Skip to content

Lisinopril Anhydrous

  • Prescription medicine
  • Prescription only
  • Identity checked
  • Sources last checked 2026-09-04

This page shows what was measured, who it was measured in, and what that does not settle.

What Lisinopril Anhydrous does in the body

Lisinopril sits in that enzyme and blocks the snip, so the squeezing hormone is not produced.

Your body makes a hormone that squeezes blood vessels tight, and it makes it by having an enzyme snip two pieces off an inactive precursor. The same enzyme normally destroys a second, vessel-relaxing molecule, so blocking it also leaves more of that around — which is why blood pressure falls from both directions, and why some people get a persistent dry cough.

Why people take it. Used for high blood pressure, heart failure and after a heart attack.

What happened in people

After a heart attack, adding lisinopril modestly reduced deaths during the first six weeks.

Reviewed first-read answer

Where this came from

A person wrote this and a reviewer approved it against this exact record. It carries no effect size.

A reviewer approved this against this record. The reviewed-claim record carrying the exact population and effect size does not exist yet.

No source is stored against this line.

The limit that matters most

The early benefit was small and must be weighed against low blood pressure and kidney problems.

Where it acts
Vascular endothelium, principally pulmonary capillary endothelium, plus renal proximal tubule
Kind of result
Living longer, or avoiding a major event
Supervision
Professional supervision is normally required. A regulator classifies this substance in a way that restricts how it is supplied.

What the registries record it as

  • The substance registry classes this as chemical.

    FDA substance registry · E7199S1YWR · read 2026-08-29

  • Its recorded molecular formula is C21H31N3O52H2O, weighing 441.53.

    US prescribing information · 3a3d4f6c-9f68-44e4-8cf8-32742e3b5021 · read 2026-08-30

Where each sentence above came from

A person wrote this explanation into the record, with the studies named in the path below.

A reviewer approved this sentence against this exact record and its sources.

The limit a reviewer approved as the one that matters most here.

The four opening statements run to 103 words.

Words this page uses

Four words worth knowing first

Chosen from what this page shows, with each one explained before the word it depends on.

Stand-in result

A stand-in result is a number measured because the real result takes too long.

A picture of it, and where the picture fails

It is like judging a journey by the speedometer rather than by arriving.

Where that stops being true. Speed does predict arrival. Many stand-in results do not predict the real one.

What people get wrong. A stand-in result is often reported as the result itself.

A surrogate endpoint substituted for a clinical endpoint, valid only where the substitution has been shown to hold.

Randomisation

Randomisation means chance decides who gets which treatment.

A picture of it, and where the picture fails

It is like a coin toss deciding the groups.

Where that stops being true. A coin toss is fair once. Fairness here comes from doing it for everyone.

What people get wrong. It is thought to make groups identical. It makes them similar on average, including on things nobody measured.

Allocation of participants to arms by a chance process, so that unmeasured factors are balanced in expectation.

Confidence interval

A confidence interval is the range the true answer is likely to sit in.

A picture of it, and where the picture fails

It is like a weather forecast giving a range rather than one number.

Where that stops being true. A forecast range covers tomorrow. This one covers what the study could resolve.

What people get wrong. The middle number is read as the answer. A range crossing zero means no change is still possible.

An interval estimate that would contain the true parameter in a stated proportion of repeated studies.

Pathway

A pathway is a chain of steps inside a cell, each one setting off the next.

A picture of it, and where the picture fails

A pathway is like a row of dominoes.

Where that stops being true. Dominoes fall one way. Pathways loop back and can switch themselves off.

What people get wrong. Changing one step is read as changing the outcome. Other steps often absorb it.

An ordered series of molecular interactions producing a defined cellular change.

What happened in peopleRead from sources, not yet reviewed

What was measured, goal by goal

One row for each goal a registered study measured something for. One column for each kind of thing that could be measured.

Registered studies list 40 outcome measures that RNAWiki could read. A registered study says what someone planned to measure. It does not say what they found. 0 of the matched studies tested this substance, and 0 posted a result.

There is no single score. A strong test result and a weak life result are different facts.

Goals down the side, kinds of measurement across the top. Each cell says what kind of thing was registered, not what was found.
GoalLife outcomeWhat a body can doHow a person feelsA test resultA step in the bodyHarmsHow longWho was studied
CholesterolNothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a life outcome for this goal.Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a performance measure for this goal.Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a symptom measure for this goal.Only a number moved3 registered test measure.Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a body-step measure for this goal.Not recordedHarms were not a registered measure for this goal.Not recordedNo finished study window is recorded.Waiting for a reviewerWho was studied is listed further down the page.
FocusNothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a life outcome for this goal.Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a performance measure for this goal.Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a symptom measure for this goal.Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a test result for this goal.Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a body-step measure for this goal.Not recordedHarms were not a registered measure for this goal.Not recordedNo finished study window is recorded.Waiting for a reviewerWho was studied is listed further down the page.
Blood sugarNothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a life outcome for this goal.Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a performance measure for this goal.Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a symptom measure for this goal.Only a number moved1 registered test measure.Nothing in the sources checkedNo registered study lists a body-step measure for this goal.Not recordedHarms were not a registered measure for this goal.Not recordedNo finished study window is recorded.Waiting for a reviewerWho was studied is listed further down the page.
Which registered measures put each goal on this table
Cholesterol
low density lipoprotein cholesterol; changes in ldl cholesterol levels; ldl cholesterol
Focus
cognitive assessment trail making test part b; cognitive assessment forward digit span test
Blood sugar
hba1c

Sorted by fixed word lists, version v1. A name the rules do not recognise stays unsorted rather than moving to the nearest column.

What each mark on this table means
Nothing in the sources checked
No registered study lists a life outcome for this goal.
Only a number moved
3 registered test measure.
Not recorded
Harms were not a registered measure for this goal.
Waiting for a reviewer
Who was studied is listed further down the page.

What happened in peopleRead from sources, not yet reviewed

What happened in people

Each card is one study: the exact question it asked, who was in it, and whether it showed what it set out to show.

All-cause mortality at 6 weeks, and the combined endpoint of mortality plus severe ventricular dysfunction

The study showed what it set out to show

Who was studied
GISSI-3
How many people
19394
Study design
Randomised open-control factorial trial, 6 weeks
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
Living longer, or avoiding a major event
What was found
Odds ratio 0.88 (95% CI 0.79-0.99) for mortality; 0.90 (0.84-0.98) for the combined endpoint
Repeated elsewhere
Replicated

What this does not prove. Meeting one endpoint in one population does not carry to other goals or other people.

The limits of this study, and where it came from

Main limit. The control arm was open, not placebo. Non-protocol ACE inhibitor use was permitted for specific clinical indications, which biases toward the null rather than away from it.

How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.

Form and route. Oral tablet, and an oral solution for children and for people who cannot swallow tablets

Interval reported. 95% CI 0

Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.

Combined fatal coronary heart disease or non-fatal myocardial infarction, lisinopril versus chlorthalidone

The study did not show it

Who was studied
ALLHAT lisinopril arm (NCT00000542)
How many people
24309
Study design
Randomised double-blind active-controlled trial, mean 4.9 years
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
What was found
RR 0.99 (95% CI 0.91-1.08) — no difference on the primary endpoint
Repeated elsewhere
Unreplicated

What this does not prove. A study that did not show an effect does not show that no effect exists anywhere.

The limits of this study, and where it came from

Main limit. Lisinopril had higher 6-year rates of stroke (RR 1.15), heart failure (RR 1.19) and combined cardiovascular disease (RR 1.10), all statistically significant.

How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.

Form and route. Oral tablet, and an oral solution for children and for people who cannot swallow tablets

Interval reported. 95% CI 0

Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.

All-cause mortality, high-dose versus low-dose lisinopril in heart failure

The study did not show it

Who was studied
ATLAS
How many people
3164
Study design
Randomised double-blind dose-comparison trial, 39 to 58 months
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
Living longer, or avoiding a major event
What was found
8% lower risk of death, P = 0.128 — not statistically significant
Repeated elsewhere
Partially Replicated

What this does not prove. A study that did not show an effect does not show that no effect exists anywhere.

The limits of this study, and where it came from

Main limit. The significant results were the composite of death or hospitalisation (12%, p=0.002) and heart failure hospitalisation (24%, p=0.002). Dizziness and renal insufficiency were more frequent on high dose.

How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.

Form and route. Oral tablet, and an oral solution for children and for people who cannot swallow tablets

Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary

Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.

What we know
RNAWiki holds 3 written-up human studies for this substance, each with the question it asked.
How we know it
Each card names the study, the number of people and what the study set out to measure.
What this does not prove
These summaries were written by a person and have not been signed off as reviewed claims.
Why it matters
A study that failed is as informative as one that worked, and both are here.
What we still do not know
No reviewed claim exists, so no exact population, effect size or interval is published yet.

What happened in peopleRead from sources, not yet reviewed

How close this is to real life

The top step is something a person would feel or care about. The bottom is a guess from software. Filled steps are where evidence exists for this substance.

  1. Living longer, or avoiding a major event Evidence recorded. Death, a heart attack, a stroke, a hospital stay.2 registered measures of this kind. No reviewed result.
  2. What a body can do day to day No evidence recorded. Walking, dressing, breathing, recovering.No registered study measures this.
  3. Measured performance No evidence recorded. How much was lifted, how far was run, how fast.No registered study measures this.
  4. Symptoms and quality of life No evidence recorded. Pain, tiredness, mood, sleep, as the person rated it.No registered study measures this.
  5. A number that stands in for health Evidence recorded. Cholesterol, blood sugar, bone density. A stand-in, not the thing itself.11 registered measures of this kind.
  6. A step measured inside a person Evidence recorded. Something measured in human tissue or human cells.A human record sits on the stored organism ladder.
  7. Animals Evidence recorded. Mice, rats, dogs. Useful for ideas, not proof about people.Stored records in Drosophila (fruit fly), Mouse, Rat. A result in animals says what to test next. It does not say what happens in people.
  8. Cells in a dish Evidence recorded. Cells or chemistry on a bench, far from a whole body.Stored mechanism abstracts describe steps measured in cells or tissue.
  9. A guess from software No evidence recorded. Nobody measured it. RNAWiki never publishes one as a finding.RNAWiki stores no prediction for this record. Software can suggest a link. RNAWiki does not publish one as a finding.

Higher on these steps means closer to something a person would feel. It does not mean better done.

What it changes in the bodyRead from sources, not yet reviewed

The path through the body

From what a person takes to what changes. A solid line is a step measured in people. A dashed line is a step nobody has measured that way.

  1. Start

    Lisinopril Anhydrous

    What a person takes: Oral tablet, and an oral solution for children and for people who cannot swallow tablets.

    The measurement behind this step

    Once daily. Absorption is by the intestinal peptide transporter rather than by passive diffusion, so bioavailability is around a quarter of the dose and varies between people; food does not meaningfully change it. The drug is cleared unchanged by the kidney, so renal impairment raises exposure.

  2. Getting in

    Absorbed by a food transporter, then left alone entirely

    The molecule looks enough like a small piece of digested protein that the gut carries it in using the machinery meant for food. About a quarter of the dose gets through, and the body never chemically alters it.

    Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.

    The measurement behind this step

    Lisinopril is a lysine-containing tripeptide analogue, permanently charged and effectively impermeable by passive diffusion; intestinal absorption is mediated by the proton-coupled peptide transporter PEPT1, giving roughly 25% bioavailability with wide between-person variation. It undergoes no metabolism and is excreted unchanged in urine, which is why renal function determines its accumulation.

  3. Reaching the cell

    It reaches the enzyme on the surface of blood vessel lining

    The target enzyme is anchored to the outside of the cells that line blood vessels, especially in the lungs. The drug does not need to enter a cell to work.

    Measured in people. Written by a person from the study named beside the step. Not signed off as a reviewed claim.

    The measurement behind this step

    Angiotensin-converting enzyme is a type-I membrane-anchored ectoenzyme with its catalytic domains facing the vascular lumen, most densely on pulmonary capillary endothelium. Because the active site faces the blood, an inhibitor that never crosses a plasma membrane can fully engage it.

  4. What it acts on

    The carboxylate grabs the catalytic zinc

    The enzyme depends on a zinc atom at its centre to do its cutting. The drug reaches in and locks onto the zinc, and nothing else can be processed while it is there.

    Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.

    The measurement behind this step

    The terminal carboxylate coordinates the active-site zinc ion, while the phenylpropyl and lysyl side chains occupy the S1 and S1-prime subsites. Unlike enalapril, no esterase activation is required, and unlike captopril there is no thiol, which removes the sulfhydryl-associated taste disturbance and rash but not the class effects.

  5. The change it makes

    Two peptides change at once: less angiotensin II, more bradykinin

    The blocked enzyme had two jobs. It made the vessel-tightening hormone and destroyed a vessel-relaxing one. Blocking it reduces the first and preserves the second.

    Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.

    The measurement behind this step

    Conversion of angiotensin I to angiotensin II falls, reducing AT1-receptor-mediated vasoconstriction, aldosterone release and sodium retention, and reducing efferent arteriolar tone in the glomerulus. Simultaneously, bradykinin and substance P are no longer degraded by kininase II, raising nitric oxide and prostacyclin release from endothelium — and irritating airway C-fibres, which is the cough.

  6. What that does for a person

    Pressure falls, and after a heart attack fewer people die at six weeks

    Blood pressure comes down over days. In the trial that counted deaths after a heart attack, six weeks of treatment produced a measurable reduction in mortality.

    Measured in people. Written by a person from the study named beside the step. Not signed off as a reviewed claim.

    The measurement behind this step

    Reduced afterload and reduced aldosterone-driven remodelling underlie the post-infarction result: in GISSI-3, 6-week mortality odds ratio 0.88 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.99) across 19,394 patients. In chronic hypertension, ALLHAT showed that this pressure reduction did not translate into fewer strokes or less heart failure than a thiazide-type diuretic achieved.

No suggested links are held for this record, so nothing is hidden from this path.

What we know
The record describes 5 steps from taking it to an effect in a person.
How we know it
Each step names the study behind it in the technical detail beside it.
What this does not prove
A change inside the body is a reason to look. It is not a result in a person.
Why it matters
A reader can see exactly where the chain stops being measured in people.
What we still do not know
No reviewed claim binds any of these steps to a named population.

What it would be like to takeRead from sources, not yet reviewed

Felt, measured, or meaningful

Three different things that get called the same word. Registered studies measured all three, and mixing them is how a blood test becomes a health claim.

Felt

Things a person could notice without a test.

No registered study measured anything of this kind.

Measured

Things only a test, a scale or a device shows.

  • blood pressure
  • urinary albumin excretion after 30 weeks
  • urine protein excretion after 20 weeks
  • systolic 24 hour blood pressure after 12 weeks
  • low density lipoprotein cholesterol
  • systolic blood pressure
  • hba1c
  • achieving blood pressure goals
  • changed in blood pressure
  • changes in ldl cholesterol levels

and 1 more.

Meaningful

Things that change how a life goes, not only a number.

  • cardiovascular death
  • stroke

A registered study says what someone planned to measure. It does not say what they found. A number moving is not the same as a life going better. The two are shown apart here.

Felt, but not shown to help. A person notices a change. No study showed it leads anywhere good.

Measured, but not felt. A number moves. The person notices nothing. Both can be true.

Measured, but not shown to matter. A number moves in the good direction. Nobody showed that lives went better.

Matters, but takes years. The result that counts may take longer than anyone would keep watching.

Names that fit none of the three (27)
  • albuminuria
  • study a annual change in total kidney volume
  • reactive hyperemic index by period
  • cognitive assessment trail making test part b
  • cognitive assessment forward digit span test
  • aortic pulse wave velocity
  • bioequivalence based on auc and cmax
  • who stated that they had side effects
  • who took 90 of their doses
  • renal blood flow
  • compliance treatment
  • rate and extent of absorption
  • bioequivalence
  • ejaculate volume
  • pk renal clearance
  • 24 hour ambulatory systolic bp
  • area under the curve of atorvastatin
  • area under the curve of griseofulvin
  • area under the curve of digoxin
  • hiv rna

These are harms, study-process measures, or names the rules did not recognise. They are shown rather than dropped.

What it would be like to takeRead from sources, not yet reviewed

How long anything takes

Nine different lengths of time that get confused with each other. None of them is worked out from another.

  1. Before anything is noticed. RNAWiki does not store this separately, and never works it out from another figure on this page.

  2. Before a test result moves. RNAWiki does not store this separately, and never works it out from another figure on this page.

  3. Before performance moves. RNAWiki does not store this separately, and never works it out from another figure on this page.

  4. How long the result was watched. No finished study window is recorded for a study that tested this substance.

  5. How long people took it. How long people actually took it is not stored. The study window is not the same thing.

  6. How long people were followed. Follow-up length is not stored separately. It is never read off the study window, which would be a different thing.

  7. How fast the body clears it. 12 hours hours

    Read from the label, which states: “Upon multiple dosing, lisinopril exhibits an effective half-life of 12 hours.Lisinopril does not appear to be bound to other serum proteins.”

  8. How long effects linger. RNAWiki does not store this separately, and never works it out from another figure on this page.

  9. Beyond the studies. Nothing is recorded about the long term.

    The longest finished study sets the edge of what anyone measured.

A study window is not how long people took it, and neither is how long they were followed. Where RNAWiki holds only one of the three, it shows one.

What is missing or unclearRead from sources, not yet reviewed

Were people like you studied?

RNAWiki cannot tell whether a study fits you. It can show who was in it, and where the result stops carrying.

Who was studied

People similar to this profile were included.

  • One of the most-prescribed drugs in the United States. Used for hypertension, for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, in the days after a myocardial infarction, and to slow progression of diabetic kidney disease. It is on the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines.

Who is missing from the studies

  • Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.

What the label states about particular groups

  • On pediatric, the label states: “Safety and effectiveness of lisinopril have not been established in pediatric patients under the age 6 or in pediatric patients with glomerular filtration rate < 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 [see Dosage and Administration (2.1), Clinical Pharmacology (12.3), and Clinical Studies (14.1)].”

    US prescribing information · 3a3d4f6c-9f68-44e4-8cf8-32742e3b5021 · read 2026-08-30

  • On older people, the label states: “No dosage adjustment with lisinopril is necessary in elderly patients.”

    US prescribing information · 3a3d4f6c-9f68-44e4-8cf8-32742e3b5021 · read 2026-08-30

  • On people who are pregnant, the label states: “Risk Summary Lisinopril can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman.”

    US prescribing information · 3a3d4f6c-9f68-44e4-8cf8-32742e3b5021 · read 2026-08-30

  • On people who are breastfeeding, the label states: “Risk Summary No data are available regarding the presence of lisinopril in human milk or the effects of lisinopril on the breast fed infant or on milk production.”

    US prescribing information · 3a3d4f6c-9f68-44e4-8cf8-32742e3b5021 · read 2026-08-30

  • On people with reduced kidney function, the label states: “Dose adjustment of lisinopril is required in patients undergoing hemodialysis or whose creatinine clearance is ≤ 30 mL/min.”

    US prescribing information · 3a3d4f6c-9f68-44e4-8cf8-32742e3b5021 · read 2026-08-30

Where the result stopped carrying

  • ALLHAT: 9,054 patients on lisinopril against 15,255 on chlorthalidone, with the diuretic better on three secondary endpoints and no worse on any
  • ATLAS could not demonstrate a mortality benefit from a roughly tenfold dose increase
  • Transdermal nitrate, tested in the same factorial design as lisinopril in GISSI-3, showed no independent effect on either endpoint
  • This is a scope explorer, not a diagnosis engine.
  • It shows who was studied so you can see whether people similar to you were included.

RNAWiki cannot tell whether a study fits you. It can show who was in it.

What it would be like to takeRead from sources, not yet reviewed

Why it might seem to do nothing

A real effect and a noticed effect are different things. These are the recorded reasons the two come apart.

It was studied for a different goal

The studies measured something else entirely.

On this record: Some registered studies measured things that match no goal on this page.

It was studied in different people

The people in the studies were not much like the reader.

On this record: Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.

The evidence may simply be wrong

Small early studies often do not hold up.

On this record: RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.

Other reasons RNAWiki checked and found nothing for (10)
A different form was studied
The studied form is not the form on the shelf. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
There was nothing to correct
Where a level is already normal, topping it up may change nothing. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Something else had to happen too
In the studies it was paired with training, a diet or another treatment. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
The change is too small to feel
A real change can still sit below what a person notices. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Day-to-day swing hides it
Sleep, food, stress and time of day move most numbers more than this would. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Not enough time yet
The studies ran longer than the person has waited. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
It was not taken as studied
Missed days change the result, and studies count them. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Something else changed at the same time
Two changes at once cannot be told apart afterwards. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
The product may not be what it says
Contents of a sold product are not always what the label states. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
No recorded reason
RNAWiki has nothing stored that would explain it. Nothing in this record points to this reason.

None of these is a reason to take more. Taking more is not a step this page ever suggests.

What it would be like to takeRead from sources, not yet reviewed

What taking it involves

The recorded facts about getting hold of it and using it. Nothing here is a suggestion about what you should do.

How it is supplied

Prescription only

Quoted from a source

Where this came from

Copied from a source RNAWiki stored, with the source named.

Read from the recorded approval status.

No source is stored against this line.

Form and route

Oral tablet, and an oral solution for children and for people who cannot swallow tablets

Source-linked record

Where this came from

A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.

The form and route recorded on this substance.

No source is stored against this line.

Who oversees it

Professional supervision is normally required. A regulator classifies this substance in a way that restricts how it is supplied.

Quoted from a source

Where this came from

Copied from a source RNAWiki stored, with the source named.

Suppression classes recorded: S3, S6.

No source is stored against this line.

What is in the pack

Once daily.

Source-linked record

Where this came from

A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.

Recorded notes on how this is sold. The rest of the recorded wording: Absorption is by the intestinal peptide transporter rather than by passive diffusion, so bioavailability is around a quarter of the dose and varies between people; food does not meaningfully change it. The drug is cleared unchanged by the kidney, so renal impairment raises exposure.

No source is stored against this line.

Where it is registered

Regulatory records are listed in the technical disclosure at the foot of this page.

Counted from records

Where this came from

A count of rows RNAWiki holds. It describes our records, not your body.

Register entries are stored per jurisdiction and shown with their dates.

No source is stored against this line.

Why people stop

Not recorded.

Nothing recorded

Where this came from

RNAWiki holds nothing here and says so rather than guessing.

No record of why people stopped taking it is stored for this substance.

No source is stored against this line.

What it would be like to takeRead from sources, not yet reviewed

What can go wrong

Sorted by where each line came from. A regulator's label and a report somebody sent in are not the same kind of fact.

Worth asking a clinician aboutWritten into the record from the studies named on this page

The US label carries a boxed warning that drugs acting on the renin-angiotensin system can cause injury and death to the developing fetus and must be discontinued when pregnancy is detected. Dry cough affects 5% to 20%. Angioedema affects 0.1% to 0.2% and is an airway emergency. Hyperkalaemia and a rise in serum creatinine occur, particularly with renal artery stenosis, volume depletion, potassium supplements or potassium-sparing diuretics. First-dose hypotension occurs in volume-depleted patients.

Nobody counted how many people took this and were fine, so this cannot be turned into a rate.

Where this came from

Reports sent to a regulator

  • These are reports people sent to a regulator. They do not show the medicine caused the reaction.
  • Nobody counted how many people took the medicine and reported nothing.
  • The same event can be reported more than once, and many reports are incomplete.
  • News coverage, lawsuits and new warnings change how often people report.
  • A count is not a rate and not a risk.

Lisinopril Anhydrous appears in spontaneous reports to regulators. Across the 4 most-reported reaction terms, 23 reaction mentions were counted. One report can name several reactions.

The recorded terms (4)
  • acute kidney injury — 9 reaction mentions
  • blood glucose abnormal — 5 reaction mentions
  • metabolic acidosis — 5 reaction mentions
  • upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage — 4 reaction mentions
  • open-targets-adr · recorded 2026-06-24 · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot

Over a long time. No completed tested study window is recorded, so long-term effects are not established by the registry record.

Groups the studies covered thinly. Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.

What is missing or unclearRead from sources, not yet reviewed

Does the exact form matter?

Evidence belongs to the exact thing that was tested. A different salt, a different mixture or a different preparation is a different question.

The form that was studied

Oral tablet, and an oral solution for children and for people who cannot swallow tablets

Source-linked record

Where this came from

A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.

The form used in the studies cited on this page.

No source is stored against this line.

What is sold

A recorded note compares this form with the others that are sold. It is kept below, word for word.

A fixed RNAWiki sentence

Where this came from

Wording RNAWiki always uses, not a finding about this substance.

The recorded note, unchanged: Absorption is by the intestinal peptide transporter rather than by passive diffusion, so bioavailability is around a quarter of the dose and varies between people; food does not meaningfully change it. The drug is cleared unchanged by the kidney, so renal impairment raises exposure.

No source is stored against this line.

What is recorded as being sold

  • 397 products list this as an active ingredient in the United States drug directory. 296 of them contain it and nothing else.

    FDA National Drug Code directory · 71335-9730 · read 2026-08-29

  • They are sold as powder, solution and tablet, taken oral.

    FDA National Drug Code directory · 71335-9730 · read 2026-08-29

  • The regulator's established pharmacologic class for it is angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor [epc] and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors [moa].

    FDA National Drug Code directory · 71335-9730 · read 2026-08-29

  • 230 published labels name it as an active ingredient. 160 of them describe this substance alone, which is where its own label text on this page comes from.

    US prescribing information · d02a0d38-676a-4e0f-9aa2-0a6c56cd7361 · read 2026-08-29

  • Those labels are classed as human prescription drug.

    US prescribing information · d02a0d38-676a-4e0f-9aa2-0a6c56cd7361 · read 2026-08-29

  • Recorded price in US: 0.01424–0.05413 USD per one unit as the pricing file counts it — a tablet, capsule, patch or single item, across 183 priced products whose strengths and pack forms differ, as of 2026-08-26, paid by retail pharmacies buying the product, as surveyed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. It is not a list price, an insurance price, or what anyone pays at a counter..

    Recorded source · 2026-08-26 · read 2026-08-28

Evidence carries across two names for one substance. It does not carry across a salt, a mirror form or a mixture.

What it would be like to takeRead from sources, not yet reviewed

What you could measure

This one is decided with a clinician, so this section holds questions to ask rather than a plan to run.

Self-experiment planning is not offered for a prescription or clinician-supervised medicine. The questions below are for a clinician or pharmacist.

Questions worth asking

  • Which of the trials of Lisinopril Anhydrous studied people like me?
  • What was measured, and for how long?
  • Was the result a laboratory value or a health outcome?
  • What would we watch for, and when would we stop?

Tracking can show whether something changed for you. It cannot show what caused it.

RNAWiki records evidence. It does not say whether this substance is right for you.

What is missing or unclearRead from sources, not yet reviewed

Claims that go past the evidence

Things said about this substance that sound reasonable, and the exact step that is missing between the evidence and the claim.

Goes past the evidence

That lisinopril and chlorthalidone are equivalent once the 2 mm Hg blood pressure difference in ALLHAT is adjusted for — an adjustment that discards the randomisation

Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.

The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.

What would change this

A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.

RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.

Goes past the evidence

That high-dose ACE inhibition reduces mortality in heart failure — the ATLAS mortality comparison gave p=0.128

Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.

The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.

What would change this

A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.

RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.

Goes past the evidence

That the ALLHAT result is a lisinopril-specific defect rather than a property of an ACE-inhibitor-first strategy in that population — the trial randomised strategies, not molecules in isolation

Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.

The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.

What would change this

A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.

RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.

Goes past the evidence

That switching to a different ACE inhibitor resolves the cough — the reviewed literature says it recurs, and specifically advises against it

Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.

The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.

What would change this

A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.

RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.

What is missing or unclearRead from sources, not yet reviewed

What nobody knows yet

Open questions, each with why it is open and what would close it.

Missing populations

Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded.

Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.

What would answer it

A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.

Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.

Missing long-term data

No completed tested study window is recorded.

Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.

What would answer it

A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.

Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.

No reviewed conclusion

RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.

Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.

What would answer it

A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.

Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.

Missing interaction studies

No interaction was found in the registers checked. Not finding one is not the same as showing there is none.

Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.

What would answer it

A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.

Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.

Formulation uncertainty

Several salts, forms or products of Lisinopril Anhydrous are recorded. Results from one form may not transfer to another.

Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.

What would answer it

A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.

Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.

Mechanism not reviewed

No reviewed mechanism story exists for this substance.

Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.

What would answer it

A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.

Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.

What happened in peopleRead from sources, not yet reviewed

Check any of this yourself

Every line above traced back to the study it came from. This is the technical layer, and the vocabulary changes here.

Every line above can be traced to the study named beside it. Follow the link and read it.

GISSI-3: a 12% relative reduction in 6-week death across 19,394 patients
In plain words
Nearly twenty thousand people in Italian coronary care units were randomised, within a day of their heart attack, to six weeks of lisinopril or to no lisinopril. Fewer of the treated group were dead at six weeks.
What was measured
All-cause mortality at 6 weeks after acute myocardial infarction
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Between June 1991 and July 1993, 19,394 patients were randomised in 200 Italian coronary care units within 24 hours of symptom onset, in a factorial design of oral lisinopril (5 mg then 10 mg daily for 6 weeks) or open control, crossed with transdermal glyceryl trinitrate or open control. Complete 6-week follow-up was available for 18,895 patients (97.4%). Overall 6-week mortality was 6.7%. Lisinopril reduced overall mortality with an odds ratio of 0.88 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.99) and the combined outcome of mortality plus severe ventricular dysfunction with an odds ratio of 0.90 (0.84 to 0.98). Transdermal nitrate alone showed no independent effect on either (0.94, 0.84 to 1.05; and 0.94, 0.87 to 1.02). The result was obtained against a background of thrombolysis in 72%, aspirin in 84% and beta-blockade in 31%.
Source
GISSI-3 investigators, Lancet 1994;343:1115-1122 (PMID 7910229)
Role in the trial
Not matched to a registered study
Identity check
no open identity hold
Audit mark
verified
Review state
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
ALLHAT: lisinopril lost to a cheap diuretic on stroke, heart failure and combined disease
In plain words
The largest hypertension trial ever run compared lisinopril with a thiazide-type diuretic in more than 24,000 people. On the main endpoint they tied. On three secondary endpoints the diuretic won.
What was measured
Six-year rates of stroke, heart failure and combined cardiovascular disease, lisinopril versus chlorthalidone
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
This entry records a failure.
From the source
ALLHAT randomised 33,357 hypertensive participants aged 55 or older with at least one other coronary risk factor to chlorthalidone 12.5-25 mg (n=15,255), amlodipine 2.5-10 mg (n=9,048) or lisinopril 10-40 mg (n=9,054), mean follow-up 4.9 years. The primary endpoint of fatal coronary heart disease plus non-fatal myocardial infarction did not differ: 6-year rates 11.5% on chlorthalidone against 11.4% on lisinopril, relative risk 0.99 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.08). All-cause mortality did not differ either. But lisinopril had higher 6-year rates of combined cardiovascular disease (33.3% against 30.9%; RR 1.10, 1.05 to 1.16), stroke (6.3% against 5.6%; RR 1.15, 1.02 to 1.30) and heart failure (8.7% against 7.7%; RR 1.19, 1.07 to 1.31). Five-year systolic blood pressure was 2 mm Hg higher on lisinopril (p<0.001). The investigators concluded that thiazide-type diuretics should be preferred for first-step therapy.
Source
ALLHAT Officers and Coordinators, JAMA 2002;288:2981-2997 (NCT00000542)
Role in the trial
Not matched to a registered study
Identity check
no open identity hold
Audit mark
verified
Review state
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
The 2 mm Hg gap in ALLHAT is used to explain the loss, and cannot be shown to
In plain words
Defenders of the drug argue lisinopril only lost because it controlled blood pressure slightly less well in that trial. That is a plausible explanation. It is not something the trial measured, because you cannot randomise people to a blood pressure.
What was measured
That lisinopril and chlorthalidone are equivalent once achieved blood pressure is adjusted for — an adjustment that discards the randomisation that made the comparison trustworthy
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Five-year systolic pressure was 2 mm Hg higher in the lisinopril arm than in the chlorthalidone arm (p<0.001), and the excess events were concentrated in outcomes most sensitive to systolic pressure. The inference that the entire difference is attributable to achieved blood pressure is a post-randomisation comparison: participants were randomised to a drug, not to a pressure, and any analysis conditioning on achieved pressure breaks the randomisation. The trial supports the statement that a chlorthalidone-based strategy produced fewer strokes and less heart failure than a lisinopril-based strategy. It does not support the statement that the drugs are equivalent once pressure is accounted for.
Source
ALLHAT Officers and Coordinators, JAMA 2002;288:2981-2997
Role in the trial
Not matched to a registered study
Identity check
no open identity hold
Audit mark
contested
Review state
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
ATLAS: dose matters for hospitalisation, and did not reach significance for death
In plain words
Three thousand heart failure patients were randomised to a low or a high dose of the same drug. The high dose kept more people out of hospital. The reduction in deaths did not reach statistical significance.
What was measured
All-cause mortality and the composite of death or hospitalisation, high-dose versus low-dose lisinopril
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
ATLAS randomised 3,164 patients with NYHA class II to IV heart failure and an ejection fraction of 30% or less to double-blind low-dose lisinopril (2.5 to 5.0 mg daily, n=1,596) or high-dose lisinopril (32.5 to 35 mg daily, n=1,568) for 39 to 58 months, on top of background heart failure therapy. The high-dose group had a non-significant 8% lower risk of death (p=0.128), a significant 12% lower risk of death or hospitalisation for any reason (p=0.002), and 24% fewer hospitalisations for heart failure (p=0.002). Dizziness and renal insufficiency were more frequent on high dose, but the two groups did not differ in the number of patients who had to discontinue.
Source
Packer M et al., ATLAS, Circulation 1999;100:2312-2318
Role in the trial
Not matched to a registered study
Identity check
no open identity hold
Audit mark
verified
Review state
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
ATLAS is routinely cited as showing high doses save lives. Its mortality result was p=0.128
In plain words
Guidelines say to push ACE inhibitor doses toward the target used in trials. The trial that tested exactly that found a mortality difference that could have been chance.
What was measured
That high-dose ACE inhibition reduces mortality in heart failure — ATLAS reduced hospitalisation, and its mortality comparison did not reach significance
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
The mortality comparison in ATLAS gave an 8% relative reduction with p=0.128, which does not exclude no effect. The composite of death or all-cause hospitalisation was reduced by 12% (p=0.002) and heart failure hospitalisation by 24% (p=0.002), and those results carry the recommendation. The distinction is not pedantry: a composite driven by hospitalisation is a health-service outcome and a mortality endpoint is a survival outcome, and ATLAS is evidence for the first and not the second. The trial authors themselves framed the conclusion as patients not being maintained on very low doses, and stated that any difference between intermediate and high doses is likely to be very small.
Source
Packer M et al., ATLAS, Circulation 1999;100:2312-2318
Role in the trial
Not matched to a registered study
Identity check
no open identity hold
Audit mark
caution
Review state
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
The cough is bradykinin, it is common, and switching within the class does not help
In plain words
Between one in twenty and one in five people on this class develop a persistent dry cough. It comes back if you try a different drug of the same class, because the cause is the shared mechanism.
What was measured
Reported incidence of cough and of angioedema on ACE inhibitor therapy
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Israili and Hall reviewed more than 400 articles and selected 200 reporting incidence or mechanism. Cough occurs in 5% to 20% of patients on an ACE inhibitor, is more common in women, and recurs on reintroduction of the same or another agent in the class. The proposed mechanism is accumulation of bradykinin, substance P and prostaglandins, all substrates the same enzyme degrades. A four-day withdrawal or temporary substitution identifies causation cheaply. Switching to a different ACE inhibitor is specifically not recommended. Angioedema occurs in 0.1% to 0.2%, usually within hours to a week of starting, and requires airway protection first and a change of drug class after.
Source
Israili ZH, Hall WD, Ann Intern Med 1992;117:234-242
Role in the trial
Not matched to a registered study
Identity check
no open identity hold
Audit mark
verified
Review state
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim

How many documents were read

  • 160 documents were read for this substance.

    RNAWiki source record

  • 160 of them state the same halfLife, and they agree.

    RNAWiki source record

  • 159 of them state the same bioavailability, and they agree.

    RNAWiki source record

  • 160 of them state the same tMax, and they agree.

    RNAWiki source record

Where else this substance is registered

CAS registry number
76547-98-3
PubChem compound
5362119
RxNorm concept
29046

Checks this page had to pass

  • Passed

    Identity resolved

    no open identity hold

  • Passed

    No unresolved merge across substance families

    no quarantine open

  • Passed

    Every public sentence names a source

    The opening statement carries the origin: Written into the record, not signed off.

  • Not passed

    Trial roles classified for highlighted evidence

    No registered study is classified as testing this substance.

  • Passed

    No internal keys in reader text

    enforced by the copy-contract test over the rendered page

  • Passed

    Safety mode resolved

    Suppression classes recorded: S3, S6.

  • Passed

    Canonical metadata present

    slug and display name present

What is missing or unclearRead from sources, not yet reviewed

How this medicine reached us

Kept near the foot of the page. A historical event moves up only when it changes something about this substance today.

What the approval register records

  • 38 approved applications cover products containing this substance. The earliest was NDA019558, approved 19871229 to MERCK.

    Drugs@FDA application register · NDA019558 · read 2026-08-29

  • Marketing status on the register: discontinued and prescription.

    Drugs@FDA application register · NDA019558 · read 2026-08-29

  • The earliest marketing start date recorded for a listed product is 19871229.

    FDA National Drug Code directory · 71335-9730 · read 2026-08-29

What is missing or unclearRead from sources, not yet reviewed

What to learn next

Ordered by what would most change how you read this page, starting with what is easiest to misunderstand.

This order is fixed in code and does not count clicks or time on the page.

What is not here

3 questions this page could not answer

These sections were prepared and left out because there was nothing to put in them. They are listed rather than hidden, so the gaps in this record are visible.

  • What it may clash with — found nothing in the sources checked.
  • Other ways to the same goal — found nothing in the sources checked.
  • What changed on this page — found nothing in the sources checked.

The record as stored

The full record, for auditing

Everything above is built from what is below. This layer keeps the technical vocabulary, record identifiers and every stored row, so a reader who wants to check the page can.

The older medicine-wide conclusion held in this record

Written for a clinical reader, and about the medicine as a whole rather than about one indication, population and set of trials. RNAWiki does not treat it as a programme conclusion and no reviewer has signed it off in that form. It is here word for word because it is what the record holds.

A converting-enzyme inhibitor with a genuine randomised survival result in 19,394 patients started within 24 hours of a heart attack — 6-week mortality odds ratio 0.88 — and a genuine randomised defeat in ALLHAT, where 9,054 patients on lisinopril had more strokes, more heart failure and more combined cardiovascular disease than 15,255 on a thiazide-type diuretic that cost far less.

Recorded evidence blocks (13)

What did Lisinopril Anhydrous's largest trial (37939 people) and its longest (12 years) measure?


37939 people in Lisinopril Anhydrous's largest registered study, 12 years in its longest registered window, measuring All-cause mortality. ClinicalTrials.gov · 2026-09-01

21 phase1, 21 phase4, 16 na, 15 phase2, 15 phase3, 5 na or unstated, 1 early phase1; NCT02735707; 2028-02. Last human test completed 2024, NCT06372470.

Interpretation These counts include studies where Lisinopril Anhydrous was a comparison treatment, a background treatment or an exposure in an observational study, and the longest window may be a planned end date. Trial roles have not yet been classified for this record.

Show the evidence
  • phase1
    21
  • phase4
    21
  • na
    16
  • phase2
    15
  • phase3
    15
  • na or unstated
    5
2 more recorded rows
  • early phase1
    1
  • Last recorded human test NCT06372470
    2024-10-31

recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04

From Drosophila to human: where has Lisinopril Anhydrous shown lifespan?


Drosophila: mechanism-only, mouse: mechanism-only, rat: lifespan and human: lifespan (93): the rungs where Lisinopril Anhydrous has a recorded finding. Europe PMC and ClinicalTrials.gov · organism ladder · 2026-09-01

Interpretation All-cause mortality — the recorded outcome words.

Yeast C. elegans Drosophila mechanism-onlyMouse mechanism-onlyRat lifespanDog Non-human primate Human lifespan
Show the evidence
  • Drosophila
    mechanism-only
  • mouse
    mechanism-only
  • rat
    lifespan
  • human NCT02735707
    lifespan; All-cause mortality; 93

recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04

14 of Lisinopril Anhydrous's trials stopped: safety, accrual/recruitment, funding/business, other?


safety (4), accrual/recruitment (6), funding/business (2) and other (2): Lisinopril Anhydrous's stop wording, clustered. ClinicalTrials.gov · 2026-09-01

"Inadequate number of patients, lack of funding"; 14 of 93 registered studies

Show the evidence

Trial

  • NCT00280215
    withdrawn; "Inadequate number of patients, lack of funding"
  • NCT00555217
    terminated; "It was stopped primarily because of safety concerns along with low conditional power to detect a treatment effect on the primary outcome."
  • NCT00582114
    terminated; "Stopped by data safety monitoring board"
  • NCT00743197
    terminated; "Terminated due to departure of PI from institution."
  • NCT00773084
    withdrawn; "Difficulty in recruiting patients and then the PI left the institution"
  • NCT01076140
    withdrawn; "No participants enrolled"
8 further recorded trials
  • NCT01101269
    terminated; "Slow Recruitment"
  • NCT01234922
    terminated; "slow accrual"
  • NCT01837069
    terminated; "Low recruitment / DSMB approval to halt recruitment"
  • NCT03201939
    terminated; "DSMB recommendations, laboratory quality control (QC) issues. All lab Q/C issues addressed; DSMB approved study re-opening, but due to length of time required to address lab QC issues, insufficient follow-up time was available to complete…"
  • NCT03392740
    withdrawn; "PI Andrew Hinojos Left Institution (Genesys) prior to Ascension Acquiring record"
  • NCT04190433
    withdrawn; "Administratively closed due to low/no accrual"
  • NCT05056727
    terminated; "The study started enrollment in Sep 2021 and despite huge efforts the rate of patient enrollment continued to be below target such that the completion of the study within a reasonable timeframe was deemed very unlikely."
  • NCT06745726
    withdrawn; "Delays in sponsorship and funding necessitate a stop in the study set up."

recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04

Human studies of Lisinopril Anhydrous used lisinopril 10mg — over how long?


studies of Lisinopril Anhydrous used the recorded amount. ClinicalTrials.gov · 2026-09-01

10 recorded entries; human; oral, tablet; also "lisinopril 10mg", "Lisinopril 40 mg Tablet (EON Labs Manufacturing Inc, USA)", "Lisinopril 40 mg Tablet (Zestril) (Zeneca, USA)"

Show the evidence

human

  • NCT00430040
    lisinopril 10mg
  • NCT00883064
    Lisinopril 40 mg Tablet (EON Labs Manufacturing Inc, USA)
  • NCT00883064
    Lisinopril 40 mg Tablet (Zestril) (Zeneca, USA)
  • NCT01380431
    oral; Zestril (R) Tablets, 40 mg, single, oral dose
  • NCT01506505
    Lisinopril 10 mg
  • NCT01735318
    Lisinopril Tablets 40 mg
4 more recorded rows
  • human NCT01735318
    Zestril® (Lisinopril) 40 mg Tablets
  • human NCT02603809
    Lisinopril 20 mg
  • human NCT05061901
    tablet; Lisinopril tablet 20 mg
  • human NCT05061901
    tablet; Zestril® tablet 20 mg

recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04

Lisinopril Anhydrous's half-life is 12 hours — which schedules were studied?


12 hours, the half-life Lisinopril Anhydrous's label states. openfda-label · 34bb4602-ccff-4939-91b9-26a63bfd40f7 · 2026-08-30

bioavailability 16% %.

Show the evidence
  • half life
    12 hours hours; Upon multiple dosing, lisinopril exhibits an effective half-life of 12 hours.Lisinopril does not appear to be bound to other serum proteins.
  • tmax
    With greater impairment, however, peak and trough lisinopril levels increase, time to peak concentration increases and time to attain steady state is prolonged [see DOSAGE AND ADMINISTRATION ( 2.4 )].
  • bioavailability
    16% %; The absolute bioavailability of lisinopril is reduced to 16% in patientswith stable NYHA Class II to Class IV congestive heart failure, and the volume of distribution appears to be slightly smaller than that in normal subjects.
  • metabolism
    Lisinopril does not undergo metabolism and is excreted unchanged entirely in the urine.

recorded 2026-08-30 · last checked 2026-09-04

Which of 24 hour ambulatory systolic bp, achieving blood pressure goals and albuminuria did Lisinopril Anhydrous's trials measure?


24 hour ambulatory systolic bp, achieving blood pressure goals and albuminuria lead 40 outcome terms across Lisinopril Anhydrous's trials. ClinicalTrials.gov · 2026-09-01

urine protein excretion after 20 weeks, systolic 24 hour blood pressure after 12 weeks, low density lipoprotein cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, hba1c and study a annual change in total kidney volume follow.

Show the evidence
  • blood pressure
    1
  • albuminuria
    1
  • urinary albumin excretion after 30 weeks
    1
  • urine protein excretion after 20 weeks
    1
  • systolic 24 hour blood pressure after 12 weeks
    1
  • low density lipoprotein cholesterol
    1
14 more recorded rows
  • systolic blood pressure
    1
  • hba1c
    1
  • study a annual change in total kidney volume
    1
  • reactive hyperemic index by period
    1
  • cognitive assessment trail making test part b
    1
  • cognitive assessment forward digit span test
    1
  • achieving blood pressure goals
    1
  • aortic pulse wave velocity
    1
  • bioequivalence based on auc and cmax
    1
  • who stated that they had side effects
    1
  • who took 90 of their doses
    1
  • renal blood flow
    1
  • compliance treatment
    1
  • changed in blood pressure
    1

recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04

Which of Lisinopril Anhydrous's 7 ongoing trials reports first?


7 registered trials of Lisinopril Anhydrous are open; earliest completion 2026-09-30. ClinicalTrials.gov · 2026-09-01

All-cause mortality; Change in PRO-C3 Values; latest 2033-03-01

Show the evidence

Trial

  • NCT02735707
    "Randomized, Embedded, Multifactorial Adaptive Platform Trial for Community- Acquired Pneumonia"; n 20000; "All-cause mortality"; 2028-02
  • NCT04550481
    "Role of Lisinopril in Preventing the Progression of Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease, RELIEF-NAFLD Study"; n 35; "Change in PRO-C3 Values"; 2026-09-30
  • NCT04662723
    "Multicentre Clinical Study to Evaluate the Effect of Personalized Therapy on Patients With Immunoglobulin A Nephropathy."; n 878; "-Proteinuria reduction within 6 months in IgAN patients with active renal lesions"; 2028-12-31
  • NCT05530655
    "A Study to Determine the Preferred Dose of the Drug, Lisinopril, for Preventing Urinary Toxicity Following Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer"; n 30; "Mean change in Expanded Prostate Index Composite score"; 2028-01-01
  • NCT07547878
    "Rapid and Simultaneous Initiation of Four Guideline-Directed CKD Therapies (RAPID-CKD)"; n 64; "On-study retention rate at 6 months"; 2029-03-31
  • NCT07568574
    "Impact of Medically Supervised Performance-Enhancing Substances (PES) on Elite Athletes"; n 60; "The incidence and severity of Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), including adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs), as assessed by the study physicians from baseline to 5.5 years after enrollment."; 2033-03-01
  • 1 further recorded trial NCT07594535
    "The Effect Of Lisinopril On Polycythemia"; n 30; "Change in hemoglobin"; 2029-07-01

recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04

Which running trial of Lisinopril Anhydrous could settle lifespan?


NCT02735707 measures All-cause mortality, reading out 2028-02.

1 open trial; n 20000; "Randomized, Embedded, Multifactorial Adaptive Platform Trial for Community- Acquired Pneumonia"

Show the evidence
  • Trial NCT02735707
    "Randomized, Embedded, Multifactorial Adaptive Platform Trial for Community- Acquired Pneumonia"; n 20000; "All-cause mortality"; 2028-02

Which 36 trials of Lisinopril Anhydrous posted no result?


Posted no result
36 of 36 completed trials
Registrations
NCT00311870, NCT00004266, NCT01375244, NCT01380431, NCT00883064 and NCT00000542, and 30 more
Completion dates
oldest 1999-04; newest 2024-06-04
Show the evidence

Trial

  • NCT00311870
    1999-04
  • NCT00004266
    1999-07
  • NCT01375244
    1999-10
  • NCT01380431
    1999-10
  • NCT00883064
    2000-04
  • NCT00000542
    2002-03
14 further recorded trials
  • NCT00241124
    2005-06
  • NCT00006294
    2005-08
  • NCT00171574
    2006-07
  • NCT00118976
    2006-09
  • NCT01518166
    2007-04
  • NCT00171067
    2007-05
  • NCT00552708
    2007-12
  • NCT00508365
    2008-06-03
  • NCT02441842
    2008-12
  • NCT01575652
    2009-01
  • NCT00337298
    2009-02
  • NCT01066572
    2011-12
  • NCT01735318
    2012-08
  • NCT01735344
    2012-08

At the median, Lisinopril Anhydrous's trials enrolled 51.5 people — anything larger?


Median enrolment
51.5
Largest enrolment
37939
Registered trials counted
92

What do 23 spontaneous reports say about Lisinopril Anhydrous — and not say?


These are reports people sent to a regulator. They do not show the medicine caused the reaction. Nobody counted how many people took the medicine and reported nothing. The same event can be reported more than once, and many reports are incomplete. News coverage, lawsuits and new warnings change how often people report. A count is not a rate and not a risk.

Lisinopril Anhydrous appears in spontaneous reports to regulators. Across the 4 most-reported reaction terms, 23 reaction mentions were counted: acute kidney injury 9; blood glucose abnormal 5; metabolic acidosis 5; upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage 4. open-targets-adr · CHEMBL1237 · 2026-06-24

Show the evidence
  • acute kidney injury
    9
  • blood glucose abnormal
    5
  • metabolic acidosis
    5
  • upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage
    4

recorded 2026-06-24 · last checked 2026-09-04

Was Lisinopril Anhydrous studied with fasting and exercise?


fasting and exercise are named in Lisinopril Anhydrous's label sentences: "The trial demonstrated that the test and the reference drug of fixed-dose combinations of lisinopril /amlodipine besylate were bioequivalent and well tolerated under fasting and fed condition". openfda-label+europepmc · 2024-01-31

2 recorded statements; fasting, exercise

Show the evidence
  • fasting
    The trial demonstrated that the test and the reference drug of fixed-dose combinations of lisinopril /amlodipine besylate were bioequivalent and well tolerated under fasting and fed condition
  • exercise
    The objective of this investigation was to explore the mechanisms involved in dose-related functional effects and to test the hypothesis that a trial recommended high dose of lisinopril would improve aerobic exercise capacity and cardiovascular function more than with a low dose.

recorded 2024-01-31 · last checked 2026-09-04

What is recorded about Lisinopril Anhydrous and sirtuin?


"These findings demonstrated that, in AC16 human cardiomyocytes, lisinopril could protect against oxidative stress and fibrosis <i>via</i> the activation of Sirtuin 1 and Sirtuin 6 pathways." — where Lisinopril Anhydrous and sirtuin appear together. Europe PMC · pathway abstract search · 2022-05-17

sirtuin; PMID 35656292

Show the evidence
  • sirtuin PMID 35656292
    "These findings demonstrated that, in AC16 human cardiomyocytes, lisinopril could protect against oxidative stress and fibrosis <i>via</i> the activation of Sirtuin 1 and Sirtuin 6 pathways."

recorded 2022-05-17 · last checked 2026-09-04

Where it is registered
Identifiers, relations and other names

The exact record

ChEMBL id
CHEMBL1237
PubChem CID
5362119
CAS number
76547-98-3
RxCUI
1546022
InChIKey
RLAWWYSOJDYHDC-BZSNNMDCSA-N
Also called
Lisinopril
Trade name
Acemin, Carace, Lisinopril component of prinzide, Lisinopril component of zestoretic, Lisopress, Prinivil, Qbrelis, Zestril, Zestril / Prinivil
Salt form
Lisinopril dihydrate, Lisinopril hydrate, zestoretic 20/25 lisinopril/hydrochlorothiazide tablets, zestril (lisinopril) 40 mg tablets
Development code
MK-521, NSC-751176, NSC-758151
Also called
Ranolip, ace-i, acei, L-PROLINE, 1-(N(SUP 2)-(1-CARBOXY-3-PHENYLPROPYL)-L-LYSYL)-, LISINOPRIL [MI], Lisinopril [WHO-DD], lisinopril [INN]
Component
Lisinopril
Sources (11)

Sources

  • ClinicalTrials.gov clinicaltrials.gov ·
  • ClinicalTrials.gov ClinicalTrials.gov API v2 snapshot 2026-09-01T09:00:05 ·
  • this record's own fields 2,3,5 ·
  • Europe PMC dose-response search ·
  • Europe PMC pathway abstract search ·
  • Europe PMC search ·
5 more sources

ClinicalTrials.gov — US Government work · Europe PMC — metadata only, under the recorded legal gate · Open Targets 26.06 — CC0 · derived from this page's own recorded fields; no external licence · mixed register set; per-register licences in docs/specs/corpus-20k-sources.md · openFDA / DailyMed — US Government work

How these records are assembled · Which registers were checked

Index-quality checks
  • identity passed: no open identity hold
  • required summary fields resolved: 5 required field(s) not terminal: Why people use it, Best-supported result, Most important common problem, Biggest unanswered question, Human evidence
  • public claims reviewed: 0 reviewed claim(s); drafts are never rendered
  • source coverage passed: 11 source rows
  • no critical contamination: no quarantine open
  • canonical metadata passed: slug and display name present
  • no raw internal fields: enforced by the copy-contract test over the rendered page

This is a record of evidence. It is not medical advice, and it does not say this substance suits you. Nothing here says any substance on RNAWiki is appropriate for a child.