Efficacy of lodoxamide 0.1% versus N-acetyl aspartyl glutamic acid 6% ophthalmic solutions in patients with vernal keratoconjunctivitis

In a double-masked, randomized and controlled clinical trial, the effectiveness and safety of lodoxamide 0.1% eye drops were compared with N-acetyl aspartyl glutamic acid 6% (NAAGA) drops in the treatment of 120 patients with vernal keratoconjunctivitis. There were 60 patients in each of the two study groups. The drugs were instilled 4 times daily for 60 days. Follow-up examinations were made on days 7, 30 and 60. Of the 120 patients, 98 (50 in lodoxamide and 48 in NAAGA groups) were still available for follow-up on day 7, 89 (45 in lodoxamide and 44 in NAAGA groups) on day 30 and 75 (38 in lodoxamide and 37 in NAAGA groups) on day 60. Lodoxamide was clinically more effective than NAAGA. Statistically significant trends toward improvement were noted in the lodoxamide group in resolving papillae on day 30, decreasing corneal staining on days 30 and 60, relieving photophobia on day 60, tearing on days 7, 30 and 60 and itching on days 30 and 60. Lodoxamide 0.1% was more effective in lowering the mean scores for corneal staining on days 30 and 60 (p < 0.05). The composite scores for clinical signs and symptoms calculated by averaging the mean scores for signs and symptoms showed clinically significant differences in favor of the lodoxamide group. More frequent follow-up visits might have resulted in better statistical correlations. Treatment-related adverse events were reported in both groups with similar frequency but none were permanent or serious.

Haemodynamic, renal and hormonal responses to enalkiren in four patients with post-surgical oliguria

1. The haemodynamic and hormonal responses of four patients with acute post-surgical oliguria (urine output < 0.5 mL/kg per h) were measured in response to the renin inhibitor enalkiren. Enalkiren was infused at 0.01 up to 0.1 mg/kg per h for up to 4 h. 2. Enalkiren infusion was associated with a progressive fall in blood pressure, clinically significant in three of the four patients. Systemic vascular resistance fell in proportion to blood pressure fall. Cardiac output and pulse rate remained unchanged. Effective renal plasma flow rose in all four cases (236 +/- 19 to 327 +/- 38). There was no change in urine flow rate, or urinary sodium excretion. 3. Plasma renin activity (ng angiotensin I/mL per h) fell from 1.9 +/- 0.5 to 0.02 +/- 0.01 (P < 0.04), plasma angiotensin II (pg/mL) fell from 104 +/- 93 to 7.7 +/- 1.5, and plasma aldosterone (ng/dL) fell from 32 +/- 8 to 21 +/- 9 (P = 0.03) at the highest infusion dose. 4. Enalkiren inhibited plasma renin activity with reduced plasma angiotensin II and aldosterone concentrations. This was associated with vasodilation, reduced blood pressure and maintained cardiac output. There was no beneficial effect on renal function in these patients with post-surgical oliguria.

[Immuno-hemolytic anemia associated with lisinopril therapy. Report of a case]

The Authors describe a case of immuno-hemolytic anemia in a 67-year-old woman with hypertension who had been treated irregularly with lisinopril for three months. The hemolytic crisis resolved promptly after withdrawal of lisinopril and did not recur under high-dose methylprednisolone therapy.

Severe angioedema and respiratory distress associated with lisinopril use

Images

Lisinopril in the treatment of hypertension: a Canadian postmarketing surveillance study

A postmarketing surveillance study in 2273 Canadian office practices provided the largest body of clinical experience to date with the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor lisinopril in the treatment of mild to moderate essential hypertension. The principal emphasis in this uncontrolled study was safety, assessed in 10,289 patients. Patients with a diastolic blood pressure > 90 mmHg were considered for the study. Both previously untreated patients and those who were experiencing adverse effects from their current antihypertensive regimen were included. Lisinopril was begun at a dose of 10 mg/day. Subsequent dose adjustments, to a maximum of 40 mg/day, were made to achieve optimal blood pressure control (diastolic blood pressure < or = 90 mmHg or > or = 10 mmHg below baseline for > or = 4 weeks at the same dose). Therapy was continued for a minimum of 4 weeks to a maximum of 12 weeks, with patients examined every 2 weeks. The frequencies of adverse effects and laboratory abnormalities were analyzed in all treated patients. All 10,289 patients enrolled were considered in the analysis of safety. One or more adverse effects were reported for 1593 (15.5%) patients, and 802 (7.8%) withdrew from the study because of adverse effects. The most frequent adverse effects were cough (4.0%), dizziness (2.3%), headache (2.1%), asthenia (1.7%), and nausea (1.0%). The physicians' global assessment rated overall tolerability as very good or good for 77.1% of the patients. Antihypertensive effect was evaluated in 5886 patients who met the criteria for efficacy analysis. The criterion response was attained in 5141 (87.3%) patients, with 68.6% responding to 10 mg/day of lisinopril, 26.3% to 20 mg/day, and 3.2% to 40 mg/day (the other 1.9% responded at nonstandard doses). Lisinopril was safe and well-tolerated. Except for cough, class effects of ACE inhibitors were rarely encountered. The results of the efficacy analysis confirm the established efficacy of lisinopril in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension.

Randomised, double-blind crossover comparison of once-daily captopril and lisinopril in patients with mild to moderate hypertension--a community-based study. Hunter Hypertension Research Group

Of twenty-five patients with mild to moderate hypertension, recruited and managed in the community, seventeen responded fully to, and completed a randomised cross-over study of, captopril (ceiling dose 100 mg) compared with lisinopril (ceiling dose 40 mg) both given as a single daily dose. Mean supine and standing blood pressures measured at the end of the dose interval were significantly reduced compared to placebo by both compounds at three and six weeks. However, a consistent, significant increase in blood pressure occurred between three and six weeks in both arms of the study despite good and unchanged compliance with a fixed dose of each medication. Both captopril and lisinopril were well tolerated. Drug-related cough was the principal adverse effect.

[The combination of ACE inhibitor and thiazide may cause severe hyponatremia]

A case of a woman aged 79 years presenting severe hyponatraemia is described. The patient was not dehydrated and the urine was hypertonic. There was no history of renal, hepatic or cardiac disorders. Some weeks previously she had been treated with lisinopril and bendroflumethiazide on account of arterial hypertension. After withdrawal of the drugs and intensive therapy the patient recovered rapidly. The combination of an ACE-inhibitor and a thiazide drug may lead to serious disturbances in body fluid compartments and serum electrolytes. The need for frequent control of serum electrolytes is emphasized.

Drug-induced, life-threatening angioedema revisited

Few drug reactions are more life threatening than the sudden development of edema involving the mucosal and submucosal layers of the upper aerodigestive tract. Drug-induced angioedema is a recognized entity of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, and despite reports in medical journals and drug insert warnings, captopril and enalapril continue to be widely prescribed. As these drugs are efficacious and usually well-tolerated in the treatment of mild forms of hypertension, their popularity is rising. From June 1, 1984 to August 1, 1991, 36 patients with angioedema secondary to ACE inhibitors presented at the Medical College of Virginia Hospitals. Thirty were successfully managed with medical therapy. Two were intubated, 1 had placement of a nasal trumpet, and 3 required tracheostomies. Of extreme importance is the recognition that angioedema resulting from ACE inhibitors is probably not immunoglobulin E (IgE) mediated and that antihistaminics and steroids may not alleviate the airway obstruction. The otolaryngologist must be prepared for the need of possible early surgical intervention.

[Treatment with lisinopril or nifedipine in essential hypertension. A Norwegian multicenter study of the effect, tolerance and quality of life of 828 patients]

In a randomized, parallel, double-blind study, lisinopril (n = 412) reduced systolic and diastolic blood pressure more than nifedipine did (n = 416) after ten weeks treatment in patients (40-70 years) with mild to moderate essential hypertension. Lisinopril was tolerated better than nifedipine, with fewer withdrawals. Adverse experiences reported after a general question on discomfort were significantly lower for lisinopril than for nifedipine. Questions referring specifically to symptoms revealed higher frequency of coughing with lisinopril, while flushing, edema, palpitations, dizziness, tiredness and rash were reported more frequently with nifedipine. Quality of life was similarly assessed by both patients and spouses. No significant differences in well-being during treatment were found for either drug, except in the case of the highest dose level of nifedipine, which caused a deterioration of well-being.

[Cough during treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors is gender related]

In a Norwegian, double-blind, double-dummy multicenter study, 828 patients with mild to moderate hypertension were randomized to treatment by either lisinopril or nifedipine. One of the aims of the study was to specifically investigate the frequency of side effects. Spontaneously reported coughing reached 8.5% for lisinopril, as against 3.1% for nifedipine. In two patients coughing led to withdrawal from the study, and in another three it contributed partially to discontinuation of the treatment. A significant sex difference was found for spontaneously reported coughing among patients on lisinopril; 12.6% of the women and 4.4% of the men. A similar difference between the sexes was found for specific questioning about coughing. Use of a visual analogue scale by both patient and spouse revealed similar frequency of coughing as when reported spontaneously. The reason for sex being an important determinant for lisinopril-induced coughing remains obscure.

Lisinopril-induced "scalded mouth syndrome"

OBJECTIVE

To report a case of "scalded mouth syndrome" (SMS) caused by lisinopril.

PATIENT

A woman being treated with lisinopril for hypertension developed a burning sensation of her lips and buccal mucosa. The condition persisted with continued use of lisinopril and subsided when the medication was discontinued.

CONCLUSIONS

The symptoms described by our patient were similar to those reported in previous cases of SMS associated with the use of enalapril and captopril, two other angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. This reaction to ACE inhibitors appears to be dose related, and subsides with a decreased dosage or discontinuation of the medication.

Long-acting angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition: once-daily lisinopril versus twice-daily captopril in mild-to-moderate heart failure

Once-daily lisinopril (5-20 mg) was compared with twice-daily captopril (12.5-50 mg) in a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibition conducted in 31 centers for 12 weeks in patients with heart failure (New York Heart Association class II-III) who were currently receiving digitalis and/or diuretics. The drugs were compared with regard to their effects on exercise duration, measured with bicycle ergometry, and on ectopic activity, measured using Holter monitoring. Both drugs significantly increased exercise duration after both 6 and 12 weeks of randomized treatment. Neither ACE inhibitor had any significant impact on the hourly rate of either ventricular ectopic counts or couplets, nor was there any difference between treatments with regard to the proportions of patients in whom ventricular ectopic counts were reduced. Both drugs were well tolerated, with no differences observed between treatments. Potassium, urea, and creatinine levels remained stable for both treatments throughout the study.

Comparison of treatment with lisinopril versus enalapril for congestive heart failure

The effect of lisinopril 5-20 mg once daily or enalapril 5-20 mg once daily on exercise capacity, ventricular ectopic activity, and signs and symptoms of heart failure have been studied in 278 patients with mild-to-moderate (New York Heart Association [NYHA] classes II and III) heart failure in a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study of 12 weeks' duration. Exercise duration was significantly increased by both angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors after 6 and 12 weeks of treatment compared with their respective baseline values. There was a trend toward a greater increase in exercise duration on lisinopril after 12 weeks, although this did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.0748). There were no significant treatment differences with respect to the effect of the 2 drugs on ventricular ectopic counts, couplets, or nonsustained ventricular tachycardia. Both drugs were equally effective in improving NYHA grading and symptoms. Neither treatment had any significant effect on mean heart rate or mean blood pressures. Both treatments were equally well tolerated. The most commonly reported adverse events on both drugs were cough, dizziness, fall in blood pressure, vertigo, and myocardial infarction. The results of this study indicate that lisinopril 5-20 mg once daily is at least as effective and well tolerated as enalapril 5-20 mg once daily.

Safety of long-term use of lisinopril for congestive heart failure

Early clinical experience with lisinopril suggested that it was well tolerated in congestive heart failure (CHF). An analysis of data from greater than 1,000 patients treated with lisinopril has been performed to examine the long-term safety of lisinopril in CHF. Of these, 620 have been studied for up to nearly 4 years, and a further 440 have been studied in comparative trials for 3 months. When patients who received lisinopril or placebo for the same period were compared, the proportion of lisinopril patients reporting an adverse event was 44.1% compared with 39.4% on placebo. Over a 4-year period, 205 patients (33.1%) discontinued treatment. About 33% of these died, 33% withdrew due to clinical adverse events, 21 (3.4%) were withdrawn because of adverse laboratory findings, and 56 (9.0%) withdrew for reasons unrelated to treatment. Sixteen patients (2.6%) withdrew because lisinopril was deemed ineffective. The most frequently reported drug-related adverse laboratory findings were increases in blood urea nitrogen, blood urea, serum creatinine, and plasma potassium. There appeared to be no differences in the pattern of adverse events with respect to the race of the patient. Elderly patients and those with the most severe forms of heart failure appeared to be at greater risk for an adverse event. Evaluation of the safety of lisinopril compared with enalapril, captopril, and digoxin in controlled clinical trials shows all the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors to be equally well tolerated with a closely similar range of adverse events, suggesting that the satisfactory safety profile of lisinopril is shared by other drugs of this class.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Comparison of lisinopril versus digoxin for congestive heart failure during maintenance diuretic therapy. The Lisinopril-Digoxin Study Group

Lisinopril 5-20 mg once daily was compared with digoxin 0.125-0.375 mg once daily in a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study involving 217 patients with mild-to-moderate heart failure (New York Heart Association [NYHA] grades II-III) who were maintained on optimized diuretic therapy. After 6 weeks of treatment, digoxin and lisinopril had increased exercise duration by 18 seconds (p = 0.015) and 32 seconds (p = 0.0007), respectively, versus the baseline run-in period. The difference between treatments was not statistically significant (p = 0.1343). After 12 weeks, digoxin and lisinopril had increased exercise duration by 29 seconds and 51 seconds, respectively. The effect of digoxin compared with the baseline value was not significant but that for lisinopril was (p = 0.0027). The difference between treatments approached statistical significance (p = 0.0813). There was no difference between lisinopril and digoxin with regard to their effects on the frequency of ventricular ectopic counts, couplets, or nonsustained ventricular tachycardia. Blood pressures were not significantly different between treatments, although both systolic and diastolic blood pressure were consistently lower in the lisinopril group throughout randomized treatment. The proportions of patients demonstrating an improvement in NYHA grading were similar for both lisinopril and digoxin. Both treatments had similar effects on the symptoms of heart failure. Both drugs appeared to be equally well tolerated with a similar frequency of adverse events reported for both drugs (30% for lisinopril vs 29% for digoxin). Withdrawals from treatment were of a similar frequency for both treatments.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)