Gene/Protein Disease Symptom Drug Enzyme Compound
Pivot Concepts:   Target Concepts:
Query: UMLS:C0012833 (dizziness)
 9,689 document(s) hit in 31,850,051 MEDLINE articles (0.00 seconds)

The efficacy and side-effects of megestrol acetate and medroxyprogesterone acetate in postmenopausal patients with advanced breast cancer were compared in a prospectively randomized study. The dosage of MA was 2 X 80 mg p.o. or MPA 2 X 500 mg p.o. daily, given as a secondary hormonal treatment, mostly after previous treatment with tamoxifen. Ninety-eight patients entered the study and 92 were evaluable for effect, 48 patients on MA and 44 on MPA. Age, main tumor site and prior treatment were not different, but there was a preponderance of ER-negative tumors in the MA group. Responses appeared to be more frequent in the MPA-treated group (25% vs. 43%), predominantly in bone lesions, 12% for MA and 45% for MPA. Median progression-free survival was comparable, 15 vs. 10 months, and overall survival was not different (20 vs. 16 months). Toxicity was frequent, occurring in 83% vs. 74% of patients: increased appetite, nausea and dizziness in more than 20%, and a preponderance of pyrosis and breathlessness on MA and hot flashes, sweating and tremors on MPA. Cushingoid symptoms were present in about a quarter of the patients treated for more than 3 months. The occurrence of thrombo-embolic episodes and cardiovascular events was evenly distributed. Patients on MPA had more often increase in body weight, systolic blood pressure and serum creatinine than those treated with MA. It is concluded that MPA may be more effective for treatment of bone metastases, at the expense of more progestational side-effects. The occurrence of Cushingoid effects is frequent but similar in both arms, while the incidence of cardiovascular or thrombo-embolic events cannot be related to the use of either compound.
 ...
PMID:A randomized comparison of megestrol acetate (MA) and medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) in patients with advanced breast cancer. 214 91

In order to determine the usual dose in the first line therapy and a high dose in the second or third line therapy, a dose finding study of a novel antiestrogen NK 622 (toremifene citrate) was performed in patients (pts) with advanced or recurrent breast cancer. NK 622 was orally administered daily once for more than 8 weeks. In pts without previous drug therapy or in pts with cancer relapse after adjuvant therapy, the response rates [(CR + PR)/total] were 24.1% (7/29), 13.8% (4/29), 20.0% (1/5) and 40.0% (2/5) at doses of 40, 60, 120 and 240 mg/day, respectively. A 40 mg/day dose showed an objective response only in postmenopausal pts with estrogen receptor (ER) positive or unknown cancer. At a dose of 60 mg/day, some of the responding cases were premenopausal pts or pts with ER(-) cancer. In pts with cancer relapse during adjuvant therapy or in those with previous therapy and/or radiation, response rates were 25.0% (2/8), 0% (0/4), 13.5% (5/37) and 10.3% (4/39) at doses of 40, 60, 120 and 240 mg/day, respectively. Response was more frequent in pts with ER (+) cancer than with ER (-) cancer. The response rates in pts with previous therapy including tamoxifen (TAM) except medroxyprogesterone (MPA) were 14.3% (4/28) at a 120 mg/day dose and 6.1% (2/33) at a 240 mg/day dose. In pts with previous therapy including TAM, MPA and other antitumor agents, the rate was 18.2% (2/11) at a 120 mg/day dose. Side effects such as elevation of GOT, GPT and serum Ca level, decrease of hemoglobin, anorexia, nausea/vomiting, fatigue, dizziness and hot flush were observed. These side effects were moderate in grade and reversible. Dose dependency of side effects was not clearly observed in grade and incidence. From these results, NK 622 is expected to be a safe drug with efficacy in first line therapy at a dose of 40 mg/day and in second or third line therapy at a dose of 120 mg/day.
 ...
PMID:[Phase II study of NK 622 (toremifene citrate) in advanced breast cancer, a multicentral cooperative dose finding study]. 842 89

Members of the Manipulative Physiotherapists Association of Australia (now Musculoskeletal Physiotherapy Australia) were surveyed to determine their use of cervical manipulation, compliance with and attitudes to the Australian Physiotherapy Association's (APA) Protocol for Pre-manipulative Testing of the Cervical Spine, and the incidence of adverse effects from cervical manipulation. The questionnaire was mailed to 740 members and returned by 480 members (65%). Cervical manipulation (84.5%) and passive mobilization (99.8%) were used by a high percentage of respondents. Most were familiar with the protocol with 63% supporting its continued endorsement. Adverse effects were reported at a rate of one per 1000 years of practice (or 0.003/week). The most common effects were symptoms potentially related to VBI (94.4% responses), with no reported major complications. Only 37.1% of respondents always informed the patient about potential dangers of cervical manipulation and consent was sought on every occasion by 33% of respondents. The results suggest that the use and interpretation of the protocol are variable among members of MPA. The risk of adverse effects from manipulative (musculoskeletal) physiotherapy practice, including cervical manipulation, appears to be very low. Recommendations for revision of the protocol were made on the basis of results of the survey and treatment diary, in addition to a review of the literature related to testing for vertebro-basilar insufficiency, adverse incidents related to cervical mobilizing and manipulative technique, differentiating features of VBI related dizziness and vertigo related to benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) and current issues surrounding informed consent. Finally, a summary of the content of the new Clinical Guidelines for Pre-Manipulative Testing of the Cervical Spine (APA, 2000) is provided.
 ...
PMID:Pre-manipulative testing of the cervical spine review, revision and new clinical guidelines. 1504 Sep 69