LOSARTAN INDUCED ANGIO EDEMA: A RARE CASE REPORT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Angioedema is a rapid, localized swelling of subcutaneous or submucosal tissues, which can be life-threatening when involving the airway. It is most often associated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), while angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB)-induced angioedema is rare, with an incidence of approximately 0.1%. Losartan-related cases are uncommon, and onset can be delayed, occurring even after years of therapy. MethodsWe present the case of a 75-year-old male with a 15-year history of hypertension managed with losartan 50 mg daily and ecosprin 75/10 mg. :he patient was evaluated in the emergency department for acute-onset swelling of the tongue, neck, and face, along with throat itching. Clinical examination and laboratory investigations, including complete blood count and immuno-globulin E levels, were performed. Suspected offending drug was discontinued and replaced with an alternative anti-hypertensive. Supportive treatment was initiated. Results:Vital signs on presentation were stable. Laboratory parameters were within normal limits. Losartan was stopped and replaced with cilnidipine. The patient received intravenous hydrocortisone, chlorpheniramine, and betamethasone, along with supportive therapy. Significant improvement was observed within 24 hours, with complete resolution of symptoms over subsequent days. The patient was discharged in stable condition on oral antihistamines and an alternative antihypertensive regimen, with no recurrence noted during follow-up. Conclusion:Although uncommon, ARB-induced angioedema can occur unpredictably, even after prolonged use. Early recognition, immediate discontinuation of the offending agent, and supportive management are essential to prevent airway compromise. Clinician awareness and patient education regarding potential hypersensitivity reactions to ARBs remain crucial for early intervention and improved outcomes.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".