Search

Background: Although doxorubicin (DOX) is a commonly used potent chemotherapeutic agent in patients with breast cancer, its cardiotoxic effect is a concern, particularly in patients with hypertension. Antihypertensive renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors may potentially play a role in preventing overt heart failure (HF) due to DOX toxicity. This study aimed to evaluate whether the use of RAS inhibitors improves clinical outcomes in patients with hypertension and breast cancer undergoing DOX-containing chemotherapy., Methods: A total of 54,344 female patients who were first diagnosed with breast cancer and initiated into DOX therapy between 2008 and 2015 were recruited from a nationwide Korean cohort. Patients were divided into two groups: with and without hypertension (HT, n = 10,789; non-HT, n = 43,555), and the RAS inhibitor group (n = 1,728) was sub-classified from the HT group. Two propensity score-matched cohorts were constructed to compare the clinical outcomes between non-HT and HT groups and between non-HT and RAS inhibitor groups. The primary outcome was the composite of HF and death., Results: After propensity score matching, the HT group had a higher risk for HF (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 1.30, 95% confidence intervals [95% CI] = 1.09-1.55) compared to the non-HT group, but there was no significant difference in primary outcome between the two groups. The RAS inhibitor group had a lower risk for primary outcome (adjusted HR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.65-0.94) and death (adjusted HR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.66-0.99) compared to the non-HT group., Conclusions: Hypertension is a risk factor for HF in patients with breast cancer undergoing DOX chemotherapy. However, the RAS inhibitors used to treat hypertension may contribute to decreased mortality and improved clinical outcomes., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2023 Hwang, Lee. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: SARS-CoV-2 invades human cells and leads to COVID-19 by direct associating with angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptors, the level of which may be increased by treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and/or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). This meta-analysis aimed to explore the impact of ACEI/ARB treatment on the clinical outcomes of patients with COVID-19 infections among population in the East-Asia region., Methods: We collected clinical data published from January 2000 to May 2022 in the English databases including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Two reviewers independently screened and identified studies that met the prespecified criteria. Review Manager 5.3 software was used to perform the meta-analysis., Results: A total of 28 articles were included in this analysis. The results showed that patients who were prescribed with ACEI/ARB had a shorter duration of hospital stay [MD = -2.37, 95%CI (-3.59, -1.14), P = 0.000 2] and a lower mortality rate [OR = 0.61, 95% CI (0.52, 0.70), P<0.000 01] than patients who were not on ACEI/ARB. Furthermore, there was no statistically significant difference in disease severity [OR = 0.99, 95% CI (0.83, 1.17), P = 0.90] between individuals receiving ACEI/ARB or not., Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggested that the use of ACEI/ARB was not associated with adverse clinical outcomes in East-Asian Covid-19 patients and a reduced mortality and shorter duration of hospital stay among East-Asian population (especially for female subjects) was found. Thus, ACEI/ARB should be continued in patients infected by Covid-19., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2023 Huang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Hypertension appears to be one of the commonest comorbidities in COVID-19 patients, although whether hypertensive individuals have a higher risk of severe COVID-19 compared with non-hypertensives is unclear. It is also unclear whether the absolute level of systolic blood pressure, or the type of anti-hypertensive medication is related to this risk. Analyses were conducted using data from the UK Biobank and linked health records. Logistic regression models were fitted to assess the impact of hypertension, systolic blood pressure (SBP) and medications on the risk of severe COVID-19. 16,134 individuals tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus, 22% (n = 3,584) developed severe COVID-19 and 40% (n = 6,517) were hypertensive. Hypertension was associated with 22% higher odds of severe COVID-19 (Odds ratio (OR) 1.22; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12, 1.33), compared with normotension after adjusting for confounding variables. In those taking anti-hypertensive medications, elevated SBP showed a dose-response relationship with severe COVID-19 (150-159mmHg versus 120-129mmHg (OR 1.91; 95% CI 1.44, 2.53), &gt;180+mmHg versus 120-129mmHg (OR 1.93; 95% CI 1.06, 3.51)). SBP &lt;120mmHg was associated with greater odds of severe COVID-19 (OR 1.40; 95% CI 1.11, 1.78). Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin-II receptor blockers were not associated with altered risk of severe COVID-19. Hypertension is an important risk factor for COVID-19. A better understanding of the underlying mechanisms is warranted in case of more severe strains or other viruses in the future., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2022 Pavey et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) are a class of drugs approved for the treatment of several common conditions, such as hypertension and heart failure. Recently, regulatory agencies have started to identify possibly carcinogenic nitrosamines and azido compounds in a multitude of formulations of several ARBs, resulting in progressive recalls. Furthermore, data from several randomized controlled trials suggested that there is also a clinically increased risk of cancer and specifically lung cancer with ARBs; whereas other trials suggested no increased risk. The purpose of this analysis was to provide additional insight into the ARB-cancer link by examining whether there is a relationship between degree of cumulative exposure to ARBs and risk of cancer in randomized trials. Trial-level data from ARB Trialists Collaboration including 15 randomized controlled trials was extracted and entered into meta-regression analyses. The two co-primary outcomes were the relationship between cumulative exposure to ARBs and risk of all cancers combined and the relationship between cumulative exposure and risk of lung cancer. A total of 74,021 patients were randomized to an ARB resulting in a total cumulative exposure of 172,389 person-years of exposure to daily high dose (or equivalent). 61,197 patients were randomized to control. There was a highly significant correlation between the degree of cumulative exposure to ARBs and risk of all cancers combined (slope = 0.07 [95% CI 0.03 to 0.11], p<0.001), and also lung cancer (slope = 0.16 [95% CI 0.05 to 0.27], p = 0.003). Accordingly, in trials where the cumulative exposure was greater than 3 years of exposure to daily high dose, there was a statistically significant increase in risk of all cancers combined (I2 = 31.4%, RR 1.11 [95% CI 1.03 to 1.19], p = 0.006). There was a statistically significant increase in risk of lung cancers in trials where the cumulative exposure was greater than 2.5 years (I2 = 0%, RR 1.21 [95% CI 1.02 to 1.44], p = 0.03). In trials with lower cumulative exposure to ARBs, there was no increased risk of all cancers combined or lung cancer. Cumulative exposure-risk relationship with ARBs was independent of background angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor treatment or the type of control (i.e. placebo or non-placebo control). Since this is a trial-level analysis. the effects of patient characteristics such as age and smoking status could not be examined due to lack of patient-level data. In conclusion, this analysis, for the first time, reveals that risk of cancer with ARBs (and specifically lung cancer) increases with increasing cumulative exposure to these drugs. The excess risk of cancer with long-term ARB use has public health implications., Competing Interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: Dr. Sipahi has received lecture honoraria from Novartis, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Sanofi, Sandoz, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, Pfizer, Ranbaxy, Servier and ARIS and served on advisory board for Novartis, Sanofi, Servier, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Bayer and I.E. Ulagay. This does not alter my adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Acute kidney injury (AKI) associated with "Triple Whammy" drug therapy consisting of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, diuretics, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) has been reported. There have been no reports investigating "Triple Whammy" drug therapy and the time to AKI onset using adverse drug events report databases. The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between the time to AKI onset and treatment with "Triple Whammy" drug therapy. We analyzed AKI cases registered in the Japanese Adverse Drug Event Report database. The data were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier approach, generalized Wilcoxon tests, and Weibull distribution. AKI was reported in 18,415 cases, of which 7,466 cases used Triple Whammy drugs. All combinations of Triple Whammy drugs were associated with significantly higher odds ratios for reporting AKI. In Weibull analysis, AKI onset was early for most combination patterns of Triple Whammy drugs. The Kaplan-Meier approach showed that the treatment duration to AKI onset was much shorter in cases using NSAIDs; median onsets, 8 days for triple combination, 7 days for NSAIDs added to renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, 9 days for NSAIDs added to diuretics, 6 days for diuretics added to NSAIDs, and 9 days for NSAIDs alone. AKI associated with Triple Whammy drugs is likely to occur in the early stages of treatment, especially with concomitant NSAIDs. Patients should be monitored for the occurrence of AKI within the first 2 weeks., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Aims: This retrospective case-control study was aimed at identifying potential independent predictors of severe/lethal COVID-19, including the treatment with Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and/or Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers (ARBs)., Methods and Results: All adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection in two Italian provinces were followed for a median of 24 days. ARBs and/or ACEi treatments, and hypertension, diabetes, cancer, COPD, renal and major cardiovascular diseases (CVD) were extracted from clinical charts and electronic health records, up to two years before infection. The sample consisted of 1603 subjects (mean age 58.0y; 47.3% males): 454 (28.3%) had severe symptoms, 192 (12.0%) very severe or lethal disease (154 deaths; mean age 79.3 years; 70.8% hypertensive, 42.2% with CVD). The youngest deceased person aged 44 years. Among hypertensive subjects (n = 543), the proportion of those treated with ARBs or ACEi were 88.4%, 78.7% and 80.6% among patients with mild, severe and very severe/lethal disease, respectively. At multivariate analysis, no association was observed between therapy and disease severity (Adjusted OR for very severe/lethal COVID-19: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.50-1.49). Significant predictors of severe disease were older age (with AORs largely increasing after 70 years of age), male gender (AOR: 1.76; 1.40-2.23), diabetes (AOR: 1.52; 1.05-2.18), CVD (AOR: 1.88; 1.32-2.70) and COPD (AOR: 1.88; 1.11-3.20). Only gender, age and diabetes also predicted very severe/lethal disease., Conclusion: No association was found between COVID-19 severity and treatment with ARBs and/or ACEi, supporting the recommendation to continue medication for all patients unless otherwise advised by their physicians., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction: Angioedema is a subcutaneous swelling typically affecting the face, larynx or pharynx. It is a known adverse drug reaction (ADR) of ACE inhibitors (ACEi), angiotensin-II-receptor blockers (ARBs) and aliskiren (renin inhibitor). Several studies have reported pathophysiological mechanisms and risk factors of ACEi-associated angioedemas, whereas little is known for ARBs and aliskiren. The aim of the study was to analyze comparatively ACEi versus ARBs and aliskiren angioedema reports contained in the European ADR database EudraVigilance with regard to reported risk factors and clinical phenotypes., Methods: All spontaneous angioedema reports received between 01/2010-06/2017 reporting either an ACEi, ARB, or aliskiren as "suspected/interacting" drug were identified using the Standardized MedDRA Query "angioedema (narrow)". In order to perform a comparative analysis, odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for angioedema reports of ACEi (n = 3.194) versus ARBs (n = 687) and aliskiren (n = 162)., Results: More patients with a history of allergy were included in angioedema reports of ARBs (6.8%) and aliskiren (13.6%) versus ACEi (4.3%). "Urticaria" as an ADR was reported more frequently in angioedema reports of ARBs (18.5%) and aliskiren (9.0%) versus ACEi (5.0%). ACEi-associated angioedemas were more often designated as "life-threatening" compared to ARBs (OR 2.2 [1.6-2.9]) and aliskiren-associated angioedemas (OR 14.2 (3.5-57.4). Concomitant therapy with mTOR inhibitors (OR 4.3 [1.0-17.9]) and fibrinolytics (OR 7.8 [1.1-57.2]) was reported more often in ACEi versus ARBs angioedema reports., Conclusion: The reported clinical phenotypes differed between ACEi versus ARBs and aliskiren angioedema reports. Differences between the patient populations as observed in our study or differences with regard to underlying pathomechanisms could account for this finding. Due to the methodological limitations of spontaneous reporting systems, we cannot draw a firm conclusion in this regard. Hence, further research is necessary to confirm our observation and elucidate the underyling causes., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Understanding predictors and trajectories of increased potassium may inform testing and treatment of hyperkalemia. We examined predictors for repeated hyperkalemia among patients after first-time renin angiotensin system inhibitor (RASi) prescription, chronic kidney disease (CKD), or chronic heart failure (CHF); and we also examined potassium trajectories in these patients after their first hyperkalemia event. We used Danish population-based registries to identify all patients with first-time RASi prescription, incident CKD, or incident CHF (2000-2012). For patients with a first hyperkalemia event, potassium trajectories over the following 6 months were examined. The predictors associated with repeated hyperkalemia were assessed, with repeated hyperkalemia defined as a potassium test >5.0 mmol/L after the first event within 6 months. Overall 262,375 first-time RASi users, 157,283 incident CKD patients, and 14,600 incident CHF patients were included. Of patients with a first hyperkalemia event, repeated hyperkalemia within 6 months occurred in 37% of RASi users, 40% with CKD, and 49% of patients with CHF. Predictors included severe hyperkalemia, low eGFR, diabetes, and spironolactone use. In all cohorts, the median potassium levels declined over 2-4 weeks after a hyperkalemia event for the first time, but reverted to levels higher than before the initial hyperkalemia event in those who had repeated hyperkalemia. Following hyperkalemia, discontinuation of RASi and spironolactone was common in the RASi and CHF cohorts. Repeated hyperkalemia was common among the explored cohorts. The first hyperkalemia event was an indicator of increased median potassium levels. Predictors may identify patients likely to benefit from intensified monitoring and intervention., Competing Interests: This work was supported in part by an institutional research grant from AstraZeneca to Aarhus University. P.H and E.P are employees of AstraZeneca. There are no patents, products in development or marketed products to declare. This does not alter our adherence to all the PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Background: Current heart failure (HF) guidelines recommend titrating angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and beta-blockers (BBs) to target doses used in pivotal placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Despite a number of RCTs comparing different doses (i.e. higher versus lower doses) of ACEIs, ARBs and BBs, the effects of higher versus lower doses on efficacy and safety remains unclear. For this reason, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of higher versus lower doses of ACEIs, ARBs and BBs in patients with HFrEF., Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via Ovid from inception to April 25th, 2018 and opentrials.net and clinicaltrials.gov for relevant trials that compared different doses of medications in heart failure. We analyzed trials by drug class (ACEIs, ARBs, and BBs) for efficacy outcomes (all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, all-cause hospitalizations, HF hospitalizations, HF worsening). For safety outcomes, we pooled trials within and across drug classes., Results: Our meta-analysis consisted of 14 RCTs. Using GRADE criteria, the quality of evidence for ACEIs and ARBs was assessed as generally moderate for efficacy and high for adverse effects, whereas overall quality for BBs was very low to low. Over ~2-4 years higher versus lower doses of ACEIs, ARBs or BBs did not significantly reduce all-cause mortality [ACEIs relative risk (RR) 0.94 (95% confidence interval 0.87-1.02)], ARBs RR 0.96 (0.87-1.04), BBs RR 0.25 (0.06-1.01)] or all cause hospitalizations [ACEIs relative risk (RR) 0.94 (95% confidence interval 0.86-1.02)], ARBs RR 0.98 (0.93-1.04), BBs RR 0.93 (0.39-2.24)]. However, all point estimates favoured higher doses. Higher doses of ARBs significantly reduced hospitalization for HF [RR 0.89 (0.80-0.99)- 2.8% ARR], and higher doses of ACEIs and ARBs significantly reduced HF worsening [RR 0.85 (0.79-0.92)- 5.1% ARR and 0.91 (0.84-0.99)- 3.2% ARR, respectively] compared to lower doses. None of the differences between higher versus lower doses of BBs were significant; however, precision was low. Higher doses of these medications compared to lower doses increased the risk of discontinuation due to adverse events, hypotension, dizziness, and for ACEIs and ARBs, increased hyperkalemia and elevations in serum creatinine. Absolute increase in harms for adverse effects ranged from ~ 3 to 14%., Conclusions: Higher doses of ACEIs and ARBs reduce the risk of HF worsening compared to lower doses, and higher doses of ARBs also reduce the risk of HF hospitalization but the evidence is sparse and imprecise. Higher doses increase the chance of adverse effects compared to lower doses. Evidence for BBs is inconclusive. These results support initially always starting at low doses of ACEIs/ARBs and only titrating the dose up if the patient tolerates dose increases., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Whether statins and an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) / angiotensin receptor blockors (ARBs) are associated with reduced risks of infection events is still inconclusive. This study aimed to explore the risk of hospitalization for pneumonia among patients who had received treatment with ACEIs/ARBs and/or statins using a population-based dataset. This study included 19,281 patients as cases who were hospitalized for pneumonia and 19,281 controls. We used a logistic regression to compute the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for having previously used statins or an ACEI/ ARB between patients who were hospitalized for pneumonia treatment and controls. We found there were significant associations between hospitalization for pneumonia and statin-only users (p<0.001), ACEI/ARB-only users (p<0.001), and statin and ACEI/ARB users (p<0.001). The logistic regression analysis suggested that statin-only users (adjusted OR = 0.38, 95% CI = 0.34~0.43), ACEI/ARB-only users (adjusted OR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.82~0.91), and statin and ACEI/ARB users (adjusted OR = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.44~0.50) were all less likely to be hospitalized for pneumonia treatment than were non-users. Furthermore, we found that statin-only users (adjusted OR = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.40~0.50) and statin and ACEI/ARB users (adjusted OR = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.52~0.58) were less likely to be hospitalized for pneumonia treatment compared to ACEI-only users. However, combined statin and ACEI/ARB users (adjusted OR = 1.24, 95% CI = 1.10~1.40) were more likely to have been hospitalized for pneumonia treatment compared to statin-only users. Although we found use of both statins and ACEI/ARB were significantly associated with a lower risk of pneumonia, the combination of the two medications did not provide additional protection against pneumonia risk., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: Contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) is the main complication of contrast media administration (CM) in patients undergoing coronary angiography (CAG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). There are inconsistent results in the literature regarding the effect of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) blockers (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors [ACEIs] and angiotensin receptor blockers [ARBs]) on CIN. We evaluated the association between the administration of ACEI/ARBs and CIN, as well as the effect of ACEI/ARBs on post-procedural changes in renal function index, in patients undergoing CAG., Methods: We searched Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov for relevant studies. The primary search generated 893 potentially relevant articles. A total of 879 studies were excluded because they did not meet the selection criteria. Finally, 14 studies were eligible for inclusion. There were 7,288 patients that received ACEI/ARBs and 8,159 patients that received placebo or naive to ACEI/ARBs in the study. A random or a fixed effect model was used to calculate the pooled odd ratios (ORs)., Results: The risk of CIN was significantly increased in the ACEI/ARBs group compared to the control group (OR= 1.50, 95%CI: 1.03-2.18, P =0.03). The magnitude of association was significantly reinforced in the observational studies (OR=1.84, 95%CI 1.19-2.85, P=0.006) but not in the randomized controlled trials (OR=0.88, 95%CI 0.41-1.90 P=0.74). The summary adjusted OR of 4 observational studies was 1.56 (95%CI 1.25-1.94, P<0.0001) and was weaker than the unadjusted OR., Conclusions: Although there is some evidence to suggest that the administration of RAAS blockers was associated with the increased risk of CIN in patients undergoing CAG, the robustness of our study remains weak. The results are based on small observational studies and need further validation.

Background: A previous meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies that were not designed to investigate cancer as a primary outcome suggested that ARB-based therapy is associated with increased risk of cancer; however, results of recent observational studies considering the association have been contradictory. This study sought to evaluate the association between angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB)-based therapy and risk of cancer by conducting a meta-analysis of observational studies., Methods: Relevant articles published before February 2014 were identified by searching PubMed and the Cochrane Library. Pooled relative risks (RRs) were determined using a random effects model and were used to assess the strength of association between use of ARB-based therapy and risk of cancer., Results: Six retrospective cohort studies involving a total of 3,827,109 participants and four case-control studies involving a total of 193,029 cases were included. The present study found that ARB-based therapy was not significantly associated with an increased risk of cancer (RR = 0.87, 95%CI: [0.75, 1.01]). However, an analysis including only cohort studies suggested a significantly decreased risk of cancer among individuals with any history of ARB use as compared to those with no history of ARB use (RR = 0.80, 95%CI: [0.55, 0.95]); no significant association was found between ARB use and risk of cancer when the case-control studies were separately considered (RR = 1.03, 95%CI: [0.93, 1.13]). Subgroup analyses showed that use of ARB-based therapy was associated with decreased risk of lung cancer (RR = 0.81, 95%CI: [0.69, 0.94]); however, no significant associations were found with the other cancer sites investigated. Furthermore, no association was observed upon adjustment by type of ARB drug. No publication bias was detected., Conclusion: Overall, ARB-based therapy was not associated with increased risk of cancer. However, its use may be related to decreased incidence of lung cancer; this finding should be considered carefully and confirmed with further studies.

Background: ACE Inhibitors (ACE-I) and Angiotensin-Receptor Antagonists (ARAs) are commonly prescribed but can cause acute kidney injury (AKI) during intercurrent illness. Rates of hospitalization with AKI are increasing. We aimed to determine whether hospital AKI admission rates are associated with increased ACE-I/ARA prescribing., Methods and Findings: English NHS prescribing data for ACE-I/ARA prescriptions were matched at the level of the general practice to numbers of hospital admissions with a primary diagnosis of AKI. Numbers of prescriptions were weighted for the demographic characteristics of general practices by expressing prescribing as rates where the denominator is Age, Sex, and Temporary Resident Originated Prescribing Units (ASTRO-PUs). We performed a mixed-effect Poisson regression to model the number of admissions for AKI occurring in each practice for each of 4 years from 1/4/2007. From 2007/8-2010/11, crude AKI admission rates increased from 0.38 to 0.57 per 1000 patients (51.6% increase), and national annual ACE-I/ARA prescribing rates increased by 0.032 from 0.202 to 0.234 (15.8% increase). There was strong evidence (p<0.001) that increases in practice-level prescribing of ACE-I/ARA over the study period were associated with an increase in AKI admission rates. The increase in prescribing seen in a typical practice corresponded to an increase in admissions of approximately 5.1% (rate ratio = 1.051 for a 0.03 per ASTRO-PU increase in annual prescribing rate, 95%CI 1.047-1.055). Using the regression model we predict that 1,636 (95%CI 1,540-1,780) AKI admissions would have been avoided if prescribing rates were at the 2007/8 level, equivalent to 14.8% of the total increase in AKI admissions., Conclusion: In this ecological analysis, up to 15% of the increase in AKI admissions in England over a 4-year time period is potentially attributable to increased prescribing of ACE-I and ARAs. However, these findings are limited by the lack of patient level data such as indication for prescribing and patient characteristics.

Background: Cough is listed as an adverse drug reaction (ADR) on the labels of angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB). However, a causal association with cough has also been reported for angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI), which have frequently been used as comparator drugs in the registration clinical trials of ARBs. This prompted us to examine the possible influence of using comparator drugs with well-known ADRs on the safety reporting of investigational drugs in blinded randomized clinical trials., Methods and Findings: The double-blinded, randomized clinical trials with comparator drugs were identified in the Japanese dossiers for the new drug applications of ARBs. The risk ratios (RR) of reporting cough and headache in ARB arms were calculated for each ARB by comparing trials using ACEIs and trials using non-ACEIs, were then combined with a meta-analysis. 23 trials with a total of 6643 patients were identified, consisting 6 trials using an ACEI comparator including 819 ARB patients and 17 trials using a non-ACEI comparator including 5824 ARB patients. The combined RR of cough reporting was significantly elevated (20.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.47 to 57.76), indicating more frequent reporting of cough in clinical trials using an ACEI comparator. In contrast, the combined RR of headache, a negative control, was insignificant (1.45; 95% CI, 0.34 to 6.22)., Conclusion: The use of comparators with well-known ADRs in blinded randomized trials produces potential bias in the reporting frequency of ADRs for investigational drugs. The selection of appropriate comparator drugs should be critical in unbiased safety assessment in double-blinded, randomized clinical trials and thus have relevance in reviewing the safety results from a regulatory point of view.

The association between angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and cancer is controversial with meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials and observational studies reporting conflicting results. Thus, the objective of this study was to determine whether ARBs are associated with an overall increased risk of the four most common cancers, namely, lung, colorectal, breast and prostate cancers, and to explore these effects separately for each cancer type. We conducted a retrospective cohort study using a nested case-control analysis within the United Kingdom (UK) General Practice Research Database. We assembled a cohort of patients prescribed antihypertensive agents between 1995, the year the first ARB (losartan) entered the UK market, and 2008, with follow-up until December 31, 2010. Cases were patients newly-diagnosed with lung, colorectal, breast and prostate cancer during follow-up. We used conditional logistic regression to estimate adjusted rate ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of cancer incidence, comparing ever use of ARBs with ever use of diuretics and/or beta-blockers. The cohort included 1,165,781 patients, during which 41,059 patients were diagnosed with one of the cancers under study (rate 554/100,000 person-years). When compared to diuretics and/or beta-blockers, ever use of ARBs was not associated with an increased rate of cancer overall (RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.96-1.03) or with each cancer site separately. The use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and calcium channel blockers was associated with an increased rate of lung cancer (RR: 1.13; 95% CI: 1.06-1.20 and RR: 1.19; 95% CI: 1.12-1.27, respectively). This study provides additional evidence that the use of ARBs does not increase the risk of cancer overall or any of the four major cancer sites. Additional research is needed to further investigate a potentially increased risk of lung cancer with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and calcium channel blockers.