BACKGROUND AND AIMS Although many angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are widely used, comparative data regarding their impact on clinical outcomes are limited. We aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness of seven ARBs on long-term cardiovascular outcomes in Korean patients with hypertension.

METHODS Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, the data of 780,785 patients with hypertension without cardiovascular disease (CVD) who initiated ARB treatment (candesartan, fimasartan, irbesartan, losartan, olmesartan, telmisartan, or valsartan) in 2014 and underwent this treatment for more than 6 months, were analyzed. Cox-regression analysis was performed using Losartan as a comparator, as it was the most widely used drug, by adjusting age, sex, diabetes, dyslipidemia, smoking, alcohol drinking, exercise, body mass index, systolic blood pressure, albuminuria, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and concomitant medications. The occurrence of mortality and the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) of the six ARBs was compared with that of losartan.

RESULTS The median follow-up duration was 5.94 (interquartile range, 5.87-5.97) years. In the crude analysis of all-cause mortality and MACEs, fimasartan exhibited the lowest event rates. In the Cox-regression analysis with adjustment, there was no significant difference in all-cause mortality among ARBs. The risk of MACEs with ARBs was similar to that with losartan, although the risks with irbesartan (hazard ratio [HR], 1.079; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.033-1.127; p = 0.007) and candesartan (HR: 1.066; 95% CI, 1.028-1.106; p = 0.015) were slightly higher.

CONCLUSION In a Korean population of patients with hypertension without CVD, six different ARBs showed similar efficacy to losartan in terms of long-term mortality and MACEs. Further well-designed prospective studies are required to confirm our findings.