This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

55/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Disparities

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Of 9,361 SPRINT participants (mean age 67.1 ± 9.5 years, 36.7% female, 58.7% non-Hispanic White), 710 and 1,289 were new users of an ARB or ACEI. Overall, 291 (41.0%) ARB initiators and 854 (66.3%) ACEI initiators were nonadherent during follow-up. The IP-weighted 4-year probabilities of full adherence and being alive among ARB was 56.0% (95% CI: 52.2%-59.9%) and 30.5% (95% CI: 28.0%-33.1%) for ACEI. The 4-year weighted risk ratios (RR) for amnestic MCI/PD and for amnestic MCI/PD/death with initiation and full adherence to ARB versus ACEI were 0.94 (95% CI: 0.66-1.29) and 0.79 (95% CI: 0.58-1.06). The weighted 4-year weighted RR for all-cause death with ARB versus ACEI initiation and adherence was 0.36 (95% CI: 0.14-0.76). In this target trial emulation of older adults at high risk for cardiovascular disease, there was insufficient evidence to conclude a beneficial effect of initiating and continuously adhering to an ARB versus ACEI on adjudicated clinical cognitive outcomes.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Derington, C. G., Berchie, R. O., Scharfstein, D. O., Andrews, R. M., Greene, T., Xu, Y., et al. (2025). Effect of Initiation and Continuous Adherence to ARBs Versus ACEIs on Risk of Adjudicated Mild Cognitive Impairment or Dementia. The Journals of Gerontology Series A. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glaf028

Vancouver

Derington CG, Berchie RO, Scharfstein DO, Andrews RM, Greene T, Xu Y, et al. Effect of Initiation and Continuous Adherence to ARBs Versus ACEIs on Risk of Adjudicated Mild Cognitive Impairment or Dementia. The Journals of Gerontology Series A. 2025. doi:10.1093/gerona/glaf028. PMID: 39945185.

BibTeX

@article{derington2025-39945185,
  author  = {Derington, Catherine G. and Berchie, Ransmond O. and Scharfstein, Daniel O. and Andrews, Ryan M. and Greene, Tom and Xu, Yizhe and King, Jordan B. and Supiano, Mark A. and others},
  title   = {{Effect of Initiation and Continuous Adherence to ARBs Versus ACEIs on Risk of Adjudicated Mild Cognitive Impairment or Dementia}},
  journal = {The Journals of Gerontology Series A},
  year    = {2025},
  doi     = {10.1093/gerona/glaf028},
  pmid    = {39945185},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glaf028}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

Key findings

Of 9,361 SPRINT participants (mean age 67.1 ± 9.5 years, 36.7% female, 58.7% non-Hispanic White), 710 and 1,289 were new users of an ARB or ACEI.
Overall, 291 (41.0%) ARB initiators and 854 (66.3%) ACEI initiators were nonadherent during follow-up.
The IP-weighted 4-year probabilities of full adherence and being alive among ARB was 56.0% (95% CI: 52.2%-59.9%) and 30.5% (95% CI: 28.0%-33.1%) for ACEI.
The 4-year weighted risk ratios (RR) for amnestic MCI/PD and for amnestic MCI/PD/death with initiation and full adherence to ARB versus ACEI were 0.94 (95% CI: 0.66-1.29) and 0.79 (95% CI: 0.58-1.06).
The weighted 4-year weighted RR for all-cause death with ARB versus ACEI initiation and adherence was 0.36 (95% CI: 0.14-0.76).

Why it matters

This study found insufficient evidence to conclude that initiating and adhering to an ARB versus an ACEI reduces the risk of mild cognitive impairment or dementia. It did find that ARB use was associated with lower risk of all-cause death compared to ACEI.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Disparities →

Study details

Study designcohort study
Effect size36.7%; 58.7%; 41.0%
Evidence strengthModerate

How this study scored 55/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a cohort study following people over time. Scored zero for sample size, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (The Journals of Gerontology Series A)
Journal's citation record	3 / 4	The Journals of Gerontology Series A: journal h-index 274 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design	7 / 12	A cohort study following people over time
Strength of evidence	3 / 5	Rated “moderate” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	4 / 5	2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	0 / 4	Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported	2 / 3	Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
Studied in people	0 / 3	Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomised / blinded	0 / 2	No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited	2 / 7	Cited 8 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	1 / 5	2.7 citations a year over 3 year(s) since 2025
Impact for its field and year	3 / 6	Cited 5.1× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	1 / 6	Cited by 1 other studies in this library
Still being cited	1 / 4	Cited 8 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	2 / 4	Last-listed author Adam Phillip Bress: h-index 39 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	2 / 3	University of Pennsylvania: institution h-index 1,859 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration	3 / 3	OpenAlex lists 10 institution(s) in 2 countries
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 39945185)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Total	55 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

Studies this one cites

Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.

Later studies that cite this one

1 study in the alzhub library lists this one in its references.

Related studies in Disparities

Also tagged “biobank”

1,084 studies in the library carry the topic tag “biobank”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,084 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Disparities

See all studies in Disparities →