4.0 Article

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, calcium channel blockers, and breast cancer

Journal

ARCHIVES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
Volume 160, Issue 3, Pages 349-353

Publisher

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archinte.160.3.349

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. FDA HHS [FD-U-001405-01] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The use of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors has been linked to a decreased risk of developing cancer, and longer-term use of calcium channel blockers (CCBs) has been associated with an increased risk of developing cancer in general and breast cancer in particular. Methods: Using data from the General Practice Research Database, we conducted a large case-control analysis. Previous exposure to ACE inhibitors, CCBs, and beta-blockers was compared between 3706 postmenopausal women who were diagnosed with incident breast cancer between 1992 and 1997 and 14 155 matched-control women. Results: Compared with nonusers of antihypertensive drugs, women who used ACE inhibitors (odds ratio [OR], 1.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.7-1.5), CCBs (OR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.7-1.2), or beta-blockers (OR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.8-1.2) for 5 or more years were not at an increased or decreased risk of developing breast cancer (adjusted for smoking and body mass index [calculated as weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in meters]). The risk of breast cancer did not differ between users of different ACE inhibitors or different CCBs (dihydropyridines, diltiazem hydrochloride, and verapamil hydrochloride) or between users of short-acting (ORI 1.0; 95% CI, 0.7-1.4) or sustained-release (OR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.8-1.3) nifedipine preparations. Conclusion: The findings of this large case-control analysis do not support the hypothesis that longer-term use of ACE inhibitors or CCBs affects the risk of developing breast cancer.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available