Menu
Search BMJ Group Search BMJ Group Journals Jobs Education Decision support Quality improvement Community BMJ Group
From trainee to consultant, BMJ Group offers doctors around the world tailored information, special events, learning resources and recruitment services at every step along their career path.
... by doctors, for doctors, for patients About BMJ Group Customer Service Subscriptions & Sales Working for BMJ Group BMJ Media Centre BMJ Group Awards Advertising & Sponsorship Rights & Licensing Affinity & Society Publishing Online learning BMJ Learning High-quality CME / CPD for doctors and other healthcare professionals. BMJ Learning features hundreds of accredited, peer-reviewed learning modules in text, video, and audio formats. Find out more Courses and Qualifications BMJ Masterclasses BMJ Masterclasses, led by experts, help clinicians to use the latest evidence and recent guidelines in practice and meet their CPD/CME requirements. Find out more Exam Preparation 
The leading provider of online exam preparation, helping over 167,000 healthcare professionals to pass their exams. Find out more BMJ Learning BMJ Portfolio BMJ Masterclasses Clinical Leadership Programme Diabetes Qualifications and Courses onExamination Decision support and clinical reference BMJ Evidence Centre The BMJ Evidence Centre builds evidence into practice, to support improvements in the consistency and quality of health care.
Best Practice Clinical Evidence Evidence Updates Best Health Action Sets
Informatica Systems Informatica Systems delivers performance management systems and innovative software solutions to primary care. Learn more Audit + Contract + Health Checks FrontDesk BMJ Quality 
The latest news, research, events, opinion and guidance related to quality and safety in health care.
The 2013 event will take place in London from 16th- 19th April 2013. Find out more BMJ Quality BMJ Quality and Safety International Forum on Quality and Safety in Healthcare BMJ The flagship general medical journal, published since 1840, updated daily online, weekly in print and on the iPad.
BMJBMJ Journals BMJ Journals division publishes over 40 journals across a broad range of specialties.
BMJ JournalsstudentBMJ An international medical journal written for students by students.
Student BMJ JobsBMJ Careers BMJ Careers makes it easy for you to find the right job with the latest healthcare vacancies, upcoming careers fairs, advice on choosing the right specialty, pay and working conditions.
19-20 October 2012 at the Business Design Centre in Islington, London. Register here BMJ Careers Jobs and vacancies at BMJ Group BMJ Careers Fair Community 
Join the discussions on our community site doc2doc or our social pages
... by doctors, for doctors, for patientsWe are open for entries! doc2doc Follow BMJ Group on Twitter BMJ Group on Facebook BMJ Group Awards Subscribe My account
Update my details
Manage my emails
BMA Members Sign in Username: * Password: * Forgot your sign in details?BMA membersAthens or your organisation BMJ Helping doctors make better decisions Search bmj.com: Advanced search Home Research Education News Comment Multimedia Specialties Archive Search all BMJ research articles: From18401841184218431844184518461847184818491850185118521853185418551856185718581859186018611862186318641865186618671868186918701871187218731874187518761877187818791880188118821883188418851886188718881889189018911892189318941895189618971898189919001901190219031904190519061907190819091910191119121913191419151916191719181919192019211922192319241925192619271928192919301931193219331934193519361937193819391940194119421943194419451946194719481949195019511952195319541955195619571958195919601961196219631964196519661967196819691970197119721973197419751976197719781979198019811982198319841985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec To18401841184218431844184518461847184818491850185118521853185418551856185718581859186018611862186318641865186618671868186918701871187218731874187518761877187818791880188118821883188418851886188718881889189018911892189318941895189618971898189919001901190219031904190519061907190819091910191119121913191419151916191719181919192019211922192319241925192619271928192919301931193219331934193519361937193819391940194119421943194419451946194719481949195019511952195319541955195619571958195919601961196219631964196519661967196819691970197119721973197419751976197719781979198019811982198319841985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec Limit by AllResearchMethods and reporting Our online table of contents is updated at least twice each day. Read all articles published in the last 7 days. You can use bmj.com to help you with your continuing medical education. Find out about CME/CPD credits for BMJ articles Keep up to date with cardiology: Access the latest cardiovascular medicine resources from across BMJ Group.OPEN ACCESS: All research articles are freely available online, with no word limit. Find out more about the BMJ's open access policy. Submit your paper. Find out how study types differ in our How to read a paper section. Countdown to London 2012: BMJ Group's Olympics portal highlights latest Olympics and sports medicine-themed research, comment and learning Research Risk of pneumonia associated with use of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers: systematic review and meta-analysis BMJ 2012; 345 doi: 10.1136/bmj.e4260 (Published 11 July 2012) Cite this as: BMJ 2012;345:e4260 Pneumonia (respiratory medicine) Drugs: CNS (not psychiatric) Epidemiologic studies Stroke More topics Clinical trials (epidemiology) Drugs: cardiovascular system Internet Medicines regulation Urological surgery Urology Fewer topics Article Related content Read responses (1) Article metrics Daniel Caldeira, cardiologist resident, assistant of clinical pharmacology1, Joana Alarcão, scientific consultant, assistant of clinical pharmacology2, António Vaz-Carneiro, clinical professor of medicine, director of the Center for Evidence-Based Medicine23, João Costa, professor of clinical pharmacology, coordinator of the Portuguese Cochrane Centre1231Laboratory of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Lisbon2Center for Evidence-Based Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Lisbon, Avenue Professor Egas Moniz, 1649-028, Lisbon, Portugal3Cochrane Coordinating Center Portugal, Faculty of Medicine, University of LisbonCorrespondence to: J Costa jncosta{at}fm.ul.ptAccepted 10 May 2012AbstractObjective To systematically review longitudinal studies evaluating use of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and risk of pneumonia.Design Systematic review and meta-analysis.Data sources Medline through PubMed, Web of Science with conference proceedings (inception to June 2011), and US Food and Drug Administration website (June 2011). Systematic reviews and references of retrieved articles were also searched.Study selection Two reviewers independently selected randomised controlled trials and cohort and case-control studies evaluating the use of ACE inhibitors or ARBs and risk of pneumonia and retrieved characteristics of the studies and data estimates.Data synthesis The primary outcome was incidence of pneumonia and the secondary outcome was pneumonia related mortality. Subgroup analyses were carried according to baseline morbidities (stroke, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease) and patients’ characteristics (Asian and non-Asian). Pooled estimates of odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were derived by random effects meta-analysis. Adjusted frequentist indirect comparisons between ACE inhibitors and ARBs were estimated and combined with direct evidence whenever available. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 test.Results 37 eligible studies were included. ACE inhibitors were associated with a significantly reduced risk of pneumonia compared with control treatment (19 studies: odds ratio 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.55 to 0.80; I2=79%) and ARBs (combined direct and indirect odds ratio estimate 0.69, 0.56 to 0.85). In patients with stroke, the risk of pneumonia was also lower in those treated with ACE inhibitors compared with control treatment (odds ratio 0.46, 0.34 to 0.62) and ARBs (0.42, 0.22 to 0.80). ACE inhibitors were associated with a significantly reduced risk of pneumonia among Asian patients (0.43, 0.34 to 0.54) compared with non-Asian patients (0.82, 0.67 to 1.00; P<0.001). Compared with control treatments, both ACE inhibitors (seven studies: odds ratio 0.73, 0.58 to 0.92; I2=51%) and ARBs (one randomised controlled trial: 0.63, 0.40 to 1.00) were associated with a decrease in pneumonia related mortality, without differences between interventions.Conclusions The best evidence available points towards a putative protective role of ACE inhibitors but not ARBs in risk of pneumonia. Patient populations that may benefit most are those with previous stroke and Asian patients. ACE inhibitors were also associated with a decrease in pneumonia related mortality, but the data lacked strength. IntroductionPneumonia represents an important clinical condition because of its relatively high incidence (0.5% to 1.1% annually in the United Kingdom) and associated morbidity and mortality.1 2 Susceptibility is higher among elderly people (=65 years), those with alcohol dependency, smokers, and patients with heart failure, previous stroke, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and chronic lung disease.3 4 5 6 Pneumonia is a common reason for hospital admission and a risk factor for prolonged hospital stay, carrying a considerable financial burden on healthcare resources.7 8Usage of some drugs has been shown to modulate the risk of pneumonia. Acid suppressants can increase patients’ susceptibility to pneumonia, whereas statins may have a protective role.9 10 Angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are often used in patients with cardiovascular disease. ACE inhibitors are known to have adverse effects on the respiratory system, in particular an increased incidence of cough. Basic investigation has shown that bradykinin and substance P sensitise the sensory nerves of the airways and enhance the cough reflex,11 12 13 which may have a protective role on the tracheobronchial tree.14 15 These mechanisms also improve swallowing by avoiding the exposure of the respiratory tree to oropharynx secretions.11 14 16 Taken together, the pleiotropic effects of ACE inhibitors were suggested to reduce the incidence of pneumonia, but available clinical evidence lacks strength17 18 19 and published results have been contradictory.20 21 22We systematically reviewed and meta-analysed all studies (experimental and observational) evaluating the use of ACE inhibitors and incidence of pneumonia. Because the clinical characteristics and risk factors of populations using ARBs are similar to those of patients using ACE inhibitors, and therefore studies evaluating these interventions share identical potential clinical confounders, we also estimated the incidence of pneumonia in studies evaluating ARBs. Moreover, patients treated with ARBs are less likely to experience respiratory adverse events,23 24 and therefore ARBs may have a protective role.MethodsThe systematic review was carried out in accordance with the meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology and preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses statements.25 26Our primary outcome was the incidence of pneumonia. We considered cases of pneumonia, lower respiratory tract infections, and admissions to hospital due to lower respiratory tract infections. Data were extracted irrespective of whether they had been reported as predefined outcomes or as adverse effects. If studies reported data for death from pneumonia only, to avoid duplication we did not consider these cases for the primary outcome. The secondary outcome was pneumonia related mortality, defined as death directly related to this condition or in-hospital death or mortality within 30 days after onset of pneumonia.27 For both outcomes, we did not consider undefined data or data on upper respiratory tract infections.We considered randomised controlled parallel trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies with ACE inhibitors or ARBs as interventions and with predefined outcomes. Treatment arms could compare ACE inhibitors and ARBs with each other or with placebo or any other active drug. Cohort studies could be based on populations in the community or those in institutions or hospital and had to follow patients to determine pneumonia outcomes.In case-control studies, cases had to be defined as patients with new onset pneumonia identified through clinical examination, radiological methods, or database codes. Controls had to be matched to cases, but without new onset pneumonia. For pneumonia related mortality, we allowed case-control studies with both cases and controls having pneumonia.We allowed all participants, irrespective of baseline diseases and risk factors.Information sources and search methodWe identified potentially eligible studies through an electronic search of bibliographic databases from inception to June 2011 (Medline through PubMed and Web of Science with conference proceedings). See the supplementary file for details of the search strategy. No language restrictions were applied. We screened and cross checked identified systematic reviews and meta-analyses evaluating ACE inhibitors or ARBs, as well as reference lists of papers for potential additional studies. We also searched the Food and Drug Administration website (10 June 2011) for regulatory documents with unpublished data from clinical trials.Study selection and data collection processThe titles and abstracts of obtained records were screened. Doubts and disagreements were resolved by consensus. We assessed the selected studies in full text to determine appropriateness for inclusion. Two authors independently extracted data on study design, location, period of study, patients’ characteristics, drug use and how it was assessed, primary outcomes, data of required outcomes, and adjustments of estimates.When studies presented different estimates on primary outcomes according to the severity of pneumonia, we extracted for analysis only those reporting the most severe cases. For the primary outcome we considered drug withdrawals due to pneumonia only when no other estimates were available. When more than one risk estimate was available from several sources, we used only the most precise or adjusted measures of association from each report. Otherwise we used the crude odds ratio or derived it from the raw data.Two authors (DC and JA) independently analysed the quality of reporting by using a qualitative classification according to risk of bias (high, unclear, or low). For observational studies we used a six item classification based on the meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology,25 the quality assessment tool for systematic reviews of observational studies,28 and strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology.29 This system was adapted from a previously published systematic review30 31 and took into consideration the participants (if any justification was given for the cohort and the study reported appropriate inclusion and exclusion criteria), intervention (if drug use was adequately assessed and not based on self report), outcome (if pneumonia was assessed by clinical examination, radiological methods, or database codes and not based on self report), and outcome adjustments (for both age and at least one of the following: smoker or pulmonary disease, cardiovascular diseases or drug use or chronic kidney disease; other adjustments). For randomised controlled trials we adapted the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias to evaluate the quality of reporting: randomisation method, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and staff, blinding of outcome assessment, selective reporting (if pneumonia was a prespecified outcome), and description of withdrawals.32 From these tools we derived risk of bias graphs.Statistical analysisWe used RevMan 5.1.4 software for statistical analysis (Nordic Cochrane Centre, Cochrane Collaboration, 2011) and to derive forest plots showing the results of individual studies and pooled analysis.We carried out three analyses. Firstly, we compared ACE inhibitors and ARBs with each control group using random effects meta-analysis weighted by the inverse variance method to estimate pooled odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity was assessed with the I2 test, which measures the percentage of total variation between studies due to heterogeneity.33 We used the random effects model independently of the existence (I2=50%) of substantial heterogeneity between the results of trials, as we pooled the results of studies with different designs and patients’ characteristics. We chose the odds ratio as the measurement estimate for effect because relative estimates are more similar than absolute effects across studies with different designs, populations, and lengths of follow-up.34 Raw data were first converted to odds ratios through classic methods, or through Peto’s method if one arm had a zero count cell. When raw data or odds ratios were not available we took the hazard ratio or risk ratio for analysis. To explore differences in estimates for outcomes we presented the results stratified according to study design. For the purpose of the analysis we treated nested case-control studies as cohort studies. We carried out subgroup analyses for patients with previous stroke, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease because such patients are known to be particularly susceptible to pneumonia and all indications are clinically approved for treatment with ACE inhibitors and ARBs.5 6 35 36 In view of the suggestion that ACE inhibitors may be more efficient in reducing the risk of pneumonia in Asian patients we also calculated estimates for Asian and non-Asian populations.37 We evaluated differences between subgroups with the method described by Deeks et al, based on the inverse variance method.33In the second analysis we carried out adjusted indirect comparisons between the pooled estimate of ACE inhibitors (versus control) and ARBs (versus control) using the Bucher frequentist method, which compares different treatments adjusted to the results of their direct comparison with a common control.38 This method partially overcomes the problem of different prognostic characteristics between participants among studies, and it is believed to be valid assuming that the relative effect of interventions is consistent across different studies, as verified in our case.39 By default we used the random effects model because adjusted indirect comparisons that used the fixed effects model tend to underestimate the standard errors of pooled estimates.39Thirdly, we combined evidence generated by indirect comparisons with evidence from head to head studies comparing ACE inhibitors with ARBs using the random effects model for quantitative pooling,40 41 and we determined the discrepancy and heterogeneity between direct and indirect estimates.42We also calculated the number needed to treat (NNT) and 95% confidence intervals, taking into account the baseline risk (weighted proportion of event rate in control group) because of the differences in the predicted absolute benefit of treatment according to variation in baseline risk between groups.34 43 In our case, the weighted risk of pneumonia in the control groups was 4.6% (95% confidence interval 3.1% to 6.7%). Publication bias was assessed through visual inspection of the asymmetry in funnel plots.ResultsThe search of the electronic databases yielded 807 published studies. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria 29 studies were included for analysis (fig 1?). The results from eight additional studies were identified in the FDA regulatory documents. Overall, data were obtained from 37 studies.20 21 22 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 
View larger version:In a new windowDownload as PowerPoint SlideFig 1 Flow of studies through review. ACE=angiotensin converting enzyme; ARBs=angiotensin receptor blockersDescription of studiesThe 37 studies included 18 randomised controlled trials,20 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 11 cohort studies,62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 two nested case-control studies,21 74 and six case-control studies.22 75 76 77 78 79Among randomised controlled trials, eight were done worldwide,47 48 51 52 55 57 58 61 six in Europe,44 45 46 53 56 60 three in Asia,49 50 59, and one in Europe and the United States.54 Most of the randomised controlled trials were multicentre (n=16). Seven randomised controlled trials compared ACE inhibitors with controls,44 45 46 47 48 49 50 nine compared ARBs with controls,51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 and two compared ACE inhibitors with ARBs.60 61 Seven trials reported specific data for serious pneumonia, five for fatal pneumonia, and eight reported pneumonia without specifying the severity of disease. In only two trials was pneumonia a prespecified outcome.49 59Among observational studies, 10 were carried out in Asia, five in the United States, and four in Europe. Eleven studies were retrospective and eight were prospective. Seventeen evaluated ACE inhibitors, two ARBs, and two compared ACE inhibitors with ARBs.Tables 1 to 3? ? ? summarise the main characteristics of the included studies.View this table:View PopupView InlineTable 1 Main characteristics of randomised controlled trials included in reviewView this table:View PopupView InlineTable 2 Main characteristics of cohort studies included in reviewView this table:View PopupView InlineTable 3 Main characteristics of case-control studies included in reviewThe overall quality of the studies was considered to be good. All the randomised controlled trials, except one,51 met the criteria for random sequence generation and about half specifically reported adequate allocation concealment.46 48 50 54 55 57 58 61 Only two randomised controlled trials56 59 were considered to be at high risk of performance bias. Adequate blinding of outcome assessment45 46 47 48 50 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 61 and full description of study withdrawals44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 57 58 60 61 were reported in 78% and 89% of randomised controlled trials, respectively. The highest risk of bias was found for potential reporting bias because only two randomised controlled trials presented results for pneumonia as a prespecified outcome.49 59 Supplementary figures 1 and 2 show the results of the quality appraisal of the randomised controlled trials.All observational studies were considered to have adequate inclusion and exclusion criteria and provided justification for the cohort. Five studies (26%)62 63 64 66 69 did not clearly stated how the drug use was assessed, and four studies (21%)63 64 66 73 did not provide details about outcome assessment. Eleven studies (58%)21 22 68 70 71 72 74 75 77 79 provided results after adjustment for at least one potential variable confounder. In one study76 it was unclear for which variables the results were adjusted. Few studies (26%) reported results adjusted for multiple confounders, and in seven studies (37%) no type of adjustment was mentioned. Supplementary figures 3 and 4 show the results for the quality of the observational studies.Primary outcome: incidence of pneumonia Primary outcome data were available from 19 studies comparing ACE inhibitors with controls (five randomised controlled trials, eight cohort or nested case-control studies, and six case-control studies), 11 studies comparing ARBs with controls (nine randomised controlled trials and two cohort or nested case-control studies), and two studies comparing ACE inhibitors with ARBs (one randomised controlled trial and one cohort study).Use of ACE inhibitors was associated with a significant 34% reduction in risk of pneumonia compared with controls (odds ratio 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.55 to 0.80; I2=79%). The NNT for 2.0 years was 65 (48 to 112). The magnitude of the risk reduction was similar across all study designs (P=0.78 for subgroup differences). The odds ratios for randomised controlled trials, cohort or nested case-control studies, and case-control studies were 0.69 (0.56 to 0.85; I2=0%), 0.58 (0.38 to 0.88; I2=79%), and 0.67 (0.49 to 0.93; I2=73%), respectively (fig 2?).
View larger version:In a new windowDownload as PowerPoint SlideFig 2 Risk of pneumonia with use of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors compared with control treatmentThe risk of pneumonia was not, however, different between patients who did or did not use ARBs (0.95, 0.87 to 1.04; I2=14%). Odds ratio estimates for randomised controlled trials (0.90, 0.79 to 1.01; I2=7%) and cohort or nested case-control studies (1.01, 0.94 to 1.09; I2=0%) did not differ significantly (P=0.10; fig 3?). 
View larger version:In a new windowDownload as PowerPoint SlideFig 3 Risk of pneumonia with use of angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) compared with control treatmentPooled results from the two head to head studies showed a non-significant 37% reduction in risk of pneumonia associated with use of ACE inhibitors (0.63, 0.28 to 1.44; I2=78%). In this case, estimates from the randomised controlled trial and cohort study differed significantly (P=0.03) (see supplementary figure 5).Indirect comparison of ACE inhibitors with ARBs showed a significant 30% reduction in risk of pneumonia associated with use of ACE inhibitors (0.70, 0.56 to 0.86). Similar results were obtained from pooled direct and indirect estimates (0.69, 0.56 to 0.85) without discrepancy (P=0.82) or heterogeneity (I2=0%) between both estimates (fig 4?). The NNT for 2.2 years based on this estimate was 72 (51 to 147).
View larger version:In a new windowDownload as PowerPoint SlideFig 4 Summary of meta-analysis estimates and subgroup analyses. ACE=angiotensin converting enzyme; ARBs=angiotensin receptor blockersSubgroup analyses for primary outcomePatients with previous strokeIn patients with previous stroke, use of ACE inhibitors was associated with a 54% reduction in risk of pneumonia compared with controls (0.46, 0.34 to 0.62, I2=0%; seven studies pooled) (see supplementary figure 6). In the same population, however, use of ARBs was not associated with a significant reduction in risk (0.86, 0.67 to 1.09; I2=0%; two studies pooled) (see supplementary figure 7).The pooled estimate from indirect (odds ratio 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.16 to 1.79) and direct (0.38, 0.17 to 0.81) evidence of ACE inhibitors compared with ARBs showed a significant 58% reduction in risk of pneumonia (0.42, 0.22 to 0.80; fig 4), without discrepancy (P=0.44) or heterogeneity (I2=0%) between indirect and direct estimates.Patients with heart failureIn patients with heart failure, two studies evaluated the risk of pneumonia in those treated with ACE inhibitors44 45 and two other studies reported data for those treated with ARBs.51 52 ACE inhibitors were associated with a significant 37% reduction in risk of pneumonia (0.63, 0.47 to 0.84; I2=0%), whereas ARBs showed no significant effect (0.85, 0.49 to 1.47; I2=15%) (see supplementary figure 8).Patients with chronic kidney diseaseIn patients with chronic kidney disease, the results from one randomised controlled trial of ACE inhibitors46 (odds ratio 0.15, 95% confidence interval 0.00 to 7.70) and two randomised controlled trials of ARBs52 53 (1.21, 0.32 to 4.52; I2=77%) did not differ significantly when compared with controls (see supplementary figure 9).Asian and non-Asian patientsEleven studies were carried out in Asian countries and 11 were done outside of Asia. The PROGRESS20 study was the only multicentre study carried out worldwide that supplied separate data for Asian and non-Asian patients. To lower analysis bias, the other studies carried out worldwide that did not provide separate data for both groups were excluded.The reduction in risk of pneumonia associated with ACE inhibitors was significantly higher among Asian patients (0.43, 0.34 to 0.54; I2=0%) compared with non-Asian patients (0.82, 0.67 to 1.00, I2=80%, P<0.001 for subgroup differences) (see supplementary figure 10). ARBs, however, were not associated with a reduction in risk of pneumonia in Asian patients (1.04, 0.59 to 1.84; one randomised controlled trial HIJ-CREATE59) or non-Asian patients (0.97, 0.84 to 1.12; I2=27%; five studies pooled; fig 4 and supplementary figure 11).Secondary outcome: pneumonia related mortalityData for secondary outcomes were extracted from seven studies comparing ACE inhibitors with controls (three randomised controlled trials and four cohort studies),20 49 50 68 70 71 72 one randomised controlled trial comparing ARBs with control,55 and one head to head randomised controlled trial.60 Five studies comparing ACE inhibitors with controls were carried out on an enriched population—that is, enrolled patients with pneumonia.49 68 70 71 72Treatment with ACE inhibitors was associated with a significant 27% reduction in risk of pneumonia related mortality compared with controls (0.73, 0.58 to 0.92; I2=51%), without significant differences between estimates from randomised controlled trials and observational studies (P=0.76). The pooled result from randomised controlled trials, however, failed to reach statistical significance (0.61, 0.20 to 1.90; I2=61%) (fig 5?).
View larger version:In a new windowDownload as PowerPoint SlideFig 5 Pneumonia related mortality in studies comparing angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) with control treatmentOnly one randomised controlled trial55 reported the effect of treatment with ARBs on pneumonia related mortality (odds ratio 0.63, 95% confidence interval 0.40 to 1.00) (fig 5).The risk of pneumonia related mortality in indirect (1.16, 0.69 to 1.94), direct (HEAVEN randomised controlled trial60 7.29, 0.14 to 367.24), and pooled comparisons (1.19, 0.71 to 1.98) did not differ between ACE inhibitors and ARBs (fig 4). There was no discrepancy (P=0.36) or heterogeneity (I2=0%) between indirect and direct estimates.Publication biasVisual inspection of funnel plots did not reveal any obvious asymmetrical tail (see supplementary figure 12). Publication bias was not suggested by sensitivity analysis taking into account published and unpublished trials (see supplementary figure 13).DiscussionIn this systematic review we found that treatment with angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors was associated with a significant reduction in risk of pneumonia compared with control treatment and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs); the magnitude of this reduction (about one third) was similar across studies with different designs (randomised controlled trials, cohort, and case-control studies). The risk of pneumonia was also reduced in patients treated with ACE inhibitors who were at higher risk of pneumonia, in particular those with stroke and heart failure. Most of the potential protective benefit from ACE inhibitors seemed to be in Asian patients; it is unclear whether the methodology of the studies or the clinical and genetic characteristics of the patients were responsible for this finding. Use of ACE inhibitors was also associated with a reduction in pneumonia related mortality, although the results were less robust than for overall risk of pneumonia; it is uncertain if differences exist between ACE inhibitors and ARBs for this outcome.The present review was designed to determine the effect of treatment with ACE inhibitors and ARBs on risk of pneumonia. We combined data from both experimental and observational studies to obtain more robust results, mainly because no randomised controlled trial was primarily designed with this objective. Pneumonia is not a rare outcome (particularly in populations treated with ACE inhibitors or ARBs) or an outcome that only occurs months to years after use of ACE inhibitors or ARBs. Therefore randomised controlled trials would have been an appropriate study design to deal with this problem. We found significant statistical heterogeneity for ACE inhibitors but not for ARB results. This was due to the results of observational studies (no heterogeneity was found among randomised controlled trials). Nevertheless, the observed statistical heterogeneity was more quantitative than qualitative because all estimates for study designs share the same direction. This consistency, as well as the robustness of reduction in the risk of pneumonia across all study designs, suggests that use of ACE inhibitors deserves attention. Furthermore, that ACE inhibitors reduced the risk of pneumonia compared not only with the control group but also with ARB treatment, is reassuring because patients’ characteristics and risk factors, as well as other potential clinical and methodological confounders are probably similar between studies on ARBs and those on ACE inhibitors. We were also conservative in our analysis because we did not consider undefined data or data on upper respiratory tract infections, and when studies presented different estimates according to the severity of pneumonia we extracted those reporting only the most severe cases and the most precise or adjusted measure.Our findings have potential clinical implications. ACE inhibitors are widely prescribed and prescriptions may be influenced by concerns about potential adverse effects, in particular cough, which may be protective. The incidence of ACE inhibitor induced cough has been reported to be in the range of 5% to 35%.80 Our results suggest that patients taking ACE inhibitors who develop cough should, providing that cough is tolerable, persist with treatment. Compliance and persistence with treatment is important. Furthermore, from an evidence based perspective, there is little to choose between ACE inhibitors and the more expensive ARBs. However, in the case of a particular patient, in whom ACE inhibitors and ARBs are presumed to have similar clinical benefit, our results may also influence the choice of prescription in those at high risk of pneumonia. Therefore patients with risk factors for pneumonia and morbidities that require treatment with ACE inhibitors may have an additional reason to continue treatment. A further important aspect of our results was the reduction in risk of pneumonia across high risk patients, which provided consistency to the overall results. Patients with previous stroke have increased susceptibility to pneumonia owing to risk of aspiration associated with decreased protective reflexes of the respiratory system mediated by substance P and post-stroke dysphagia.14 81 About 20% of these patients will develop pneumonia,82 which is a predictor of poor functional outcome83 84 and a relevant cause of death.84 85 The putative protective effect of ACE inhibitors in this population was predictable given the importance of dysphagia and substance P in these patients. According to one study, ARBs do not increase the levels of substance P or improve asymptomatic dysphagia.86 This highlights the importance of using ACE inhibitors in patients with previous stroke who have comorbidities for which ACE inhibitors are recommended.Only a few studies evaluated other populations with increased risk, such as patients with heart failure or chronic kidney disease. For patients with heart failure, the decreased risk of pneumonia was also found in patients treated with ACE inhibitors. The suggested effect was significant but this evaluation lacked robust data. ARBs did not show any protective effect.The putative preventive effect of ACE inhibitors on pneumonia in Asian patients has been suggested.37 We explored this subgroup and compared the effect with non-Asian patients. Furthermore, we obtained a considerable weight of evidence from studies that evaluated Asian patients. ACE inhibitors significantly reduced the risk of pneumonia in both Asian and non-Asian patients, although the odds reduction was significantly higher in Asian patients (57% v 12%; P<0.001). ARBs did not reduce the risk of pneumonia in either population.Genetic differences in ACE polymorphisms between Asian and non-Asian patients have been suggested to explain the difference in protective effects. Polymorphisms I/I and I/D, which are more prevalent in Asian population, showed a protective trend in the post-hoc analysis in PROGRESS, whereas the D/D polymorphism was less protective.20 77 87 This last polymorphism is associated with acute respiratory distress syndrome, particularly in white populations.88 This potential loss of protective effect may be explained by increased levels of serum ACE inhibitors and catabolism of kinins in patients with the D/D polymorphism.89 However, genetic evidence is equivocal. One study did not find an association between any specific genotype and pneumonia.90 Other factors should be explored to explain these differences in ethnic groups or by geographical location to better define those who can benefit more.Our conclusions are weaker for pneumonia related mortality because fewer studies provided data for this outcome and significant heterogeneity existed for the results of ACE inhibitors. This uncertainty was reflected by the wider confidence intervals. Treatment with ACE inhibitors (three randomised controlled trials and four cohort studies) and ARBs (one randomised controlled trial) were both associated with a decreased risk of pneumonia related mortality. Explanations for such findings may rely on modulation of cardiovascular risk by ACE inhibitors and ARBs because deaths due to cardiovascular disease are not uncommon among patients with pneumonia.27 91 Decreased mortality may also be explained by the role of ACE inhibitors in pulmonary injury and production of cytokines, which may be related to severity of pneumonia.92 93 94 ACE inhibitors may influence the pattern for release of cytokines exerting anti-inflammatory effects that could reduce the severity of and mortality from pneumonia.95The influence of ACE inhibitors on survival in these patients should be interpreted carefully because observational studies with enriched populations accounted for most of the weight of the pooled analysis, whereas meta-analysis of three randomised controlled trials (one with an enriched population) did not show differences between ACE inhibitors and controls. However, there was no significant difference in effects between overall randomised controlled trials and observational studies. Although the data were not robust, they did suggest that the effects of treatment with ACE inhibitors on mortality were mostly noticeable in patients with pneumonia.Limitations of the reviewThe results and conclusion of this review are weakened by limitations inherent to meta-analysis and individual studies. The overall quality of included studies was good. However, reporting quality for a few studies, particularly observational ones, was low as some of these were abstracted from character limited sections such as letters or comments.The higher risk of bias was found for potential selective reporting in randomised controlled trials and presentation of unadjusted risk estimates in observational studies. Both limit the strength of our conclusions. A key limitation is that not one randomised controlled trial was primarily designed to assess the effects of ACE inhibitors or ARBs on pneumonia. Although we searched a large number of studies, only a few reported this outcome. Among these, only two randomised controlled trials (<25%) had pneumonia or pneumonia related mortality as a predefined outcome.49 59 As a consequence we were able to extract data only from studies where authors considered pneumonia to be an important outcome, because of either scientific interest or statistical significance.Observational studies had an important weight in the results for the primary outcome and this should be taken into account when interpreting the clinical implications of our findings. Use of cardiovascular drugs in observational studies could bias results, because patients using drugs could be more concerned for their health and more willing to follow medical advice than controls, the so-called healthy user effect bias.96 However, patients with pneumonia are likely to have a higher risk of cardiovascular disease91 97 and are more likely to be treated with ACE inhibitors, counterbalancing the bias from a healthy user effect. Additionally, the magnitude of the odds risk reduction was similar for randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies.Pooling data from studies with different designs (confounding bias in observational studies) that evaluated patients in different settings (community based and hospital based studies; referral bias), as well as with different baseline morbidities and heterogeneous risk (membership bias) for pneumonia, should also be taken into account as limitations to our conclusions. The degree of statistical heterogeneity was in fact high in some comparisons. Nevertheless, the pooled estimates from experimental and observational studies were similar. In this case, pooling experimental and observational data increased the power and external validity of the findings.Included studies compared different ACE inhibitors and ARBs with different controls, such as placebo, calcium channel blockers, and ß blockers. In the present analysis we did not carry out serial subgroup analysis to explore if the effect was different for a particular drug because of the scarcity of the data and the risk of obtaining a result by chance.Finally, we used adjusted indirect comparisons to estimate the effect of ACE inhibitors compared with ARBs. Although combined indirect and direct evidence showed no discrepancies or heterogeneity, the results should not be thought as definitive conclusions because of the possibility of imbalanced data from studies with different designs, baseline risk of patients, and length of follow-up.ConclusionsOur results suggest an important role of ACE inhibitors, but not ARBs, in reducing the risk of pneumonia. These data may discourage the withdrawal of ACE inhibitors in some patients with tolerable adverse events (namely, cough) who are at particularly high risk of pneumonia. Specific designed randomised controlled trials are required to establish definite conclusions and to estimate better the true magnitude of this putative protective effect. Patients with previous stroke and Asian patients are patient populations that could benefit more from treatment with ACE inhibitors. ACE inhibitors also lowered the risk of pneumonia related mortality, mainly in patients with established disease, but the robustness of the evidence was weaker.What is already known on this topicAngiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with cardiovascular diseaseThese drugs also have secondary effects on the respiratory system, suggested to protect against pneumoniaMost of the data on this issue are provided by heterogeneous observational studies with inconclusive resultsWhat this study addsIn pooled results from both interventional and observational studies, ACE inhibitors, but not angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), showed a statistical and putative clinically significant protective role against pneumonia This result may discourage the withdrawal of ACE inhibitors in patients with tolerable adverse events—namely, coughThis protective effect was higher among Asian patients and in those with previous stroke; patient populations that may benefit most from ACE inhibitors NotesCite this as: BMJ 2012;345:e4260FootnotesWe thank the Cochrane Coordinating Centre in Portugal.Contributors: DC and JA contributed to the concept and design, data acquisition, data analysis, and interpretation of the data; wrote the first draft of the manuscript; critically revised the manuscript; and gave final approval of the submitted manuscript. AVC contributed to the interpretation of data, critically revised the manuscript, and gave final approval of the submitted manuscript. JC contributed to the concept and design, data analysis, and interpretation of the data; wrote the first draft of the manuscript; critically revised the manuscript; and gave final approval of the submitted manuscript. JC is the guarantor.Funding: This was an academic project not funded by government or non-government grants.Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.Ethical approval: Not required.Data sharing: No additional data available.This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode.References?File TM. Community-acquired pneumonia. Lancet2003;362:1991-2001.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Lim WS, Baudouin SV, George RC, Hill AT, Jamieson C, Le Jeune I, et al. BTS guidelines for the management of community acquired pneumonia in adults: update 2009. Thorax2009;64(suppl 3):iii,1-55.OpenUrl?Samokhvalov AV, Irving HM, Rehm J. Alcohol consumption as a risk factor for pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Epidemiol Infect2010;138:1789-95.OpenUrlMedlineWeb of Science?Almirall J, Bolíbar I, Balanzó X, González CA. Risk factors for community-acquired pneumonia in adults: a population-based case-control study. Eur Respir J1999;13:349-55.OpenUrlFREE Full Text?Vinogradova Y, Hippisley-Cox J, Coupland C. Identification of new risk factors for pneumonia: population-based case-control study. Br J Gen Pract2009;59:e329-38.OpenUrlCrossRefMedline?Fung HB, Monteagudo-Chu MO. Community-acquired pneumonia in the elderly. Am J Geriatr Pharmacother2010;8:47-62.OpenUrlCrossRefMedline?Lee HC, Chang KC, Lan CF, Hong CT, Huang YC, Chang ML. Factors associated with prolonged hospital stay for acute stroke in Taiwan. Acta Neurol Taiwan2008;17:17-25.OpenUrlMedline?Metersky ML, Tate JP, Fine MJ, Petrillo MK, Meehan TP. Temporal trends in outcomes of older patients with pneumonia. Arch Intern Med2000;160:3385-91.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Eom CS, Jeon CY, Lim JW, Cho EG, Park SM, Lee KS. Use of acid-suppressive drugs and risk of pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. CMAJ2011;183:310-9.OpenUrlFREE Full Text?Tleyjeh IM, Kashour T, Hakim FA, Zimmerman VA, Erwin PJ, Sutton AJ, et al. Statins for the prevention and treatment of infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Intern Med2009;169:1658-67.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Morice AH, Lowry R, Brown MJ, Higenbottam T. Angiotensin-converting enzyme and the cough reflex. Lancet 198;2:1116-8.?Fox AJ, Lalloo UG, Belvisi MG, Bernareggi M, Chung KF, Barnes PJ. Bradykinin-evoked sensitization of airway sensory nerves: a mechanism for ACE-inhibitor cough. Nat Med1996;2:814-7.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Tomaki M, Ichinose M, Miura M, Hirayama Y, Kageyama N, Yamauchi H, et al. Angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor-induced cough and substance P. Thorax1996;51:199-201.OpenUrlFREE Full Text?Sekizawa K, Ujiie Y, Itabashi S, Sasaki H, Takishima T. Lack of cough reflex in aspiration pneumonia. Lancet1990;335:1228-9.OpenUrlMedlineWeb of Science?Pontoppidan H, Beecher HK. Progressive loss of protective reflexes in the airway with the advance of age. JAMA1960;174:2209-13.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Nakayama K, Sekizawa K, Sasaki H. ACE inhibitor and swallowing reflex. Chest1998;113:1425.OpenUrlFREE Full Text?El Solh AA, Saliba R. Pharmacologic prevention of aspiration pneumonia: a systematic review. Am J Geriatr Pharmacother2007;5:352-62.OpenUrlCrossRefMedline?Rafailidis PI, Matthaiou DK, Varbobitis I, Falagas ME. Use of ACE inhibitors and risk of community-acquired pneumonia: a review. Eur J Clin Pharmacol2008;64:565-73.OpenUrlCrossRefMedline?Siempos II, Vardakas KZ, Kopterides P, Falagas ME. Adjunctive therapies for community-acquired pneumonia: a systematic review. J Antimicrob Chemother2008;62:661-8.OpenUrlFREE Full Text?Ohkubo T, Chapman N, Neal B, Woodward M, Omae T, Chalmers J, et al. Effects of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor-based regimen on pneumonia risk. Am J Respir Crit Care Med2004;169:1041-5.OpenUrlFREE Full Text?Etminan M, Zhang B, Fitzgerald M, Brophy JM. Do angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers decrease the risk of hospitalization secondary to community-acquired pneumonia? A nested case-control study. Pharmacotherapy2006;26:479-82.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Van de Garde EM, Souverein PC, van den Bosch JM, Deneer V H, Leufkens HG. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor use and pneumonia risk in a general population. Eur Respir J2006;27:1217-22.OpenUrlFREE Full Text?Dickstein K, Kjekshus J; OPTIMAAL Steering Committee of the OPTIMAAL Study Group. Effects of losartan and captopril on mortality and morbidity in high-risk patients after acute myocardial infarction: the OPTIMAAL randomised trial. Optimal Trial in Myocardial Infarction with Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan. Lancet2002;360:752-60.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Pfeffer MA, McMurray JJ, Velazquez EJ, Rouleau JL, Køber L, Maggioni AP, et al. Valsartan, captopril, or both in myocardial infarction complicated by heart failure, left ventricular dysfunction, or both. N Engl J Med2003;349:1893-906.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA2000;283:2008-12.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ2009;339:b2700. OpenUrlFREE Full Text?Mortensen EM, Coley CM, Singer DE, Marrie TJ, Obrosky DS, Kapoor WN, et al. Causes of death for patients with community-acquired pneumonia: results from the Pneumonia Patient Outcomes Research Team cohort study. Arch Intern Med2002;162:1059-64.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Wong WC, Cheung CS, Hart GJ. Development of a quality assessment tool for systematic reviews of observational studies (QATSO) of HIV prevalence in men having sex with men and associated risk behaviours. Emerg Themes Epidemiol2008;5:23.OpenUrlCrossRefMedline?Von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Epidemiology2007;18:800-4.OpenUrlMedline?Carter P, Gray LJ, Troughton J, Khunti K, Davies MJ. Fruit and vegetable intake and incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ2010;341:c4229. OpenUrlFREE Full Text?Buitrago-Lopez A, Sanderson J, Johnson L, Warnakula S, Wood A, Di Angelantonio E, et al. Chocolate consumption and cardiometabolic disorders: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ2011;343:d4488. OpenUrlFREE Full Text?Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC. Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0. Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. ?Deeks JJ, Altman DG, Bradburn MJ. Statistical methods for examining heterogeneity and combining results from several studies in metaanalysis. In Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman DG, eds. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. 2nd ed. BMJ Publishing Group, 2001:313-35.?Deeks JJ. Issues in the selection of a summary statistic for meta-analysis of clinical trials with binary outcomes. Stat Med2002;21:1575-600.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Nakagawa T, Sekizawa K, Arai H, Kikuchi R, Manabe K, Sasaki H. High incidence of pneumonia in elderly patients with basal ganglia infarction. Arch Intern Med1997;157:321-4.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Nakagawa T, Sekizawa K, Nakajoh K, Tanji H, Arai H, Sasaki H. Silent cerebral infarction: a potential risk for pneumonia in the elderly. J Intern Med2000;247:255-9.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Teramoto S, Yamamoto H, Yamaguchi Y, Hanaoka Y, Ishii M, Hibi S, et al. ACE inhibitors prevent aspiration pneumonia in Asian, but not Caucasian, elderly patients with stroke. Eur Respir J2007;29:218-9OpenUrlFREE Full Text?Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, Walter SD. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol1997;50:683-91.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Song F, Altman DG, Glenny AM, Deeks JJ. Validity of indirect comparison for estimating efficacy of competing interventions: empirical evidence from published meta-analyses. BMJ2003;326:472.OpenUrlFREE Full Text?DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials1986;7:177-88.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Glenny AM, Altman DG, Song F, Sakarovitch C, Deeks JJ, D’Amico R, et al. Indirect comparisons of competing interventions. Health Technol Assess2005;9:1-134,iii-iv.OpenUrlMedline?Song F, Harvey I, Lilford R. Adjusted indirect comparison may be less biased than direct comparison for evaluating new pharmaceutical interventions. J Clin Epidemiol2008;61:455-63.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Smeeth L, Haines A, Ebrahim S. Numbers needed to treat derived from meta-analyses—sometimes informative, usually misleading. BMJ1999;318:1548-51.OpenUrlFREE Full Text?Widimský J, Kremer HJ, Jerie P, Uhlír O. Czech and Slovak spirapril intervention study (CASSIS). A randomized, placebo and active-controlled, double-blind multicentre trial in patients with congestive heart failure. Eur J Clin Pharmacol1995;49:95-102.OpenUrlMedlineWeb of Science?Køber L, Torp-Pedersen C, Carlsen JE, Bagger H, Eliasen P, Lyngborg K, et al. A clinical trial of the angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor trandolapril in patients with left ventricular dysfunction after myocardial infarction. Trandolapril Cardiac Evaluation (TRACE) Study Group. N Engl J Med1995;333:1670-6.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Randomised placebo-controlled trial of effect of ramipril on decline in glomerular filtration rate and risk of terminal renal failure in proteinuric, non-diabetic nephropathy. The GISEN Group (Gruppo Italiano di Studi Epidemiologici in Nefrologia). Lancet1997;349:1857-63.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Yusuf S, Sleight P, Pogue J, Bosch J, Davies R, Dagenais G. Effects of an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor, ramipril, on cardiovascular events in high-risk patients. The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation Study Investigators. N Engl J Med2000;342:145-53.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?PROGRESS Collaborative Group. Randomised trial of a perindopril-based blood-pressure-lowering regimen among 6,105 individuals with previous stroke or transient ischaemic attack. Lancet2001;358:1033-41.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Kanda A, Ebihara S, Yasuda H, Takashi O, Sasaki T, Sasaki H. A combinatorial therapy for pneumonia in elderly people. J Am Geriatr Soc2004;52:846-7.OpenUrlCrossRefMedline?Hou FF, Zhang X, Zhang GH, Xie D, Chen PY, Zhang WR, et al. Efficacy and safety of benazepril for advanced chronic renal insufficiency. N Engl J Med2006;354:131-40.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Weber M. Clinical safety and tolerability of losartan. Clin Ther1997;19:604-16.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Lewis EJ, Hunsicker LG, Clarke WR, Berl T, Pohl MA, Lewis JB, et al. Renoprotective effect of the angiotensin-receptor antagonist irbesartan in patients with nephropathy due to type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med2001;345:851-60.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Parving HH, Lehnert H, Bröchner-Mortensen J, Gomis R, Andersen S, Arner P, et al. The effect of irbesartan on the development of diabetic nephropathy in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med2001;345:870-8.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Dahlöf B, Devereux RB, Kjeldsen SE, Julius S, Beevers G, de Faire U, et al. Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension study (LIFE): a randomised trial against atenolol. Lancet2002;359:995-1003.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Pfeffer MA, Swedberg K, Granger CB, Held P, McMurray JJ, Michelson EL, et al. Effects of candesartan on mortality and morbidity in patients with chronic heart failure: the CHARM-Overall programme. Lancet2003;362:759-66.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Schrader J, Lüders S, Kulschewski A, Hammersen F, Plate K, Berger J, et al. Morbidity and mortality after stroke, eprosartan compared with nitrendipine for secondary prevention: principal results of a prospective randomized controlled study (MOSES). Stroke2005;36:1218-26.OpenUrlFREE Full Text?Telmisartan Randomised AssessmeNt Study in ACE iNtolerant subjects with cardiovascular Disease (TRANSCEND) Investigators: Yusuf S, Teo K, Anderson C, Pogue J, Dyal L, Copland I, et al. Effects of the angiotensin-receptor blocker telmisartan on cardiovascular events in high-risk patients intolerant to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet2008;372:1174-83.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Yusuf S, Diener HC, Sacco RL, Cotton D, Ounpuu S, Lawton WA, et al. Telmisartan to prevent recurrent stroke and cardiovascular events. N Engl J Med2008;359:1225-37.OpenUrlCrossRefMedline?Kasanuki H, Hagiwara N, Hosoda S, Sumiyoshi T, Honda T, Haze K, et al. Angiotensin II receptor blocker-based vs non-angiotensin II receptor blocker-based therapy in patients with angiographically documented coronary artery disease and hypertension: the Heart Institute of Japan Candesartan Randomized Trial for Evaluation in Coronary Artery Disease (HIJ-CREATE). Eur Heart J2009;30:1203-12.OpenUrlFREE Full Text?Willenheimer R, Helmers C, Pantev E, Rydberg E, Löfdahl P, Gordon A, et al. Safety and efficacy of valsartan versus enalapril in heart failure patients. Int J Cardiol2002;85:261-70.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?ONTARGET Investigators: Yusuf S, Teo KK, Pogue J, Dyal L, Copland I, Schumacher H, et al. Telmisartan, ramipril, or both in patients at high risk for vascular events. N Engl J Med2008;358:1547-59.OpenUrlCrossRefMedline?Sekizawa K, Matsui T, Nakagawa T, Nakayama K, Sasaki H. ACE inhibitors and pneumonia. Lancet1998;352:1069.OpenUrlMedlineWeb of Science?Teramoto S, Ouchi Y. ACE inhibitors and prevention of aspiration pneumonia in elderly hypertensives. Lancet1999;353:843.OpenUrlMedlineWeb of Science?Arai T, Yasuda Y, Takaya T, Toshima S, Kashiki Y, Yoshimi N, et al. ACE inhibitors and reduction of the risk of pneumonia in elderly people. Am J Hypertens2000;13:1050-1.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Arai T, Yasuda Y, Toshima S, Yoshimi N, Kashiki Y. ACE inhibitors and pneumonia in elderly people. Lancet1998;352:1937-8.OpenUrlMedlineWeb of Science?Arai T, Yasuda Y, Takaya T, Toshima S, Kashiki Y, Shibayama M, et al. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin-II receptor antagonists, and pneumonia in elderly hypertensive patients with stroke. Chest2001;119:660-1.OpenUrlFREE Full Text?Arai T, Sekizawa K, Ohrui T, Fujiwara H, Yoshimi N, Matsuoka H, et al. ACE inhibitors and protection against pneumonia in elderly patients with stroke. Neurology2005;64:573-4.OpenUrlFREE Full Text?Mortensen EM, Restrepo MI, Anzueto A, Pugh J. The impact of prior outpatient ACE inhibitor use on 30-day mortality for patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia. BMC Pulm Med2005;5:12.OpenUrlCrossRefMedline?Harada J, Sekizawa K. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and pneumonia in elderly patients with intracerebral hemorrhage. J Am Geriatr Soc2006;54:175-6.OpenUrlMedline?Mortensen EM, Pugh MJ, Copeland LA, Restrepo MI, Cornell JE, Anzueto A, et al. Impact of statins and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors on mortality of subjects hospitalised with pneumonia. Eur Respir J2008;31:611-7.OpenUrlFREE Full Text?Chalmers JD, Singanayagam A, Murray MP, Hill AT. Prior statin use is associated with improved outcomes in community-acquired pneumonia. Am J Med2008;121:1002-7.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Myles PR, Hubbard RB, Gibson JE, Pogson Z, Smith CJ, McKeever TM. The impact of statins, ACE inhibitors and gastric acid suppressants on pneumonia mortality in a UK general practice population cohort. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf2009;18:697-703.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Poster presentations from the World Congress of Cardiology Scientific Sessions 2010. Circulation2010;xx:e348.?Mukamal KJ, Ghimire S, Pandey R, O’Meara ES, Gautam S. Antihypertensive medications and risk of community-acquired pneumonia. J Hypertens2010;28:401-5.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Okaishi K, Morimoto S, Fukuo K, Niinobu T, Hata S, Onishi T, et al. Reduction of risk of pneumonia associated with use of angiotensin I converting enzyme inhibitors in elderly inpatients. Am J Hypertens1999;12:778-83.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?El Solh AA, Brewer T, Okada M, Bashir O, Gough M. Indicators of recurrent hospitalization for pneumonia in the elderly. J Am Geriatr Soc2004;52:2010-5.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Takahashi T, Morimoto S, Okaishi K, Kanda T, Nakahashi T, Okuro M, et al. Reduction of pneumonia risk by an angiotensin I-converting enzyme inhibitor in elderly Japanese inpatients according to insertion/deletion polymorphism of the angiotensin I-converting enzyme gene. Am J Hypertens2005;18:1353-9.OpenUrlCrossRefMedline?Van de Garde EM, Souverein PC, Hak E, Deneer VH, van den Bosch JM, Leufkens HG. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor use and protection against pneumonia in patients with diabetes. J Hypertens2007;25:235-9.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Marciniak C, Korutz AW, Lin E, Roth E, Welty L, Lovell L. Examination of selected clinical factors and medication use as risk factors for pneumonia during stroke rehabilitation: a case-control study. Am J Phys Med Rehabil2009;88:30-8.OpenUrlCrossRefMedline?Dicpinigaitis PV. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor-induced cough: ACCP evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest2006;129:169-73S.OpenUrlFREE Full Text?Walter U, Knoblich R, Steinhagen V, Donat M, Benecke R, Kloth A. Predictors of pneumonia in acute stroke patients admitted to a neurological intensive care unit. J Neurol2007;254:1323-9.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Roth EJ, Lovell L, Harvey RL, Heinemann AW, Semik P, Diaz S. Incidence of and risk factors for medical complications during stroke rehabilitation. Stroke2001;32:523-9.OpenUrlFREE Full Text?Vermeij FH, Scholte op Reimer WJ, de Man P, van Oostenbrugge RJ, Franke CL, de Jong G, et al. Stroke-associated infection is an independent risk factor for poor outcome after acute ischemic stroke: data from the Netherlands Stroke Survey. Cerebrovasc Dis2009;27:465-71.OpenUrlCrossRefMedline?Hilker R, Poetter C, Findeisen N, Sobesky J, Jacobs A, Neveling M, et al. Nosocomial pneumonia after acute stroke: implications for neurological intensive care medicine. Stroke2003;34:975-81.OpenUrlFREE Full Text?Katzan IL, Cebul RD, Husak SH, Dawson NV, Baker DW. The effect of pneumonia on mortality among patients hospitalized for acute stroke. Neurology2003;60:620-5.OpenUrlFREE Full Text?Arai T, Yasuda Y, Takaya T, Toshima S, Kashiki Y, Yoshimii N, et al. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor antagonists, and symptomless dysphagia. Chest2000;117:1819-20.OpenUrlFREE Full Text?Sagnella GA, Rothwell MJ, Onipinla AK, Wicks PD, Cook DG, Cappuccio FP. A population study of ethnic variations in the angiotensin-converting enzyme I/D polymorphism: relationships with gender, hypertension and impaired glucose metabolism. J Hypertens1999;17:657-64.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Hu Z, Jin X, Kang Y, Liu C, Zhou Y, Wu X, et al. Angiotensin-converting enzyme insertion/deletion polymorphism associated with acute respiratory distress syndrome among caucasians. J Int Med Res2010;38:415-22.OpenUrlMedline?Brown NJ, Blais C Jr, Gandhi SK, Adam A. ACE insertion/deletion genotype affects bradykinin metabolism. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol1998;32:373-7.OpenUrlCrossRefMedlineWeb of Science?Van de Garde EM, Endeman H, Deneer VH, Biesma DH, Sayed-Tabatabaei FA, Ruven HJ, et al. Angiotensin-converting enzyme insertion/deletion polymorphism and risk and outcome of pneumonia. Chest2008;133:220-5.OpenUrlFREE Full Text?Ramirez J, Aliberti S, Mirsaeidi M, Peyrani P, Filardo G, Amir A, et al. Acute myocardial infarction in hospitalized patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Clin Infect Dis2008;47:182-7.OpenUrlFREE Full Text?Kranzhöfer R, Schmidt J, Pfeiffer CA, Hagl S, Libby P, Kübler W. Angiotensin induces inflammatory activation of human vascular smooth muscle cells. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol1999;19:1623-9.OpenUrlFREE Full Text?Wösten-van Asperen RM, Lutter R, Haitsma JJ, Merkus MP, van Woensel JB, van der Loos CM, et al. ACE mediates ventilator-induced lung injury in rats via angiotensin II but not bradykinin. Eur Respir J2008;31:363-71.OpenUrlFREE Full Text?Antunes G, Evans SA, Lordan JL, Frew AJ. Systemic cytokine levels in community-acquired pneumonia and their association with disease severity. Eur Respir J2002;20:990-5.OpenUrlFREE Full Text?Gullestad L, Aukrust P, Ueland T, Espevik T, Yee G, Vagelos R, et al. Effect of high- versus low-dose angiotensin converting enzyme inhibition on cytokine levels in chronic heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol1999;34:2061-7.OpenUrlFREE Full Text?Majumdar SR, McAlister FA, Eurich DT, Padwal RS, Marrie TJ. Statins and outcomes in patients admitted to hospital with community acquired pneumonia: population based prospective cohort study. BMJ2006;333:999.OpenUrlFREE Full Text?Corrales-Medina VF, Suh KN, Rose G, Chirinos JA, Doucette S, Cameron DW, et al. Cardiac complications in patients with community-acquired pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. PLoS Med2011;8:e1001048.OpenUrlCrossRefMedline Open access PDFEasy ReadData supplementRespond to this article Tweet Services Email to friendDownload to citation managerAdd article to BMJ portfolioRequest permission Citations Find similar articles in PubMedArticles by Daniel CaldeiraArticles by Joana AlarcãoArticles by António Vaz-CarneiroArticles by João CostaCiting articles via Web of ScienceCiting articles via Scopus Social bookmarking 
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mendeley
Reddit
Twitter
Stumbleupon Latest jobsUK jobsInternational jobsUK jobs Greenbrook is a small, GP-led organisation in West London. We are looking for a GP (20 Jul 2012)Velindre NHS Trust Welsh Blood Service Medical Director Consultant Scale Full time (13 Jul 2012)EAMES JONES JUDGE HAWKINS EUROPEAN MEDICAL DIRECTOR ONCOLOGY (23 Jul 2012)University of Cambridge The Professorship of Nuclear Medicine (19 Jul 2012) show me all jobs >> International jobs DOCTORS - ENJOY THE GREAT LIFESTYLE in Australia and New Zealand. SHO/ Registrar/ Consultant and GP openings. (6 Jul 2012)JERUDONG PARK MEDICAL CENTRE MEDICAL SERVICES 1. GENERAL PRACTITIONER (2 Aug 2012)LEAD THE FUTURE OF HEALTHCARE JurongHealth is Singapore’s public healthcare cluster formed to facilitate the integration of services (2 Aug 2012)JURUDONG PARK MEDICAL CENTRE MEDICAL SERVICES 1. CONSULTANT OBSTETRICIAN AND GYNAECOLOGIST (2 Aug 2012) show me all jobs >> Rapid responses Latest ResponsesMost responsesLatest Responses Re: Will the revolution in genetics improve healthcare? Published 3 August 2012 Re: Proposed targets for new NHS commissioners receive lukewarm response Published 3 August 2012 Re: Should patients be able to control their own records? Published 3 August 2012 Re: Association between psychological distress and mortality: individual participant pooled analysis of 10 prospective cohort studies Published 3 August 2012 Re: Effectiveness of enhanced communication therapy in the first four months after stroke for aphasia and dysarthria: a randomised controlled trial Published 3 August 2012 more Most responses The truth about sports drinks (12 responses) Published 19 July 2012
In praise of young doctors (11 responses)Published 11 July 2012
Sanctity of life law has gone too far (6 responses)Published 12 July 2012
Should we screen for type 2 diabetes: Yes (4 responses)Published 9 July 2012
Does telemedicine deserve the green light? (4 responses)Published 10 July 2012
more THIS WEEK'S POLLRead related article
See previous polls
Recent blogs and podcastsBlogsBlogs Richard Smith: An open blog to Prime Minister David Cameron (3 Aug 2012)Olympic volunteer John Davies: Working with athletes (3 Aug 2012)Penny Campling: Thoughts on a healthcare culture—part 2 (3 Aug 2012)Desmond O’Neill: Bicycle helmets and the medical humanities (3 Aug 2012)John Davies: Treating casualties at the London 2012 aquatic centre (2 Aug 2012) more >> BMJ most popular Most sharedMost searchedMost shared The truth about sports drinks (768 views)Management of osteoarthritis of the knee (650 views)Treating prostate cancer (503 views)Association between psychological distress and mortality: individual participant pooled analysis of 10 prospective cohort studies (471 views)Necrotising fasciitis (407 views) Most searched Kathleen Hilditchguyattclinical governance and the drivehow to read a paper"surgical sieve" Follow BMJ Ontwitter.com/bmj_latestfacebook.com/bmjdotcomyoutube.com/user/BMJmedia Content Links Last 7 daysResearchEducationNewsCommentArchiveBlogsVideoPrint Issue My Account Email alertsActivate subscription Resources AuthorsReviewersBMA membersReadersSubscribersAdvertisers and sponsorsMedia Information Contact usFeedback BMJ About usEditorial staffAdvisersPoliciesComplaintsPartnershipsSubmit your paper Explore BMJ About BMJ GroupJunior Doctors: Agents for ChangeOlympics portalStudent BMJdoc2docPandemic FluBMJ Group BMJ Group Privacy policy Website T & Cs Revenue Sources Highwire Press Feedback Help © 2012 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd window.fbAsyncInit = function() {FB.init({appId: '154318714596620', status: true, cookie: true,xfbml: true});};(function() {var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true;e.src = document.location.protocol + '//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js';document.getElementById('fb-root').appendChild(e);}());View the original article here
This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق