recommendations of dual angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) and angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) use, extended to patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) who were underrepresented in the trial.
We selected people prescribed an ACEi and/or an ARB in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum during 1/1/2001-31/7/2019. We specified an operational definition of dual users and applied ONTARGET eligibility criteria. We used propensity-score—weighted Cox-proportional hazards models to compare dual therapy to ACEi for the primary composite trial outcome (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalisation for heart failure), as well as a primary composite renal outcome (≥50% reduction in GFR or end-stage kidney disease), and other secondary outcomes, including hyperkalaemia. Conditional on successfully benchmarking results against the ONTARGET trial, we explored treatment effect heterogeneity by CKD at baseline.
In the propensity-score—weighted trial-eligible analysis cohort (n=412 406), for dual therapy vs ACEi we observed hazard ratio (HR) 0.98 (95% CI: 0.93, 1.03), for the primary composite outcome, consistent with the trial results (ONTARGET HR 0.99, 95% CI: 0.92, 1.07). Dual therapy use was associated with an increased risk of the primary renal composite outcome, HR 1.25 (95% CI: 1.15, 1.36) vs ONTARGET HR 1.24 (1.01, 1.51) and hyperkalaemia, HR 1.15 (95% CI: 1.09, 1.22) in the trial eligible cohort, consistent with ONTARGET. The presence of CKD at baseline had minimal impact on results.
Translational statement We extended ONTARGET trial findings of the comparative effectiveness of dual ARB and ACEi therapy use compared to ACEi alone for a composite cardiovascular outcome to UK patients at high-risk of cardiovascular disease, including those with CKD. As in ONTARGET, we found an increased risk of a composite renal outcome (≥50% reduction in GFR or end-stage kidney disease) and an increased risk of hyperkalaemia among dual users compared to ACEi alone. Consistent results were observed among patients with CKD at baseline. This is evidence against the hypothesis that dual blockade provides cardiorenal benefits among high-risk cardiovascular patients with CKD.
Competing Interest Statement
PB was supported by Barts Charity (MGU0504) at the time of the review and was funded by a GSK PhD studentship at the time of analysis and writing. AYSW was supported by the British Health Foundation fellowship. AS is employed by LSHTM on a fellowship sponsored by GSK. EP was an employee of and holds stock in Compass Pathways at the time of the review. CC has received consultation, advisory board membership or research funding from the Ontario Ministry of Health, Sanofi, Pfizer, Leo Pharma, Astellas, Janssen, Amgen, Boehringer-Ingelheim and Baxter. In 2018 CC co-chaired a KDIGO potassium controversies conference sponsored at arm's length by Fresenius Medical Care, AstraZeneca, Vifor Fresenius Medical Care, Relypsa, Bayer HealthCare and Boehringer Ingelheim. CC co-chairs the cloth mask knowledge exchange, a stakeholder group that includes cloth mask manufacturers and fabric distributors. JFEM reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer, Novo Nordisk, UpToDate Inc., Idorisia, Labchem, Parexel, Roche, Sanofi. MC was an employee of GSK at the time of the study. All other authors have no conflicts.
Clinical Protocols
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/12/3/e051907.info
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the funding from a GlaxoSmithKline PhD studentship held by PB as part of an ongoing collaboration between GSK and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. This research was funded in whole, or in part, by the Wellcome Trust [Senior Research Fellowship 224485/Z/21/Z]. For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a CC BY public copyright licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission. The funders of the study had no role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethical approval has been granted by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Ethics Committee (Ref: 22658). The study has been approved by the Independent Scientific Advisory Committee of the UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (protocol no. 20_012).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
DATA SHARING
This study is based in part on data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink obtained under licence from the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (protocol no. 20_012). The data is provided by patients and collected by the NHS as part of their care and support. Ethical approval has been granted by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Ethics Committee (Ref: 22658). The study has been approved by the Independent Scientific Advisory Committee of the UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (protocol no. 20_012). Access to the individual patient data from the ONTARGET trial was obtained by the trial investigators and complies with institutional review board approved informed consent forms provided by the individuals from whom the data were collected but is not publicly available. Code lists used to develop the study population and define outcomes are available for download: https://doiorg/1017037/DATA00002112.
