Seasonal dosage-dependent hypersensitivity to the angiotensin II receptor blocker, losartan. A case report and review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since it has been in clinical use for two decades, individual data permitting evaluation of the long-term treatment of hypertension with losartan, which blocks the dominant angiotensin-II receptor (AT 1 R), should now be available. In the present case, by dosage adjustment according to daily home blood pressure (BP) readings, a mild degree of hypertension discovered during routine examination was kept in the 130/80 (mm Hg) range over an 11 year period (2003-2013). In the early years, control was achieved with 12.5 – 25.0 mg/day and dosage adjustment was seldom needed on a seasonal basis. However, on increasing to 50 mg/day, a profound downward adjustment to 0 – 12.5 mg/day was required in hot weather. The adjustment may have prevented recurrence of drug-induced postural hypotension and renal colic. Whether the adjustment facilitated an increased nocturnal BP, as suggested by some ambulatory BP studies, was not examined. A working hypothesis, consistent with animal experiments, is that under conditions of heat-stress (e.g. vascular dilation, salt loss), there is increased expression of a countervailing, losartan-insensitive, receptor subtype (AT 2 R). By lowering BP in response to angiotensin-II, AT 2 R would facilitate fine-tuningof the AT 1 R-mediated vasoconstriction that supports BP when superficial veins dilate to enhance body cooling. This AT 2 R activity might be sufficient to explain a small summertime BP dip found in normal human subjects whose Ang II levels are not increased. The dip would be greatly enhanced when Ang II levels were increased at higher losartan dosages. Close monitoring of losartan dosage may be necessary for those living in, or travelling to, geographical regions where temperatures are seasonally or continually high, and for those engaging in activities that involve such exposure (e.g. hot yoga, Turkish baths).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".