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

Adverse drug reaction monitoring with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors: A prospective, randomized, open-label, comparative study

OBJECTIVES

Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) are known to possess different chemical structures, and change in structure of a drug can bring about change in its adverse drug reaction (ADR) profile. The study aims to observe the incidence and severity of ADRs between the di-carboxyl group containing ACEIs (d-ACEIs) versus phosphonate group containing ACEIs (p-ACEIs), in patients suffering from essential hypertension.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred and twenty patients with essential hypertension were randomized into four groups receiving enalapril, lisinopril, ramipril, and fosinopril. They were followed up for four months, to observe the clinical efficacy along with the associated ADRs.

RESULTS

Mild, dry brassy cough (% incidence; 95% CI) was observed with d-ACEIs (6.6%; 0 to 15.6) versus p-ACEI (20%; 5.7 to 34.3), in which the cough observed was moderate-to-severe in intensity and two patients required treatment discontinuation (P < 0.05). No cases of hypotension were observed with the use of d-ACEIs, whereas, two patients on p-ACEI (6.6%; 0 to15.6) had hypotension (P < 0.05). Three patients (10%; 0 to 20.7) on d-ACEIs had nausea, which was not observed with p-ACEI treatment (0%) (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The phosphonate group in p-ACEIs may have a probable relationship with increase in the incidence and severity of ADRs such as dry brassy cough and hypotension. The di-carboxyl group in d-ACEIs may have a probable relationship with increase in the incidence of ADRs like nausea.

Lisinopril: a review of its use in congestive heart failure

The ACE inhibitor lisinopril is a lysine derivative of enalaprilat, the active metabolite of enalapril. In patients with heart failure, maximum pharmacodynamic effects are produced 6 to 8 hours after administration of the drug and persist for 12 to 24 hours. High doses (32.5 to 35mg, administered once daily) of lisinopril in the Assessment of Treatment with Lisinopril and Survival (ATLAS) study demonstrated clinically important advantages over low doses (2.5 to 5mg, administered once daily) of the drug in the treatment of congestive heart failure. High doses of lisinopril were more effective than low doses in reducing the risk of major clinical events in patients with heart failure treated for 39 to 58 months. Compared with recipients of low doses, those receiving high doses of lisinopril had an 8% lower risk of all-cause mortality (p = 0.128), a 12% lower risk of death or hospitalisation for any reason (p = 0.002) and 24% fewer hospitalisations for heart failure (p = 0.002). These benefits were associated with significant cost savings. In short term (generally 12 weeks' duration) randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, multicentre clinical trials, lisinopril was significantly more effective than placebo and was at least as effective as captopril, enalapril, digoxin and irbesartan at improving symptomatic end-points and clinical status in patients with heart failure. Lisinopril is generally well tolerated by patients with heart failure. In controlled clinical trials, the most common adverse events occurring in recipients of the drug were dizziness, headache, hypotension and diarrhoea. Overall adverse event profiles for patients treated with high or low doses of lisinopril in the ATLAS study were similar. However, high doses of lisinopril used in the ATLAS study were associated with a higher incidence of adverse events, importantly hypotension and worsening renal function; nevertheless, these events were generally well managed by altering the dose of lisinopril or concomitant medications. Furthermore, despite the higher incidence of some adverse events with high doses of lisinopril, the frequency of treatment discontinuations because of adverse events was the same in the high and low dose groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Lisinopril (when added to diuretics and/or digoxin) provides symptomatic benefits in patients with congestive heart failure. The ATLAS study demonstrated that high doses of lisinopril significantly reduced the risk of the combined end-point of morbidity and mortality compared with low doses of the drug. Importantly, there was no clinically significant decrease in the tolerability of the drug with use of a high dose. Lisinopril is at least as effective and as well tolerated as other members of the ACE inhibitor class for the treatment of congestive heart failure.

Predictors of decreased renal function in patients with heart failure during angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor therapy: results from the studies of left ventricular dysfunction (SOLVD)

BACKGROUND

Although angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor therapy reduces mortality rates in patients with congestive heart failure (CHF), it may also cause decreased renal function. Little information is available to predict which patients are at highest risk for this complication.

OBJECTIVE

To quantify specific clinical predictors of reduction in renal function in patients with CHF who are prescribed angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor therapy.

METHOD

We analyzed data from the Studies of Left Ventricular Dysfunction (SOLVD), a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of enalapril for the treatment of CHF. There were 3379 patients randomly assigned to enalapril with a median follow-up of 974 days and 3379 patients randomly assigned to placebo with a mean follow-up of 967 days. Decreased renal function was defined as a rise in serum creatinine >/=0.5 mg/dL (44 micromol/L) from baseline. We used time-to-event analysis to identify potential predictors of decrease in renal function including age, baseline ejection fraction, baseline creatinine, low systolic blood pressure (<100 mm Hg), history of hypertension, diabetes, and use of antiplatelet, diuretic, and beta-blocker therapy.

RESULTS

Patients randomly assigned to enalapril had a 33% greater likelihood of decreased renal function than controls (P =.003). By multivariate analysis, in both the placebo and enalapril groups older age, diuretic therapy, and diabetes were associated with decreased renal function, whereas beta-blocker therapy and higher ejection fraction were renoprotective. Older age was associated with a greater risk of developing decreased renal function in both groups, but significantly more so in the enalapril group (enalapril: risk ratio [RR] 1.42 per 10 years, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.32-1.52 with enalapril; placebo: RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.12-1.25). Diuretic therapy was likewise associated with a greater risk of decreased renal function in the enalapril group (RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.70-2.08) than in the placebo group (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.09-1.66). Conversely, enalapril had a relative renoprotective effect (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.13-1.53) compared with placebo (RR 1.96, 95% CI 1.57-2.44) in patients with diabetes. A lower risk of renal impairment was seen in both groups with beta-blocker therapy (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.57-0.85) and higher baseline ejection fraction (RR 0.93 per 5% increment, 95% CI 0.91-0. 96).

CONCLUSIONS

Enalapril use caused a 33% increase in the risk of decreased renal function in patients with CHF. Diuretic use and advanced age increased this risk. Diabetes was associated with an increased risk of renal impairment in all patients with CHF, but this risk was reduced in the enalapril group compared with the placebo group. beta-Blocker therapy and higher ejection fraction were renoprotective in all patients regardless of therapy.

Lisinopril. A review of its pharmacology and clinical efficacy in elderly patients

Lisinopril, the lysine analogue of enalaprilat, is a long-acting angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor which is administered once daily by mouth. The efficacy of lisinopril in reducing blood pressure is well established in younger populations, and many trials now show it to be effective in lowering blood pressure in elderly patients with hypertension. In comparative and non-comparative clinical trials, 68.2 to 89.1% of elderly patients responded (diastolic pressure < or = 90 mm Hg) to > or = 8 weeks' lisinopril treatment. Age-related differences in antihypertensive efficacy do not appear to be clinically significant, and dosages effective in elderly patients tend to range from 2.5 to 40 mg/day. Dosages usually need to be lower in patients with significant renal impairment. In congestive heart failure, lisinopril 2.5 to 20 mg/day increases exercise duration, improves left ventricular ejection fraction and has no significant effect on ventricular ectopic beats. It is similar in efficacy to enalapril and digoxin and similar or superior to captopril on most end-points. Data from the GISSI-3 post-myocardial infarction trial show that lisinopril reduced mortality and left ventricular dysfunction when given for 42 days starting within 24 hours of the onset of infarction symptoms. Results at 6 weeks and 6 months were similar in elderly and younger patients. Elderly patients, however, among other subgroups, exhibited a strong reduction in risk of low ejection fraction after treatment (-25.5%). Economic studies suggest that lisinopril is cost saving compared with other ACE inhibitors in some markets. When given according to the GISSI-3 protocol, lisinopril appears to be one of the less expensive of the successful ACE inhibitor regimens for acute myocardial infarction. In other trials, patients with diabetic nephropathy and hypertension improved or did not deteriorate during lisinopril treatment. Blood pressure was controlled and reductions or trends towards reductions in albuminuria were observed. These reductions were similar to those in diltiazem, nifedipine and verapamil recipients, and greater than those in patients receiving atenolol. Lisinopril appears to reduce mortality in diabetic patients after myocardial infarction and may also improve neuropathy associated with diabetes. Lisinopril is well tolerated and the profile of adverse events seen is typical of ACE inhibitors as a class. There is a tendency for more elderly than younger patients to discontinue treatment, but this trend is not clearly related to the incidence of adverse events in these age groups. Drug interactions occur with few other agents and are usually clinically significant only between lisinopril and either diuretics or lithium. Lisinopril is, thus, an effective treatment for elderly patients with hypertension, congestive heart failure and acute myocardial infarction and has shown promising benefits in patients with diabetic nephropathy.

ACE-inhibitor-induced cough, an adverse drug reaction unrecognised for several years: studies in prescription-event monitoring

OBJECTIVE. This study examines cough recorded in Prescription-Event Monitoring (PEM) of four ACE-inhibitors. Particular attention was paid to the study of enalapril because the drug was monitored before the causal relationship between cough and ACE-inhibitors had been widely accepted. RESULTS. Several factors which had obscured the causal relationship in the individual cases were found to be also an obstacle in PEM. For example, cough was a common and non-serious event and was under-reported in the PEM study of enalapril and the rate was not strikingly different from that recorded for other drugs. Cough induced by ACE-inhibitors has several characteristics which reduce the chance of a recognisable "signal'. The original questionnaires returned from doctors in the PEM study of enalapril have been reexamined. The observation that the rate of cough diminished after enalapril had been stopped rather than increased after starting, provided the best evidence of causality, because this was not affected by many biases such as the publicity that had occurred prior to doctors participating in PEM completed later reports.

Effects of lisinopril on cardiac contractility and ionic currents

1. The effects of lisinopril, an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, were studied on cardiac contractile force, action potential characteristics and membrane ionic currents. 2. In guinea-pig atria, lisinopril (0.001-1 microM) exerted a negative inotropic effect which was accompanied by a shortening of the time to peak tension and time for total contraction. However, it did not modify atrial rate or the characteristics of the ventricular action potentials recorded either in normally polarized or in depolarized papillary muscles. 3. In isolated guinea-pig ventricular myocytes, lisinopril had no effect on the inward L-type Ca2+ (ICa,L), the inward rectifier (IK1) or the delayed rectifier K+ currents (IK), but abolished the stimulation-dependent facilitation of the ICa,L. Furthermore, it did not alter a cloned human cardiac K+ current (hKv1.5) expressed in a mouse L cell line (Ltk-). 4. The absence of negative inotropic effects in patients with congestive heart failure can be explained by the potent arterial vasodilator action of lisinopril which reduced left ventricular afterload overriding the expected direct cardiodepressant effects of the drug.