Douillard Marie, Deheb Zineb, Bozon Agathe, Raison-Peyron Nadia, Dereure Olivier, Moulis Lionel, Soria Angèle, Du-Thanh Aurélie
Department of Dermatology, St Eloi Hospital, 34000, Montpellier, France.
Médecine Sorbonne Université, Service de Dermatologie et Allergologie, Hôpital Tenon, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Paris, France.
World Allergy Organ J. 2023 Aug 19;16(8):100809. doi: 10.1016/j.waojou.2023.100809. eCollection 2023 Aug.
Bradykinin angioedemas are a potentially serious side effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and more controversially of angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB). Their challenging diagnosis is based on the absence of any recurrence after more than 6 months of drug discontinuation; otherwise mast-cell driven angioedemas as a differential diagnosis must be considered.
The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of recurrent angioedema in patients referred for ACEI/ARB-induced bradykinin angioedema, after more than 6 months of drug discontinuation.
We included ACEI/ARB-treated patients referred for angioedema(s) without hives and unresponsive to antihistamines, after they discontinued ACEI/ARB for at least 6 months. Any C1-inhibitor deficiency was excluded. The primary endpoint was the prevalence of patients with recurrent angioedema after more than 6 months of drug discontinuation and/or developing hives during follow-up. The secondary endpoint was the identification of epidemiological factors associated with any final diagnosis.
Thirty-eight of 93 patients (41%) with a suspicion of ACEI/ARB-induced bradykinin angioedema still had recurrent angioedema (n = 27) or developed hives (n = 2) or both (n = 9) after 6 months of drug discontinuation. Good response to icatibant and facial but not oral localization were predictive for the final diagnosis of ACEI/ARB-induced bradykinin angioedema and mast-cell driven angioedema, respectively.
In patients referred for acquired angioedema without wheals occurring during ACEI/ARB therapy, 59% finally had a diagnosis of ACEI/ARB-induced bradykinin angioedema whereas 41% were rather diagnosed with mast-cell driven angioedema. The overdiagnosis of ACEI/ARB-induced bradykinin angioedema may deteriorate the management of severe cardiovascular conditions.
缓激肽性血管性水肿是血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂(ACEI)潜在的严重副作用,而血管紧张素II受体阻滞剂(ARB)引发该副作用的争议较大。其诊断颇具挑战性,依据是停药超过6个月后未出现任何复发情况;否则必须考虑肥大细胞介导的血管性水肿作为鉴别诊断。
本研究旨在确定因ACEI/ARB诱导的缓激肽性血管性水肿而转诊的患者在停药超过6个月后复发性血管性水肿的患病率。
我们纳入了在停用ACEI/ARB至少6个月后因无荨麻疹且对抗组胺药无反应的血管性水肿而转诊的ACEI/ARB治疗患者。排除了任何C1抑制物缺乏的情况。主要终点是停药超过6个月后复发性血管性水肿和/或在随访期间出现荨麻疹的患者患病率。次要终点是确定与最终诊断相关的流行病学因素。
93例疑似ACEI/ARB诱导的缓激肽性血管性水肿患者中,38例(41%)在停药6个月后仍有复发性血管性水肿(n = 27)或出现荨麻疹(n = 2)或两者皆有(n = 9)。对依卡替班反应良好以及血管性水肿出现在面部而非口腔分别是ACEI/ARB诱导的缓激肽性血管性水肿和肥大细胞介导的血管性水肿最终诊断的预测因素。
在因ACEI/ARB治疗期间未出现风团的后天性血管性水肿而转诊的患者中,59%最终被诊断为ACEI/ARB诱导的缓激肽性血管性水肿,而41%更倾向于被诊断为肥大细胞介导的血管性水肿。ACEI/ARB诱导的缓激肽性血管性水肿的过度诊断可能会使严重心血管疾病的管理恶化。