Initial characteristics and follow-up of patients with a diagnosis of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor induced angioedema.

Background: A differential diagnosis between angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) angioedema (AE) and histaminergic AE (hAE) might be challenging. Follow-up data may help discriminate these conditions but are scarcely reported. Objective: To report on the follow-up of patients with suspected ACEi-AE and to describe the baseline characteristics of AE attacks in patients with a diagnosis of ACEi-AE after follow-up. Methods: Sixty-four patients with suspected ACEi-AE (i.e., with exposure to ACEi before the first attack, no urticaria associated, and normal C1-inhibitor levels) and at least one follow-up visit were included. Data were retrospectively collected at baseline and during the follow-up. Results: After the follow-up, the diagnosis of ACEi-AE was probable in only 30 patients. The remaining patients were reclassified as having probable hAE (21 patients) or undetermined-mechanism AE (13 patients). Patients with ACEi-AE were mostly men (61%), with a median age of 64 years (interquartile range [IQR] ±17 years), with a highly variable delay from ACEi introduction (median: 23 months; interquartile range: 103 months). Attacks preferentially involved lips (50%), tongue (47%), and throat (30%). Interestingly, patients with probable ACEi-AE after a follow-up also frequently presented with a history of allergy and atopic conditions (20%), attacks with preferential evening onset (25%), and spontaneous resolution in < 24 hours (26%), which are usually considered as suggestive of hAE. ACEi-AE attacks responded to icatibant in 79% of the patients. Conclusion: Patients with probable ACEi-AE were mostly men with facial involvement. A third of the patients with an initial suspected diagnosis of ACEi-AE had a final diagnosis of probable hAE. Although a follow-up of all patients should be a standard of care, it is critical to the correct diagnosis in the case of suspected bradykinin-associated AE, which may actually be due to histamine.

Hyperhomocysteinemia and MTHFR C677T polymorphism in patients with portal vein thrombosis complicating liver cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND: Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is serious complication of liver cirrhosis (LC), especially in the presence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The liver plays a key role in homocysteine (Hcy) metabolism: mild hyperhomocysteinemia (HHcy) has been described in LC. HHcy is a risk factor for deep vein thrombosis. Methylen-tetrahydrofolate-reductase (MTHFR) C677T polymorphism is the commonest determinant of mild HHcy and has been involved also in cancer development. AIM: To investigate a possible relation between HHcy, MTHFR status, HCC and PVT in patients affected by LC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 100 patients affected by LC, 38 with (PVT group, 24 with HCC) and 62 without PVT (LC group, 14 with HCC) sex-, age-, liver disease stage and etiology-matched were assessed for thrombophilia, smoking status, plasma Hcy, MTHFRC677T polymorphism and homocysteine-related vitamin status. RESULTS: A higher prevalence of HCC, HHcy and MTHFR TT status was observed in PVT group. No significant difference in vitamin status was observed between groups. Patients with HCC showed significantly higher plasma Hcy and higher prevalence of HHcy than patients without HCC. They had also higher prevalence of MTHFR TT status. In patients with TT status (n=11) and HCC, 10 had HHcy e 9 had PVT. CONCLUSIONS: Mild HHcy is associated to LC may have a role in PVT development and assessment of plasma Hcy may be suggested in patients with LC (especially if complicated by HCC). Association between HCC and MTHFR TT status is intriguing, due the postulated role for this polymorphism in cancer: it may represent a possible link between HCC and PVT.