Gene/Protein Disease Symptom Drug Enzyme Compound
Pivot Concepts:   Target Concepts:
Query: UMLS:C0015672 (fatigue)
 51,768 document(s) hit in 31,850,051 MEDLINE articles (0.00 seconds)

Eighty one patients with uncomplicated hypertension who required additional antihypertensive medication (diastolic Phase V [dBP] greater than or equal to 95 mm Hg) after 4 weeks treatment with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg o.m. were randomized to receive felodipine 5 mg b.i.d. (n = 40) or propranolol (n = 41) 80 mg b.i.d. in addition to HCTZ 25 mg o.m. If the dBP measured about 12 h post-dose was not less than or equal to 90 mm Hg after 4 weeks, the dose of felodipine or propranolol was doubled. The double blind trial period was 8 weeks for all patients. Over the 8 week period, felodipine reduced the seated dBP from 100 to 83 mm Hg and propranolol from 101 to 86 mm Hg. The attained seated dBPs were significantly different in the two groups. About one third of patients in each group received the high dose of second-line therapy. After 8 weeks 91% of patients receiving HCTZ+felodipine and 84% receiving HCTZ+propranolol had a dBP less than or equal to 90 mm Hg. Both regimens were well-tolerated with an equal incidence but different pattern of adverse events (felodipine: flushing, headache and peripheral oedema; propranolol: dyspepsia, fatigue and vasospasm). In this 8-week study, felodipine and propranolol were safe and effective second-line antihypertensive drugs when added to hydrochlorothiazide. At the doses selected, felodipine was at least as effective as propranolol.
 ...
PMID:A comparison of felodipine and propranolol as additions to hydrochlorothiazide in the treatment of hypertension. 328 47

A total of 4676 patients and 1759 patients were treated with lisinopril and nifedipine respectively in a post-marketing surveillance study conducted in general practice in the UK. Patients were followed up for 12 months. Most of the lisinopril patients had hypertension, but a small number (180) had heart failure. Most of the nifedipine patients had uncomplicated hypertension, but some (22.57%) had other cardiovascular disease with or without hypertension. Lisinopril and nifedipine were equally effective in reducing blood pressure. During the study, 1.5% of hypertensive patients assigned to lisinopril died compared with 1.8% of patients assigned to nifedipine, and 15.1% of lisinopril patients compared with 19.7% of patients in the nifedipine group withdrew because of adverse events. Cough, malaise and fatigue, nausea and vomiting were more frequent causes of withdrawal from lisinopril than nifedipine. Conversely, headaches, pallor and flushing, oedema and palpitations caused more frequent withdrawals from nifedipine. Anaemia was more often encountered on nifedipine treatment than on lisinopril. In hypertensive patients, the frequency of first-dose hypotension was similar on both treatments. Serious events occurred in 0.8% and 0.5% of patients given lisinopril and nifedipine respectively. Lisinopril was well tolerated by heart failure patients: 16 patients (8.88%) died and an incidence of 4.44% of serious adverse events was reported, a pattern to be anticipated in such patients; dizziness, giddiness, dyspnoea, cough, nausea and vomiting were the most frequent causes of withdrawal; the incidence of first-dose hypotension was low (2.22%).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
 ...
PMID:Post-marketing surveillance of lisinopril in general practice in the UK. 811 50

Over the past decade, national and international guidelines have proposed beta-blockers to be used on an equal footing with diuretics for initial therapy of hypertension. This preferred status was supposedly based on evidence documenting a reduction in morbidity and mortality with beta-blocker therapy in hypertension. We systematically analyzed all available outcome studies and found no evidence that beta-blocker based therapy, despite lowering blood pressure, reduced the risk of heart attacks or strokes. Despite the inefficacy of beta-blockers, the incidence of adverse effects is substantial. In the MRC study, for every heart attack or stroke prevented, three patients withdrew from atenolol because of impotence, and another seven withdrew because of fatigue. Thus the risk/benefit ratio of beta-blockers is characterized by lack of efficacy and multiple adverse effects. Given that many thorough, prospective, randomized trials attest to efficacy and safety of diuretics, calcium antagonists, ACE inhibitors, and angiotensin receptor inhibitors, the time has come to admit that beta-blockers should no longer be considered appropriate for first-line therapy in uncomplicated hypertension.
 ...
PMID:beta-Blockers in hypertension-the emperor has no clothes: an open letter to present and prospective drafters of new guidelines for the treatment of hypertension. 1455 68

Beta-blockers (beta-blockers) have demonstrated their value across the cardiovascular disease spectrum. Beta-blockers effectively lower blood pressure in patients with hypertension and provide symptomatic or mortality benefits in patients with heart failure and in post-myocardial infarction patients. However, despite their utility, beta-blockers remain underused. There have been recent concerns that beta-blockers as a class are not as effective as once thought in uncomplicated hypertension due to a relatively weak effect on reduction of stroke and the absence of an effect on coronary heart disease when compared with placebo or no treatment. Underuse can, in part, be related to tolerability concerns. Beta-blockers have been traditionally associated with side effects including depression, fatigue, sexual dysfunction, and cold extremities, which limit their acceptance by patients and physicians and may lead to discontinuation of therapy. Because of inherent heterogeneity of the beta-blocker class in terms of adrenergic receptor selectivity, intrinsic sympathomimetic activity, and vasodilatory activity, these agents vary in tolerability profile. Recently, more attention has been focused on the third-generation vasodilatory beta-blockers (ie, carvedilol, labetalol, and nebivolol), with the recognition that these agents may diverge in meaningful ways from the traditional beta-blockers. By examining the differences among members of the beta-blocker class, it may be possible to determine whether and which tolerability issues are indeed a class effect of beta-blockers or whether these agents should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
 ...
PMID:Are tolerability concerns a class effect of beta-blockers in treating patients with hypertension? 1917 10

Beta-blockers were documented to reduce reinfarction rate more than 3 decades ago and subsequently touted as being cardioprotective for a broad spectrum of cardiovascular indications such as hypertension, diabetes, angina, atrial fibrillation as well as perioperatively in patients undergoing surgery. However, despite lowering blood pressure, beta-blockers have never shown to reduce morbidity and mortality in uncomplicated hypertension. Also, beta-blockers do not prevent heart failure in hypertension any better than any other antihypertensive drug class. Beta-blockers have been shown to increase the risk on new onset diabetes. When compared with nondiuretic antihypertensive drugs, beta-blockers increase all-cause mortality by 8% and stroke by 30% in patients with new onset diabetes. Beta-blockers are useful for rate control in patients with chronic atrial fibrillation but do not help restore sinus rhythm or have antifibrillatory effects in the atria. Beta-blockers provide symptomatic relief in patients with chronic stable angina but do not reduce the risk of myocardial infarction. Adverse effects of beta-blockers are common including fatigue, dizziness, depression and sexual dysfunction. However, beta-blockers remain a cornerstone in the management of patients having suffered a myocardial infarction and for patients with heart failure. Thus, recent evidence argues against universal cardioprotective properties of beta-blockers but attest to their usefulness for specific cardiovascular indications.
 ...
PMID:Cardioprotection with beta-blockers: myths, facts and Pascal's wager. 1970 92