Tolerability of Angiotensin-Receptor Blockers in Patients with Intolerance to Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors
- 473 Downloads
Between 5% and 20% of patients treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE inhibitors) develop intolerance. Angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonists (angiotensin receptor blockers [ARBs]) can be used as an alternative treatment.
In this study we aimed to evaluate the tolerability of ARBs in patients with intolerance to ACE inhibitors.
The electronic databases PubMed, MEDLINE/EMBASE via Dialog, CENTRAL, and ISI Web of Knowledge were searched.
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating ARBs in patients with intolerance to ACE inhibitors were selected.
Risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated assuming the random effects method. We found 11 RCTs comparing ARBs with ACE inhibitors, diuretics, or placebo, and one RCT comparing high-dose versus low-dose ARB.
ARBs had fewer cough events versus ACE inhibitors (RR 0.37; 95% CI 0.28, 0.48). ARBs had drug discontinuation (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.84, 1.17) and cough risk (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.74, 1.39) rates similar to placebo. Angioedema risk with ARBs was also similar to placebo (RR 1.62; 95% CI 0.17, 15.79). Compared with placebo, hypotension (RR 2.63; 95% CI 1.77, 3.92), renal dysfunction (RR 2.07; 95% CI 1.45, 2.95) and hyperkalemia (RR 3.37; 95% CI 1.60, 7.11) were more frequent with ARBs.
ACE inhibitor rechallenge should be discouraged in patients with previous intolerance to ACE inhibitors due to a higher risk of cough. ARBs had cough and angioedema incidences similar to placebo. Despite a significantly higher incidence of hypotension, renal dysfunction and hyperkalemia, discontinuation of ARBs was similar to placebo.
- 8.Hunt SA, Abraham WT, Chin MH, et al. 2009 focused update incorporated into the ACC/AHA 2005 Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Heart Failure in Adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines: developed in collaboration with the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation. Circulation 2009; 119: e391–479PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Dickstein K, Kjekshus J, OPTIMAAL Steering Committee of the OPTIMAAL Study Group. Effects of losartan and captopril on mortality and morbidity in high-risk patients after acute myocardial infarction: the OPTIMAAL randomised trial. Optimal Trial in Myocardial Infarction with Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan. Lancet 2002; 360: 752–60Google Scholar
- 15.Lacourcière Y, Brunner H, Irwin R, et al. Effects of modulators of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system on cough. Losartan Cough Study Group. J Hypertens 1994; 12: 1387–93Google Scholar
- 21.Lacourciére Y. The incidence of cough: a comparison of lisinopril, placebo and telmisartan, a novel angiotensin II antagonist. Telmisartan Cough Study Group. Int J Clin Pract 1999; 53: 99–103Google Scholar
- 26.Telmisartan Randomised Assessment Study in ACE iNtolerant subjects with cardiovascular Disease (TRANSCEND) Investigators, Yusuf S, Teo K, Anderson C, et al. Effects of the angiotensin-receptor blocker telmisartan on cardiovascular events in high-risk patients intolerant to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2008; 372: 1174–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.Heran BS, Wong MM, Heran IK, et al. Blood pressure lowering efficacy of angiotensin receptor blockers for primary hypertension. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008; CD003822Google Scholar
- 42.Lakhdar R, Al-Mallah MH, Lanfear DE. Safety and tolerability of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor versus the combination of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker in patients with left ventricular dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Card Fail 2008; 14: 181–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 43.Phillips CO, Kashani A, Ko DK, et al. Adverse effects of combination angiotensin II receptor blockers plus angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors for left ventricular dysfunction: a quantitative review of data from randomized clinical trials. Arch Intern Med 2007 1; 67: 1930–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar