Search

Background: Guidelines by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommend an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) rather than an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) for the treatment of hypertension for people of African and Caribbean descent, due to an increased risk of angioedema associated with ACEi use observed in US trials. However, the effectiveness and risk of these drugs in Black populations in UK routine care is unknown., Methods and Findings: We applied a reference trial emulation approach to UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum data (linked with data from Hospital Episode Statistics and Office for National Statistics) to study the comparative effectiveness of ARB and ACEi in ethnic minority groups in England, after benchmarking results against the ONTARGET trial. Approximately 17,593 Black, 30,805 South Asian, and 524,623 White patients receiving a prescription for ARB/ACEi between 1 January 2001 and 31 July 2019 were included with a median follow-up of 5.2 years. The primary composite outcome was cardiovascular-related death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalisation for heart failure with individual components studied as secondary outcomes. Angioedema was a safety endpoint. We assessed outcomes using an inverse-probability-weighted Cox proportional hazards model for ARB versus ACEi with heterogeneity by ethnicity assessed on the relative and absolute scale. For the primary outcome, 27,327 (18.0%) events were recorded in the ARB group (event rate: 25% per 5.5 person-years) and 80,624 (19.1%) events (event rate: 26% per 5.5 person-years) in the ACEi group. We benchmarked results against ONTARGET and observed hazard ratio (HR) 0.96 (95% CI: 0.95, 0.98) for the primary outcome, with an absolute incidence rate difference (IRD)% of -1.01 (95% CI: -1.42, -0.60) per 5.5 person-years. We found no evidence of treatment effect heterogeneity by ethnicity for the primary outcome on the multiplicative (Pint = 0.422) or additive scale (Pint = 0.287). Results were consistent for most secondary outcomes. However, for cardiovascular-related death, which occurred in 37,554 (6.6%) people, there was strong evidence of heterogeneity on the multiplicative (Pint = 0.002) and additive scale (Pint < 0.001). Compared to ACEi, ARB were associated with more events in Black individuals (HR 1.20 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.40); IRD% 1.07 (95% CI: 0.10, 2.04); number-needed-to-harm (NNH): 93) and associated with fewer events in White individuals (HR 0.91 (95% CI: 0.88, 0.93); IRD% -0.87 (95% CI: -1.10, -0.63); number-needed-to-treat (NNT): 115), and no differences in South Asian individuals (HR 0.97 (95% CI: 0.86, 1.09); IRD% -0.17 (95% CI: -0.87, 0.53)). For angioedema, HR 0.56 (95% CI: 0.46, 0.67) with no heterogeneity for ARB versus ACEi on the multiplicative scale (Pint = 0.306). However, there was heterogeneity on the additive scale (Pint = 0.023). Absolute risks were higher in Black individuals (IRD% -0.49 (95% CI: -0.79, -0.18); NNT: 204) compared with White individuals (IRD% -0.06 (95% CI: -0.09, -0.03); NNT: 1667) and no difference among South Asian individuals (IRD% -0.05 (95% CI: -0.15, 0.05) for ARB versus ACEi., Conclusions: These results demonstrate variation in drug effects of ACEi and ARB for some outcomes by ethnicity and suggest the potential for adverse consequences from current UK guideline recommendations for ARB in preference to ACEi for Black individuals., Competing Interests: PB was funded by a GSK PhD studentship at the time of analysis. AS is employed by LSHTM on a fellowship sponsored by GSK. EP was an employee of 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. 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., (Copyright: © 2024 Baptiste 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.)

BACKGROUND Angioedema is characterized by localized self-limiting edema of the deep dermis, subcutaneous, and submucosal tissues. Acute episodes often involve the skin of the face, lips, tongue, limbs, and genitals, as well as internal areas of the body and respiratory and gastrointestinal mucosa, which could be life-threatening. Histamine and bradykinin are the most recognized vasoactive mediators in the pathophysiology of angioedema. Tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) is a fibrinolytic that is commonly used for the treatment of cerebrovascular accidents. Angioedema is a rare adverse effect of tPA, with an estimated incidence of 0.02% in patients with myocardial infarction or pulmonary embolism and 0.2% to 5.1% in patients with stroke. We report a unique case of tPA-associated angioedema with 24-h management. CASE REPORT A 79-year-old male patient presented to the Emergency Department with acute onset right-sided weakness, right-sided facial droop, and speech difficulties. Following the initial evaluation, it was determined that he was a candidate for receiving tPA therapy. On arrival at the Intensive Care Unit, he was noted to have right upper and then lower lip swelling. The patient was asymptomatic and did not show any signs concerning airway compromise. Treatment included systemic corticosteroids and antihistamines. The progression of the angioedema was further described with sequential images. The angioedema was completely resolved with treatment. CONCLUSIONS Angioedema is a rare but potentially life-threatening adverse effect of tPA. Although it generally has a mild self-limiting course, it can cause life-threatening airway compromise.

Angioedema is a rare but potentially fatal complication of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) treatment. This class of drugs is widely used in the treatment of hypertension, cardiac failure and other common conditions.This case report discusses a male patient in his 60s who presented with acute swelling of the right side of his tongue, an unusual manifestation of angioedema, which typically involves bilateral swelling of orofacial structures.Accurate and early identification of this complication affords the opportunity for early, potentially life-saving intervention during the acute episode and also cessation of the treatment, reducing the risk of recurrence in the future.This case is one of only a few reported in English language medical literature and the first from Africa, suggesting either rarity or under-reporting. The case contributes to the understanding of ACEi-induced angioedema, particularly in Africa where hypertension is prevalent and ACEi is commonly used., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© BMJ Publishing Group Limited 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Competing Interests: None.

Angioedema without concomitant urticaria is a well-known complication of treatment with the recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator (r-tPA) alteplase and its genetically modified variant tenecteplase. It is potentially lethal when causing airway obstruction and can require intubation. The latest guideline for the early management of patients with acute ischemic stroke from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association advises to treat this complication initially by interfering with the histamine pathway. This article aims to clarify the pathophysiological mechanism of r-tPA-induced angioedema and provides several arguments that this condition is primarily bradykinin-mediated and hence should be treated initially by intervening with the bradykinin pathway. Second, other-less frequently reported-adverse symptoms after r-tPA therapy and their proposed pathophysiological mechanisms leading to specific treatment are described. This manuscript describes the need for an update of the section "3.5 IV alteplase" from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guideline to treat this r-tPA-induced angioedema adequately and prevent potentially fatal outcomes., Competing Interests: None.

Background: The characteristics, tolerability, and outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF) who are treated with sacubitril/valsartan remain unclear in Japan., Methods: We conducted a nationwide multicenter study to evaluate the features and outcomes of patients newly prescribed sacubitril/valsartan for the management of HF. We analyzed adverse events (AEs) related to sacubitril/valsartan at 3 months, which were defined as hypotension, worsening renal function, hyperkalemia, and angioedema. Additionally, the association between AEs and outcomes was examined., Results: Among 993 patients, the mean age was 70 years and 291 (29.3 %) were female, and 22.8 % had left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50 %. Of them, 20.8 % had systolic blood pressure (sBP) <100 mmHg, and 19.5 % had estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <30 ml/min/1.73 m 2 at baseline, which were the populations excluded from the eligibility in landmark trials. AEs related to sacubitril/valsartan were observed in 22.5 % of the patients at 3 months. Overall, 22.6 % of patients discontinued sacubitril/valsartan, and hypotension was the most common event leading to drug discontinuation. After adjustment, patients who had worse HF symptoms (New York Heart Association III or IV), sBP <100 mmHg, and eGFR <30 ml/min/1.73 m 2 were associated with a higher risk of AEs related to sacubitril/valsartan. Additionally, patients experiencing AEs had a higher risk of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization than those who did not., Conclusion: In Japan, sacubitril/valsartan was also prescribed to patients not eligible for landmark trials, and AEs were observed at a relatively high rate from soon after treatment initiation. Physicians should closely monitor patients for these events, especially in patients anticipated to have a higher risk of AEs., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest S.M. has received research grants and personal fees from Abott, Bayer Pharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Medtronic, Novartis, Ono Pharma, Orbus Neich, Otsuka Pharma, and the Uehara Memorial Foundation. J.J.V.M. received payments through Glasgow University from work on clinical trials, consulting, and other activities from: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Cardurion, Cytokinetics, GSK, KBP Biosciences, and Novartis. Personal consultancy fees from: Alnylam Pharma, Bayer, BMS, George Clinical PTY Ltd., Ionis Pharma., Novartis, Regeneron Pharma., River 2 Renal Corporation. Personal lecture fees: Abbott, Alkem Metabolics, Astra Zeneca, Blue Ocean Scientific Solutions Ltd., Boehringer Ingelheim, Canadian Medical and Surgical Knowledge, Emcure Pharma. Ltd., Eris Lifesciences, European Academy of CME, Hikma Pharmaceuticals, Imagica health, Intas Pharma, J.B. Chemicals & Pharma. Ltd., Lupin Pharma, Medscape/Heart.Org, ProAdWise Communications, Radcliffe Cardiology, Sun Pharma., The Corpus, Translation Research Group, and Translational Medicine Academy. J.J.V.M is a director of Global Clinical Trial Partners Ltd. J.J.V.M. is supported by a British Heart Foundation Centre of Research Excellence Grant RE/18/6/34217 and the Vera Melrose Heart Failure Research Fund. N.K. receives honorarium from Novartis Pharma, Boehringer-Ingelheim Japan, Eli Lilly Japan K.K, and Otsuka Pharma, and is affiliated with a department endowed by AMI Inc., Fukuda Denshi, KYOCERA, InterReha, and Philips Japan. T.S. has received honoraria from Novartis Pharmaceuticals KK, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Otsuka Pharmaceuticals Co. Ltd. A.K. has received honoraria from Novartis Pharma., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Disclosures None.

Sea anemones are marine animals that can produce toxins causing severe angioedema. Swimmers and divers should be aware of sea anemone species that can cause local and systemic toxic reactions and avoid indirect or direct skin contact. High index of suspicion, full laboratory workup, and treatment with steroids and antibiotics are imperative for an uneventful recovery., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Background: Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-Is) prevent the breakdown of bradykinin and can lead to life threatening angioedema. Tranexamic acid is an antifibrinolytic that inhibits formation of precursors involved in bradykinin synthesis and, in case reports, has been described as a potential treatment for ACE-I angioedema., Methods: This retrospective study included patients who presented to the emergency department (ED) from January 2018 to August 2021 with angioedema while taking an ACE-I. Patients who received tranexamic acid (treatment group) were compared with patients who did not receive tranexamic acid (control group). Primary outcome was length of stay (LOS). Secondary outcomes evaluated included ICU admissions, intubations, and safety events., Results: A total of 262 patients were included in this study (73 treatment; 189 control). Overall, the median ED LOS was longer in the treatment group than controls (20.9 h vs 4.8 h, p < 0.001). ICU admission rates were higher in the treatment group (45% vs 16%, p < 0.001). More patients were intubated in the treatment group (12% vs 3%, p = 0.018). No difference was seen between the treatment group and the controls for return within 7 days, complications related to thrombosis, and death. In patients presenting with severe angioedema symptoms who were admitted to the hospital, median LOS was not different between the two groups (58.7 h vs 55.7 h, p = 0.61)., Conclusions: Patients who received tranexamic acid had increased ED LOS, rates of ICU admission, and need for intubation. This finding may be related to the severity of presentation. Administration of tranexamic acid appears safe to use in ACE-I angioedema. Prospective randomized controlled studies should be considered to determine whether tranexamic acid is an effective treatment for ACE-I angioedema., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Characterize the presentation of patients with non-angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI)-induced angioedema and determine risk factors associated with patient disposition and possible need for airway intervention., Methods: The medical records of adult patients in the Emergency Department (ED) and diagnosed with non-ACEI-induced angioedema over 4.5 years were included. Demographics, vital signs, etiology, timeline, presenting symptoms, physical exam including flexible laryngoscopy, medical management, and disposition were examined. Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS V 23.0 software calculating and comparing means, standard deviations, medians, and correlation of categorical and ordinate variables., Results: A total of 181 patients with non-ACEI-induced angioedema were evaluated with flexible laryngoscopy by otolaryngology. Notably, 11 patients (6.1%) required airway intervention and were successfully intubated. Statistically significant factors (p ≤ 0.05) associated with airway intervention included the diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) (p = 0.006 and 0.01 respectively), symptoms of dysphonia (p = 0.018), the presence of oropharyngeal, supraglottic, and hypopharyngeal edema (p ≤ 0.001 for each site), and the number of edematous anatomic subsites documented on physical exam (p < 0.001). Other patient demographics, prior history of angioedema, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, symptom onset, number of symptoms at presentation, and medication administered in the ED did not correlate with airway intervention., Conclusion: Dysphonia, DBP, MAP, anatomic location of edema and edema in multiple sites are associated with airway intervention and a higher level of care in non-ACEI-induced angioedema and can be useful in risk assessment in patient management., Level of Evidence: 4 Laryngoscope, 134:2282-2287, 2024., (© 2023 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.)

Purpose: Orolingual angioedema (OA) secondary to administration of thrombolytic therapy is a rare, but serious, known adverse effect. Despite the lack of robust evidence for their use, C1 esterase inhibitors are recommended by guidelines for the treatment of refractory thrombolytic-associated OA. This report highlights the use of a C1 esterase inhibitor in a patient with tenecteplase-associated OA unresolved by antihistamine and corticosteroid therapy., Summary: A 67-year-old white male with a history of hypertension managed with lisinopril presented to the emergency department with acute onset of slurred speech and left-sided hemiparesis. Following workup, an outside hospital's neurology stroke team suspected an acute infarct and determined the patient to be a candidate for tenecteplase. Approximately 1 hour after tenecteplase administration, the patient began complaining of dyspnea and mild oral angioedema. Immediate interventions for OA management included intravenous therapy with dexamethasone 10 mg, diphenhydramine 25 mg, and famotidine 20 mg. After an additional 30 minutes, the patient's OA symptoms continued to progress and a C1 esterase inhibitor (Berinert) was administered. Shortly after administration of the C1 esterase inhibitor, the patient's symptoms continued to worsen, ultimately leading to endotracheal intubation. Following intubation, symptom improvement was noted, and the patient was safely extubated after 30 hours., Conclusion: Although rare, OA is a potentially life-threatening complication of tenecteplase therapy and requires prompt pharmacological intervention to optimize patient outcomes. Currently, no single agent or treatment algorithm exists that has shown significant efficacy or safety in the setting of thrombolytic-associated OA. Until data are available for C1 esterase inhibitors in this application, these inhibitors should only be considered if there is continued symptom progression after intravenous administration of corticosteroids and antihistamines., (© American Society of Health-System Pharmacists 2024. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background and Purpose: Orolingual angioedema (OA) represents a rare but life-threatening complication among patients with acute ischemic stroke treated with intravenous thrombolysis with alteplase. Novel agents, including icatibant, are recommended in resistant patients with alteplase-induced OA who have failed to respond to first-line therapies including corticosteroids, antihistamines, and/or adrenaline., Methods: We present a patient with alteplase-induced OA who showed substantial clinical improvement following the administration of icatibant., Results: We describe a 71-year-old woman with known arterial hypertension under treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, who presented with acute ischemic stroke in the territory of the right middle cerebral artery and received intravenous alteplase. During intravenous thrombolysis, the case was complicated with OA without any response to standard anaphylactic treatment including corticosteroids, dimetindene, and adrenaline. Thirty minutes after symptom onset, icatibant, a synthetic selective bradykinin B2-receptor antagonist, was administered subcutaneously. Substantial symptomatic resolution was observed only following the icatibant administration., Conclusions: This case highlights the effectiveness of icatibant in the acute management of alteplase-induced OA. In particular, icatibant administration, following first-line therapies including corticosteroids, antihistamines, and/or adrenaline, may avert tracheostomy and intubation in resistant and refractory cases with OA following intravenous thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke., (© 2023 The Authors. European Journal of Neurology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Academy of Neurology.)

Background: Angioedema is a rare but potentially life-threatening adverse drug reaction in patients receiving angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis). Research suggests that susceptibility to ACEi-induced angioedema (ACEi-AE) involves both genetic and nongenetic risk factors. Genome- and exome-wide studies of ACEi-AE have identified the first genetic risk loci. However, understanding of the underlying pathophysiology remains limited., Objective: We sought to identify further genetic factors of ACEi-AE to eventually gain a deeper understanding of its pathophysiology., Methods: By combining data from 8 cohorts, a genome-wide association study meta-analysis was performed in more than 1000 European patients with ACEi-AE. Secondary bioinformatic analyses were conducted to fine-map associated loci, identify relevant genes and pathways, and assess the genetic overlap between ACEi-AE and other traits. Finally, an exploratory cross-ancestry analysis was performed to assess shared genetic factors in European and African-American patients with ACEi-AE., Results: Three genome-wide significant risk loci were identified. One of these, located on chromosome 20q11.22, has not been implicated previously in ACEi-AE. Integrative secondary analyses highlighted previously reported genes (BDKRB2 [bradykinin receptor B2] and F5 [coagulation factor 5]) as well as biologically plausible novel candidate genes (PROCR [protein C receptor] and EDEM2 [endoplasmic reticulum degradation enhancing alpha-mannosidase like protein 2]). Lead variants at the risk loci were found with similar effect sizes and directions in an African-American cohort., Conclusions: The present results contributed to a deeper understanding of the pathophysiology of ACEi-AE by (1) providing further evidence for the involvement of bradykinin signaling and coagulation pathways and (2) suggesting, for the first time, the involvement of the fibrinolysis pathway in this adverse drug reaction. An exploratory cross-ancestry comparison implicated the relevance of the associated risk loci across diverse ancestries., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

BACKGROUND Angioedema is non-pitting edema that occurs in the deep layers of the skin and subcutaneous tissue due to vascular leakage of plasma resulting from 1 of 2 major pathophysiological processes: mast cell-mediated angioedema and bradykinin-mediated angioedema. While it is a well-recognized adverse reaction of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, the association of angioedema with angiotensin receptor blockers is relatively less studied. Direct local trauma, although rarely, has been suggested to induce angioedema under certain conditions. We present a unique case of direct, local, trauma-related angioedema in a patient on an angiotensin receptor blocker. CASE REPORT The patient, an 83-year-old woman on telmisartan for hypertension, hit her neck against the edge of a chair during a fall. Shortly thereafter, she developed progressive airway compromise due to airway angioedema, as noted on direct laryngoscopy. A contrast CT scan of the neck also noted edema of the periglottic and supraglottic regions. She required intravenous corticosteroid administration and intubation in the emergency room and was successfully extubated 3 days after admission. She had no prior history of angioedema or allergy. We hypothesize that increased levels of circulatory bradykinin in the setting of telmisartan, combined with a local release of bradykinin from trauma, was the main pathophysiologic cause of the angioedema. CONCLUSIONS This case report highlights the rare and often forgotten adverse reaction of angioedema with use of angiotensin receptor blockers and confirms the finding of local trauma as a possible trigger.

Background: Heart failure is a major cause of morbidity and mortality among older adults. Sacubitril-Valsartan (Sac/Val) has been shown to improve patients' outcomes; however, its safety profile among older adults has not been adequately examined. We therefore aimed to examine its safety profile among this population., Methods: We conducted a retrospective pharmacovigilance study utilizing the FDA's database of safety reports (FAERS). We employed disproportionality analysis comparing Sac/Val to angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). We aim to evaluate the reporting of pre-defined adverse events associated with Sac/Val (hypotension, acute kidney injury (AKI), hyperkalemia and angioedema) in two age groups: adults (< 75 years) and older adults (≥ 75). For each subgroup, we calculated reporting odds ratio (ROR) and compared them by calculating P for interaction., Results: The FAERS database encompassed 18,432 unique reports of Sac/Val. Of them, 12,630 (68.5%) subjects were adults (< 75 years), and 5802 (31.5%) were older adults (≥ 75 years), with a median age (IQR) of 68 (59-77). When compared to ARBs, Sac/Val was associated with higher reporting of hypotension, lower reporting of acute kidney injury (AKI) and hyperkalemia, and similar reporting of angioedema. Notably, we did not observe a significant interaction between the age subgroups and the risk estimates (AKI: P interaction  = 0.72, hyperkalemia: P interaction  = 0.94, hypotension: P interaction  = 0.31, and angioedema: P interaction  = 0.61)., Conclusions: In this postmarking study, none of the prespecified adverse events was reported more frequently in older adults. These findings provide reassurance for safety use of Sac/Val in older adults., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Tenecteplase has been compared to alteplase in acute stroke randomized trials, with similar outcomes and safety measures, but higher doses of tenecteplase have been associated with higher hemorrhage rates in some studies. Limited data are available on the safety of tenecteplase outside of clinical trials., Methods: We examined the safety measures of intracranial hemorrhage, angioedema, and serious extracranial adverse events in a 21-hospital integrated healthcare system that switched from alteplase (0.9 mg/kg, maximum dose 90 mg) to tenecteplase (0.25 mg/kg, maximum dose 25 mg) for acute ischemic stroke., Results: Among 3,689 subjects, no significant differences were seen between tenecteplase and alteplase in the rate of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), parenchymal hemorrhage, or volume of parenchymal hemorrhage. Symptomatic hemorrhage (sICH) was not different between the two agents: sICH by NINDS criteria was 2.0 % for alteplase vs 2.3 % for tenecteplase (P = 0.57), and sICH by SITS criteria was 0.8 % vs 1.1 % (P = 0.39). Adjusted logistic regression models also showed no differences between tenecteplase and alteplase: the odds ratio for tenecteplase (vs alteplase) modeling sICH by NINDS criteria was 0.9 (95 % CI 0.33 - 2.46, P = 0.83) and the odds ratio for tenecteplase modeling sICH by SITS criteria was 1.12 (95 % CI 0.25 - 5.07, P = 0.89). Rates of angioedema and serious extracranial adverse events were low and did not differ between tenecteplase and alteplase. Elapsed door-to-needle times showed a small improvement after the switch to tenecteplase (51.8 % treated in under 30 min with tenecteplase vs 43.5 % with alteplase, P < 0.001)., Conclusion: In use outside of clinical trials, complication rates are similar between tenecteplase and alteplase. In the context of a stroke telemedicine program, the rates of hemorrhage observed with either agent were lower than expected based on prior trials and registry data. The more easily prepared tenecteplase was associated with a lower door-to-needle time., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None, (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Angioneurotic edema is the most dangerous complication in angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) therapy. Based on the current data, the clinical and genetic predictors of angioedema development are still understudied, which demonstrates the relevance of this study., Objective: To reveal the pharmacogenetic predictors of the angioedema as a secondary side effect to enalapril in patients with essential arterial hypertension., Methods: The study enrolled 111 subjects randomized into two groups: study group, patients with the angioedema as a secondary side effect to enalapril; and control group, patients without adverse drug reaction. All patients underwent pharmacogenetic testing., Results: An association between the development of the angioneurotic edema and the genotypes AA rs2306283 of gene SLCO1B1, TT rs4459610 of gene ACE, and CC rs1799722 of gene BDKRB2 in patients was revealed., Conclusion: The findings justify further investigations of the revealed genetic predictors of angioedema with larger-size patient populations.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Sentinel System is a leading distributed data network for drug safety surveillance in the world. The National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) in Taiwan was converted into the Taiwan Sentinel Data Model (TSDM) based on the Sentinel Common Data Model (SCDM) version 6.0.2. The goal of this study was to investigate the feasibility of applying the same study designs, analytic choices, and analytic tools as used by the U.S. Sentinel System to examine the same drug-outcome associations in the TSDM-formatted NHIRD. Four known drug-outcome associations previously examined by the U.S. Sentinel System were selected as the use cases: (1) use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and risk of angioedema, (2) use of warfarin and risk of gastrointestinal bleeding, (3) use of oral clindamycin and risk of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), and (4) use of glyburide and risk of serious hypoglycemia. We followed the same study designs and analytic choices used by the U.S. Sentinel System and applied the Sentinel Routine Querying Tools to answer the same study questions within the TSDM-formatted NHIRD. The results showed that ACEIs were associated with a non-significant increase in risk of angioedema compared to beta-blockers (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.89-1.64); warfarin was associated with a higher risk of gastrointestinal bleeding compared to statins (HR: 1.72; 1.50-1.98); glyburide was associated with an increased risk of hypoglycemia compared to glipizide (HR: 1.61, 1.30-2.00). We were unable to evaluate the association between oral clindamycin and risk of CDI due to the low event number. Our study demonstrated that it was feasible to directly apply the publicly available Sentinel Routine Querying Tools within the TSDM-formatted NHIRD. However, sources of heterogeneity other than design and analytic differences should be carefully considered when comparing the results between the two systems.

We developed novel electronic phenotyping algorithms for the Bio Me biobank data, which accurately identified angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi)-induced angioedema cases and controls. A survey was mailed to all 1075 patients and 91 were returned. Over a third reported that prescribing physicians had not discussed with them the concepts of interindividual drug response variability or adverse event risk, and 73% of patients were previously unaware of pharmacogenomics; however, most patients were interested in having pharmacogenomic testing. Moreover, 67% of patients indicated that pharmacogenomic testing would positively influence their medication compliance. In addition to identifying an innovative approach to define biobank cohorts for pharmacogenomic studies, these results indicate that patients are interested in pharmacogenomic testing, which could translate to improved adherence.

Bradykinin-mediated angioedema is a rare, non-allergic, potentially life-threatening disease. ACE inhibitor-induced angioedema and hereditary angioedema (HAE) are the two most common presentations. Therapeutic options, pathophysiology and diagnosis continue to be investigated, with considerable progress in HAE over the last few decades. For all patients with bradykinin-mediated angioedema, there are several medications that should be avoided or administered with caution. Some of the triggering medications are well known, while others are suspected or of unknown significance. A common denominator is that there is no approved therapy for bradykinin-mediated angioedema as a drug side effect. Some medications, such as tissue plasminogen activator, have a higher incidence of angioedema with potential airway compromise than ACE inhibitors, although this fact is widely underappreciated. In this review, we aim to summarize what is currently known and recommended about concomitant medication in HAE patients and the interaction of other bradykinin-influencing drugs., (© 2023 The Authors. Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Deutsche Dermatologische Gesellschaft.)

Angioedema is potentially life-threating swelling of integument and mucosa that has multiple potential aetiologies with varying mechanisms. Drug-induced angioedema is often easily correlated with the offending agent and can be prevented with discontinuation of the medication. Many medications have now been implicated in drug-induced angioedema but the two most common are ACE inhibitors and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). This case highlights severe angioedema secondary to celecoxib and reviews varying aetiologies of angioedema and NSAID hypersensitivity reactions., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© BMJ Publishing Group Limited 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Purpose of Review: This review describes the discovery and development of ACE inhibitors as antihypertensive agents, compares their efficacy, tolerability, and safety to ARBs, and highlights the contemporary issues surrounding ACE inhibitor use for HTN., Recent Findings: Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are commonly prescribed medications for the management of hypertension (HTN) and other chronic conditions including heart failure and chronic kidney disease. These agents inhibit ACE, the enzyme that is responsible for converting angiotensin (AT) I to AT II. Inhibiting the synthesis of AT II causes arterial and venous vasodilation, natriuresis, and a decrease in sympathetic activity, resulting in the reduction of blood pressure. ACE inhibitors are first-line therapy in HTN management along with thiazide diuretics, calcium channel blockers, and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB). Along with inhibiting AT II synthesis, inhibition of ACE causes accumulation of bradykinin, increasing the risk of bradykinin-mediated side effects like angioedema and cough. Since ARBs do not work on ACE in the renin-angiotensin system, the risk of angioedema and cough are lower with ARBs. Recent evidence has also suggested ARBs may have neuroprotective effects compared to other antihypertensives, including ACE inhibitors; however, this warrants further study. Currently, ACE inhibitors and ARBs have an equal class of recommendation for first-line treatment for the management of HTN. Recent evidence has shown ARBs to be just as effective as ACE inhibitors for HTN but with improved tolerability., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) hypersensitivity is common; however, many patients do not receive an accurate diagnosis and are using unnecessary alternative drugs or have medication restrictions., Objective: To establish a protocol for provocation tests that can be performed safely and effectively at home to give patients an accurate diagnosis, whereas also delabeling NSAID hypersensitivity., Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of 147 patients with NSAID hypersensitivity. All patients had NSAID-induced urticaria/angioedema with less than 10% body surface area skin involvement. One specialist developed the protocol through history taking and chart review. If NSAID hypersensitivity was confirmed, an oral provocation test was performed to confirm the safe alternative medications (group A). If it was undetermined, an oral provocation test was performed to confirm the diagnosis and alternative medications (group B). All oral provocation tests were performed by patients in their homes according to the protocol., Results: Approximately 26% of group A patients had urticaria or angioedema symptoms with alternative drugs, whereas the remaining 74% was safe. In group B, 34% of the patients were diagnosed with having NSAID hypersensitivity. However, 61% did not respond to the culprit drug; therefore, NSAID hypersensitivity had been misdiagnosed. During this at-home self-provocation test, no severe hypersensitivity reactions occurred., Conclusion: Many patients originally suspected of having NSAID hypersensitivity were confirmed to have been misdiagnosed. We successfully conducted an effective and safe at-home self-provocation test., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Data on real-life experience with omalizumab dose/interval adjustments are still limited, as well as on omalizumab discontinuation., Objective: To evaluate efficacy and safety of omalizumab dose/interval adjustment in a Portuguese cohort of patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) and to characterize those who discontinued omalizumab., Methods: A retrospective study of patients who started omalizumab for CSU at a Portuguese Urticaria Center of Reference and Excellence (UCARE) was conducted between 2009 and 2021. Response criteria were based on a weekly Urticaria Activity Score (UAS7) <7 points (partial: UAS7 7-15 points; nonresponders: UAS7 >15 points) and minimal important difference >10 points., Results: A total of 138 patients were enrolled in the study; 83% of them were women, and the median age was 49 years (interquartile range: 40-58 years). On 300 mg q4 weeks, 96 (70%) patients were responders, 29 (21%) partial responders, and 13 (9%) nonresponders. After dose/interval adjustments (up to 600 mg q2 weeks), 108 (78%) were responders, 27 (20%) partial responders, and 3 (2%) nonresponders. No adverse events were reported. Updosing was more frequent in patients with angioedema, body mass index >30 kg/m 2 , positive basophil activation test, and autologous serum test. A total of 71 (51%) patients lengthened interval, presenting higher median pre-omalizumab D-dimer (0.2 vs 0 mcg/mL, P = .038) and C-reactive protein (0.3 vs 0.1 mg/dL, P = .030) values than those with a standard dose. In total, 37 patients (27%) stopped omalizumab, but 14 (38%) of them needed retreatment on average 11 months after discontinuation. Patients with angioedema and a longer omalizumab duration had higher chance of relapse., Conclusions: Omalizumab dose and/or interval adjustment is effective and safe and should be implemented in partial/nonresponders for response improvement and in responders for further discontinuation. A protocol for regimen adjustments is proposed., (Copyright © 2023 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Bradykinin (BK) metabolism and its receptors play a central role in drug-induced angioedema (AE) without urticaria through increased vascular permeability. Many cardiovascular and diabetic drugs may cause BK-mediated AE. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and neprilysin inhibitors impair BK catabolism. Dipeptidyl peptidase-IV (DPP-IV) inhibitors reduce the breakdown of BK and substance P (SP). Moreover, angiotensin receptor blockers, thrombolytic agents, and statins may also induce BK-mediated AE. Understanding pathophysiological mechanisms is crucial for preventing and treating drug-induced AE.

Background: New hereditary angioedema (HAE) treatments have become available in recent years for the treatment of HAE due to C1-inhibitor (C1-INH) deficiency, including two subcutaneous (SC) options: a monoclonal antibody (lanadelumab) and a plasma-derived C1-INH concentrate (SC-C1-INH). Limited real-world data on these therapies have been reported. Objective: The objective was to describe new users of lanadelumab and SC-C1-INH, including demographics, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), costs, and treatment patterns before and after beginning treatment. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study that used an administrative claims data base. Two mutually exclusive cohorts of adult (ages ≥18 years) new users of lanadelumab or SC-C1-INH with ≥180 days of continuous use were identified. HCRU, costs, and treatment patterns were assessed in the 180-day period before the index date (new treatment use) and up to 365 days after the index date. HCRU and costs were calculated as annualized rates. Results: Forty-seven patients who used lanadelumab and 38 patients who used SC-C1-INH were identified. The most frequently used on-demand HAE treatments at baseline were the same for both cohorts: bradykinin B₂ antagonists (48.9% of the patients on lanadelumab, 52.6% of the patients on SC-C1-INH) and C1-INHs (40.4% of the patients on lanadelumab, 57.9% of the patients on SC-C1-INH). More than 33% of the patients continued to fill on-demand medications after treatment initiation. Annualized angioedema-associated emergency department visits and hospitalizations decreased after initiation of treatment, from 1.8 to 0.6 for the patients on lanadelumab and from 1.3 to 0.5 for the patients on SC-C1-INH. Annualized total healthcare costs after treatment initiation in the database were $866,639 and $734,460 for the lanadelumab and SC-C1-INH cohorts, respectively. Pharmacy costs accounted for >95% of these total costs. Conclusion: Although HCRU decreased after the initiation of treatment, angioedema-associated emergency department visits and hospitalizations and on-demand treatment fills were not completely eliminated. This indicates ongoing disease and treatment burden despite use of modern HAE medicines.

Despite many publications related to the identification of new angiotensin-I-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, especially peptides from natural products, the actual reason/s for why new ACE inhibitors need to be discovered are yet to be fully understood. New ACE inhibitors are pivotal to address serious side effects caused by commercially available ACE inhibitors in hypertensive patients. Despite the effectiveness of commercial ACE inhibitors, due to these side effects, doctors often prescribe angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). Recent evidence has shown the benefits of ACE inhibitors over ARBs in hypertensive patients and hypertensive-diabetes mellitus patients. In order to address these side effects, the somatic ACE's enzyme structures need to be revisited. The peptides isolated from the natural products need to be verified for their stability against ACE and several important gastrointestinal enzymes. The stable peptides sequence with the presence of favourable ACE inhibitory-related amino-acids, such as tryptophan (W), at the C-terminal need to be subjected to molecular docking and dynamics analyses for selecting ACE inhibitory peptide/s with C-domain-specific inhibition instead of both C- and N-domains' inhibition. This strategy will help to reduce the accumulation of bradykinin, the driving factor behind the formation of the side effects.

Background: There are hypersensitivity reactions (HRs) to foods in which nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) act as aggravating factors (NSAID-exacerbated food allergy [NEFA]) or cofactors (NSAID-induced food allergy [NIFA]), often misdiagnosed as HRs to NSAIDs. Urticarial/angioedematous and/or anaphylactic reactions to two or more chemically unrelated NSAIDs do not meet current classification criteria. However, they may be considered part of a cross-reactive type of acute HR, which is NSAID-induced urticaria/angioedema with or without respiratory or systemic symptoms of anaphylaxis., Objective: To evaluate patients reporting acute HRs to NSAIDs and classify them according to updated criteria., Methods: We prospectively studied 414 patients with suspected HRs to NSAIDs. For all whom met these criteria, NEFA/NIFA was diagnosed: (1) mild reactions to (NEFA) or tolerance of (NIFA) the suspected foods without taking NSAIDs; (2) cutaneous and/or anaphylactic reactions to the combination foods plus NSAIDs; (3) positive allergy tests to the suspected foods; and (4) negative drug challenges (DCs) with the NSAIDs involved., Results: A total of 252 patients were given the diagnosis of NSAID hypersensitivity (60.9%), 108 of whom had NSAID-induced urticaria/angioedema with or without respiratory or systemic symptoms of anaphylaxis. We excluded NSAID hypersensitivity in 162 patients (39.1%) who tolerated DCs with the suspected NSAIDs, nine of whom received a diagnosis of NEFA, and 66 of NIFA. Pru p 3 was implicated in 67 of those 75 patients who received a diagnosis of NEFA or NIFA., Conclusions: NEFA and NIFA account for about 18% of patients reporting HRs to NSAIDs, in which Pru p 3 is the main responsible food allergen. Therefore, patients with cutaneous and/or anaphylactic reactions to NSAIDs should be carefully questioned about all foods ingested within 4 hours before or after NSAID exposure, and targeted food allergy tests should be considered in the diagnostic workup of these patients. If testing is positive, DCs with the suspected NSAIDs should also be considered., (Copyright © 2023 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The use of acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) is problematic in subjects with histories of hypersensitivity reactions (HRs) to it or with cross-reactive types of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) hypersensitivity. We sought to evaluate the efficacy of low-dose ASA challenge (LDAC) and desensitization to allow ASA therapy at an antiplatelet dose in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) or multiple related risk factors and histories of HRs to ASA or ≥ 2 chemically unrelated NSAIDs. We studied prospectively all patients with such histories and ≥ 3 risk factors for ASCVD (group I), chronic coronary syndrome (CCS, group II), and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) with indication for ASA desensitization (group III). Patients from groups I and II underwent LDACs (cumulative dose of 110 mg), while those from group III were desensitized (cumulative dose of 100.1 mg). We evaluated 103 patients: 62 from group I, 24 from group II, and 17 from group III. Eighty-two of the 86 patients from the first two groups underwent LDACs and 2 reacted. Subsequently, 22 (27.5%) of the 80 patients with negative LDACs were administered dual antiplatelet therapy with ASA after successful percutaneous coronary interventions, thus sparing desensitizations. The remaining 4 patients with CCS and all 17 patients from group III were successfully desensitized. In this pragmatic study, LDAC proved to be a safe and reliable diagnostic tool for identifying patients with histories of HRs to ASA or ≥ 2 different NSAIDs who can tolerate ASA at antiplatelet doses. Routine LDAC is advisable in all patients at high risk for ASCVD or with CCS who report HRs to ASA or ≥ 2 NSAIDs. ASA desensitization remains a safe and effective option in patients with ACS. Study flow-chart. ASCVD atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease; CCS chronic coronary syndrome; ACS acute coronary syndrome; ASA acetylsalicylic acid; DAPT dual antiplatelet therapy; PCI percutaneous coronary intervention; NSAIDs nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; NERD NSAID-exacerbated respiratory disease; NECD NSAID-exacerbated cutaneous disease; NIUAA NSAID-induced urticaria-angioedema or anaphylaxis; SNIUAA single NSAID-induced urticaria-angioedema or anaphylaxis; SNIDHR single NSAID-induced delayed hypersensitivity reaction., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Omalizumab can cause hypersensitivity reactions. We herein report the first case of an 18-year-old woman with refractory cough-predominant asthma that correlated with allergic reactions caused by omalizumab and the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine. The patient developed angioedema after taking omalizumab. She had previously experienced intense coughing immediately after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. A skin prick test was positive for polysorbate 20, which was probably the cause of the allergic reactions to omalizumab and the COVID-19 vaccine. Clinicians should check for an allergic reaction, irrespective of its intensity, triggered by polysorbate and be careful when prescribing biologics to patients in order to avoid allergic reactions.

Background: Besides hemorrhage, allergic reactions have also been observed in several clinical trials of fibrinolytic agents. These reactions might negatively affect patient outcomes, especially life-threatening type I hypersensitivity reactions such as anaphylaxis. However, there are limited data on the incidence of these reactions., Objective: The aim of study was to analyze the incidence of urticaria, angioedema, and type I hypersensitivity reactions from fibrinolytic agents for various indications., Methods: A retrospective analysis of data from the Thai Vigibase database was conducted. All reports of adverse drug reactions from fibrinolytic agents from 1984 to 2017 were identified using the World Health Organization adverse reaction terminology. The proportion of each suspected adverse drug reaction and the cumulative incidence were calculated., Results: A total of 284 reports were identified in the Thai Vigibase database. The overall incidence of urticaria, angioedema, and type I hypersensitivity reactions for the streptokinase group was 52.64/10,000 persons, with individual incidence rates of 9.64/10,000 persons for urticaria, 8.90/10,000 persons for angioedema, and 34.11/10,000 persons for type I hypersensitivity reactions. In the alteplase group, the overall incidence for all suspected reactions was 18.90/10,000 persons, with individual incidence rates of 3.29/10,000 persons for urticaria, 5.75/10,000 persons for angioedema, and 9.86/10,000 persons for type I hypersensitivity reactions., Conclusions: Type I hypersensitivity reactions were the most common allergic reactions from fibrinolytic agents. It is necessary to take these reactions into consideration when using fibrinolytic therapy.

Background: Angioedema of the tongue, oral mucosa, and pharynx is a highly visible and easily diagnoseable side effect of Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI). Angioedema of the small bowel is a rarer, and underrecognized, adverse event that may present as a diagnostic challenge due to its nonspecific symptoms and lack of visibility, and because of a general lack of awareness of it among physicians. Failure to consider ACEI-induced angioedema of the small bowel in differential diagnoses may result in unnecessary interventions and delay of treatment., Methods: We describe the case of a 61-year-old female who was diagnosed with ACEI-induced angioedema of the small intestine after several repeated evaluations. We undertook a literature search to help provide diagnostic, treatment, and management suggestions in patients with ACEI-induced angioedema of the small intestine., Results and Conclusion: In the literature, we found that age, patient demographics, and careful medical reconciliation, paired with diagnostic clues in radiology, can assist in accurate diagnosis. More broadly, family and emergency medicine physicians, surgeons, radiologists, and internists should be aware of this rare side effect caused by this commonly prescribed medication to avert unnecessary medical treatments and procedures., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: None., (© Copyright by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Background: ACE inhibitor (ACEi) induced angioedema predominantly affects the upper aerodigestive tract. As ACEi induced angioedema is mediated by bradykinin, therapeutic response to antihistamines and glucocorticoids remains unsatisfactory. In bradykinin mediated hereditary angioedema, C1-esterase inhibitor (C1INH) is an effective and approved treatment since many years. Our aim was to evaluate the therapeutic effect of C1INH in ACEi induced angioedema., Methods: We performed a double-blind, parallel-group, multicentre randomised placebo-controlled trial between December 2013 and September 2018. Eligible were adults with ACEi induced angioedema with airway obstruction. Participants were randomised 1:1 to single doses of either C1INH (20 IU/kg) or placebo (0.9% NaCl) i.v in addition to standard care (i.v. 500 mg prednisolone and 2.68 mg clemastine) i.v. Composite symptom scores were assessed at baseline and up to 48 h, at discharge and 1 week after discharge. Physician assessed time to complete oedema resolution (TCER) and time to onset of relief (TOR)., Results: 30 patients (16 C1INH, 14 placebo) were randomised and dosed. 25 (9 C1INH, 12 placebo) completed the study. TCER was 29.63 h ± 15.56 h in the C1INH and 17.29 h ± 10.40 h in the placebo arm (p = 0.0457). TORs were 4.13 h ± 3.38 h and 2.86 h ± 1.29 h for C1INH and placebo, respectively (p = 0.4443). There were no adverse events related to study medication., Conclusions: In the context of baseline application of steroids and antihistamines C1INH was inferior in the treatment of ACEi induced angioedema when compared to placebo with respect to time to complete resolution of symptoms. Eudra-CT Number: 2012-001670-28., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest U Strassen, M Bas, M Wirth, J Hahn and J Greve have received travel and research grants, as well as honoraria for speaking engagements from CSL Behring., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objective: Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is a distressing disease. We report real-world data from the global Chronic Urticaria Registry (CURE) about associations between various CSU states and sleep impairment, plus important health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) outcomes and compared different methods to assess CSU states., Methods: CURE data were collected at baseline and 6-monthly follow-ups (FU). Assessments included CSU states using the Urticaria Control Test (UCT), weekly Urticaria Activity Score (UAS7), and Physician Global Assessment (PhyGA) of treatment response. Complete response to treatment (CR, UAS7 = 0), complete control of disease (CC, UCT = 16), and PhyGA = CR were assessed, plus the Dermatology Life Quality Index and the Chronic Urticaria Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (CU-Q 2 oL) sleep domain., Results: Overall, 2078 patients were included. At baseline, 9.8%, 17.9%, and 42.3% of patients had UCT = 16, UAS7 = 0, or PhyGA = CR, respectively, which increased at FU1 and FU2. Patients with higher UCT scores had better sleep and HRQoL. The presence of angioedema without wheals, episodic disease, omalizumab treatment, and male sex were associated with CC (P < .05). Among 469 patients who achieved CC or CR, 16.4% (n = 77) showed CC or CR with all 3 instruments. Agreement between UCT = 16 and UAS7 = 0 measurements was moderate (κ = 0.581), but poor between UCT = 16 and PhyGA = CR (κ = 0.208)., Conclusions: Few patients had CR/CC of their CSU at baseline entry. Disease control strongly related to good sleep and better HRQoL; therefore, it is important to aim for CR in CSU treatment. Patient-reported UCT and UAS7 assessments demonstrated a more accurate measurement of CSU state versus physician assessments., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Data on angioedema risk among sacubitril-valsartan (SV) users in real-world settings are limited., Objectives: We sought to evaluate the risk of angioedema among SV new users compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor and angiotensin-receptor-blocker (ARB) new users separately., Methods: We conducted a propensity score-matched cohort study, comparing SV new users (no use of SV, ACE inhibitor, ARB 6 months before) and SV new users with prior use (within 183 or 14 days) of ACE inhibitor or ARB (ACE inhibitor-SV and ARB-SV users; recent ACE inhibitor-SV and recent ARB-SV users, respectively) vs ACE inhibitor and ARB new users separately., Results: Compared with ACE inhibitor, SV new (HR: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.11-0.29) and ACE inhibitor-SV users (HR: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.23-0.43) showed lower risk of angioedema. On the other hand, there was no difference in angioedema risk when SV new users (HR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.35-1.01) or ARB-SV users (HR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.58-1.26) were compared with ARB new users. Compared with SV new users, ACE inhibitor-SV users (HR: 1.62; 95% CI: 0.91-2.89) trended toward higher angioedema risk, which intensified when the ACE inhibitor to SV switch occurred within 14 days (recent ACE inhibitor-SV) (HR: 1.98; 95% CI: 1.11-3.53). Similarly, ARB-SV users (HR: 2.03; 95% CI: 1.16-3.54) experienced an increased risk compared with SV new users, which intensified for the more recent switchers (recent ARB-SV) (HR: 2.45; 95% CI: 1.36-4.43)., Conclusions: We did not observe an increased risk of angioedema among SV new users compared with ACE inhibitor or ARB users. However, there was an increased risk of angioedema among SV users who recently switched from ACE inhibitor or ARB compared with SV new users., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This project was supported by Task Order 75F40119F19002 under Master Agreement 75F40119D10037 from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose. The views expressed in this manuscript represent those of the presenters and do not necessarily represent the official views of the U.S. FDA., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)