Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background: A non-interventional study suggested that use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or aliskiren was associated with an angioedema risk three times that of beta-blockers (BBs).
Objective: The aim was to assess angioedema incidence rates (IRs) and the relative angioedema risk of aliskiren compared to other antihypertensive drugs (AHDs).
Methods: A cohort study in hypertensive patients with an AHD prescription between 2007 and 2012 was conducted using data from the US PharMetrics Plus™ claims database. Angioedema was identified using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9CM) code 995.1. Additionally, a nested case-control analysis was conducted to assess the relative angioedema risk of aliskiren or other AHDs versus BBs.
Results: A total of 3,090,114 patients were included (aliskiren n = 30,720). There were 15,744 angioedema events (IR 2.28/1000 person-years; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.24-2.32). Aliskiren IRs were: any aliskiren 2.58 (2.08-3.17), aliskiren monotherapy 1.71 (0.74-3.37), aliskiren fixed-dose combination (FDC) 1.27 (0.41-2.96), and aliskiren free-standing combination (FSC) 2.93 (2.31-3.66). The case-control analysis included 15,100 angioedema cases and 60,400 controls; the angioedema risk for both aliskiren monotherapy and FDC was not significantly different from BBs [adjusted odds ratio (adjOR) 0.99 (95% CI 0.45-2.20) and 1.06 (0.40-2.76)]; aliskiren FSC was associated with an increased angioedema risk [adjOR 3.29 (2.42-4.48)], mainly driven by concomitant ACEI use [adjOR 7.03 (4.10-12.05)].
Conclusions: The IR and risk of angioedema in patients with aliskiren monotherapy or FDC are comparable to BBs. The higher IR and risk of angioedema identified in the aliskiren FSC group may largely be driven by the concomitant use of ACEIs.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40256-017-0242-3 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!