Gene/Protein Disease Symptom Drug Enzyme Compound
Pivot Concepts:   Target Concepts:
Query: UMLS:C0016382 (flushing)
 6,387 document(s) hit in 31,850,051 MEDLINE articles (0.00 seconds)

Nisoldipine is an orally administered calcium entry blocking drug structurally related to nifedipine. In limited clinical trials it has been shown to be effective and relatively well tolerated in the treatment of patients with chronic stable angina pectoris and mild to moderate essential hypertension. As for all dihydropyridine-calcium antagonists, its major properties include potent peripheral and coronary vasodilation and improvement in myocardial oxygen supply relative to demand. These actions occur without depression of cardiac conduction or left ventricular function. Short term clinical trials have shown nisoldipine to produce both symptomatic and objective improvements in patients with chronic angina of effort and have suggested a benefit in vasospastic angina. A small number of comparative trials indicate that nisoldipine is equally as effective as nifedipine. In addition, in combination with beta-adrenoceptor blockade nisoldipine appears to offer additional benefit compared with beta-blockade alone and is well tolerated. In patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension nisoldipine monotherapy, in 1 or 2 daily doses, has maintained blood pressure control and has also been a useful addition to diuretics and beta-adrenoceptor blocking drugs in patients with poorly controlled disease. Side effects appear to be dose related, generally mild and transient, and are primarily those resulting from potent peripheral vasodilation - headache, flushing and pretibial or ankle oedema. Although studies to date are promising, there are no published long term studies (greater than 1 year) of nisoldipine in comparison with other calcium entry blockers and other drugs currently in clinical use for the treatment of angina pectoris or hypertension. Until such studies are completed the exact place of nisoldipine in the treatment of these diseases remains to be established.
 ...
PMID:Nisoldipine. A preliminary review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties, and therapeutic efficacy in the treatment of angina pectoris, hypertension and related cardiovascular disorders. 306 58

Felodipine is a dihydropyridine calcium antagonist which selectively relaxes vascular smooth muscle. By acting at peripheral arterioles, it lowers systemic vascular resistance and thereby produces substantial decreases in blood pressure and increases in cardiac output. Felodipine is indicated for the management of hypertension, and in patients with mild to moderate disease felodipine monotherapy markedly lowers blood pressure. It proved as effective as atenolol, and equivalent to hydrochlorothiazide, either with or without amiloride, in terms of antihypertensive activity. Comparative studies also demonstrated that once daily administration with an extended-release formulation provides equivalent antihypertensive efficacy to the same amount of drug administered twice daily as the standard tablets. As a second- or third-line treatment for patients with moderate to severe hypertension refractory to standard drug combinations, felodipine produced considerable reductions in blood pressure when added to beta-blockers and diuretics, either alone or in combination, in studies lasting up to 48 weeks. In comparative studies of multiple-drug treatments felodipine was found to have superior efficacy to hydralazine and prazosin, and was at least as effective as nifedipine, minoxidil and propranolol, when used with diuretics and/or beta-blockers. As an alternative to hydrochlorothiazide, in combination with beta-blockers, felodipine consistently controlled blood pressure in a greater percentage of patients and usually provided greater decreases in blood pressure. The main side effects with felodipine are ankle oedema, headache and flushing. Although the overall incidence of effects is quite high, they are usually mild in nature. Nevertheless, withdrawal due to side effects has been necessary in about 7% of patients overall. Thus, the efficacy of felodipine has been demonstrated in mild, moderate and severe hypertension. At the present time it seems particularly suitable as a second- or third-line treatment in refractory hypertension, but it also can be used as monotherapy for mild to moderate disease.
 ...
PMID:Felodipine. A review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties, and therapeutic use in hypertension. 306 35

Ninety-five hypertensive outpatients of both sexes, aged 23 to 65 years with diastolic blood pressures above 105 but below 120 mmHg (greater than 14.0 but less than 16.0 kPa), after one week on a placebo were randomly assigned either to nicardipine plus a placebo (40 mg/day - 48 patients) or nifedipine sustained-release plus a placebo (20 mg/day - 47 patients) for an additional six weeks. The study groups were homogeneous and comparable. After the run-in period the average blood pressure was 181 +/- 17/116 +/- 9 mmHg (24.1 +/- 2.3/15.5 +/- 1.2 kPa) in the nicardipine and 177 +/- 22/116 +/- 9 mmHg (23.6 +/- 2.9/15.5 +/- 1.2 kPa) in the nifedipine group (p greater than 0.10). In the acute oral test (nicardipine 40 mg to all the subjects; blood pressure measured at 30 min intervals during two hours) almost identical hypotensive effects within and between groups were observed (mean arterial pressure decrease of 11%, after 120 min; p less than 0.05). At the end of this trial blood pressure decreased further to 152 +/- 12/94 +/- 11 mgHg (20.3 +/- 1.6/12.5 +/- 1.5 kPa) (mean decrease of 20%; p less than 0.01) on nicardipine and to 145 +/- 12/94 +/- 11 mmHg (19.3 +/- 1.6/12.5 +/- 1.5 kPa) (mean decrease of 20%; p less than 0.01) on nifedipine. There were no significant changes in pulse rate. The observed between-group differences were trivial (p greater than 0.10). The laboratory data did not alter appreciably during this study. Three patients on nicardipine and four on nifedipine reported headache, palpitations and flushing: one patient on nicardipine and two on nifedipine were as a result excluded from the trial. It was concluded that nicardipine and nifedipine sustained-release were comparably effective and well-tolerated drugs suitable as the first-line agents for the management of mild to moderate hypertension.
 ...
PMID:Nicardipine versus nifedipine: multicentre controlled trial in essential hypertension. 307 1

The major antihypertensive mechanism of calcium antagonists is by decreasing the systemic vascular resistance, modified by the counter-regulatory responses of the baroreflexes and the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. In severe hypertension, the concept that calcium overload of the vascular myocyte could precipitate or aggravate peripheral vasoconstriction provides a logical basis for the use of these agents as first choice therapy; nifedipine, especially, has been well tested. As monotherapy for mild to moderate hypertension each of the three first-generation agents compares well with beta-blockers. Calcium antagonists may have a special role in the therapy of certain patient groups (elderly, black) or in those subjects whose life style involves intense physical or mental exertion (hemodynamics better maintained than with beta-blockade) or in patients with early end-organ damage such as left ventricular hypertrophy or renal insufficiency. However, the goal blood pressure may not be reached during monotherapy so that drug combinations may be required. Further indications for these compounds are as follows. Verapamil and diltiazem are frequently used in supraventricular tachycardias including acute and chronic atrial fibrillation. In the arrhythmias of the Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome, there is the potential danger of provocation of anterograde conduction. Further indications for calcium antagonists, still under evaluation, include congestive heart failure (controversial), hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (verapamil), primary pulmonary hypertension (high doses required), Raynaud's phenomenon (nifedipine and diltiazem effective), peripheral vascular disease (proof not yet documented), cerebral insufficiency and subarachnoid hemorrhage (nimodipine promising), migraine, exertional bronchospasm, renal disease, atherosclerosis (experimental), and primary aldosteronism (nifedipine inhibits aldosterone release). Second-generation agents include dihydropyridines, such as nitrendipine, nicardipine, felodipine, amlodipine, nisoldipine, nimodipine, and isradipine. From these will be selected agents that are longer acting and provide higher vascular selectivity. New preparations of existing agents include slow-release formulations of nifedipine, verapamil, and diltiazem. Minor side effects include those caused by vasodilation (flushing and headaches), constipation (verapamil), and ankle edema. Serious side effects are rare and result from improper use of these agents, as when intravenous verapamil is given to patients with sinus or atrioventricular nodal depression from drugs or disease, or nifedipine to patients with aortic stenosis. The potential of a marked negative inotropic effect is usually offset by afterload reduction, especially in the case of nifedipine. Yet caution is required when calcium antagonists, especially verapamil, are given to patients with myocardial failure unless caused by hypertensive heart disease. Drug interactions of calcium antagonists occur with other cardiovascular agents such as alpha-adrenergic blockers, beta-adrenergic blockers, digoxin, quinidine, and disopyramide.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)
 ...
PMID:Calcium channel antagonists. Part III: Use and comparative efficacy in hypertension and supraventricular arrhythmias. Minor indications. 315 29

Isotretinoin (13-cis-retinoic acid) is an oral synthetic vitamin A derivative used for control of acne and a variety of other dermatologic conditions. The case of a 21 month old child who accidentally ingested an estimated 1120 mg (63.3 mg/kg) of isotretinoin is presented. The patient demonstrated only minor immediate effects, consisting of facial flushing, and mild tachycardia, tachypnea, and hypertension, all of which resolved over 24 hours. The patient had no subsequent adverse long-term effects from the ingestion. This is the first reported ingestion of isotretinoin in a child. Short term sequelae have not been reported; long-term administration of isotretinoin may cause multiple and potentially severe reactions.
 ...
PMID:Isotretinoin ingestion in a pediatric patient. 322 29

Calcium channel blocking drugs are a chemically heterogenous group, so it might be expected that their effects on vascular smooth muscle, cardiac contractility, and conduction tissue may differ. However, the majority of adverse reactions are predictable from their pharmacological actions and may be conveniently grouped in the following categories: 1) vasodilatation, 2) negative inotropic effects, 3) conduction disturbances, 4) gastrointestinal effects, 5) metabolic effects, and 6) drug interactions. Vasodilatory symptoms, namely, dizziness, headaches, flushing sensation, and palpitation, are more likely with nifedipine. Peripheral edema is also common with nifedipine, but the mechanism is uncertain. For a given degree of vasodilation, the greatest negative inotropic effect is seen with verapamil first, diltiazem second, and nifedipine last. Calcium channel blocking drugs are contraindicated in hypertensive patients with second and third degree heart block, sick sinus syndrome, and severe heart failure. Verapamil and diltiazem have a significant effect on cardiac conduction, whereas nifedipine, in therapeutic doses, does not. Local gastrointestinal symptoms, such as nausea and constipation, are common with verapamil. None of the calcium channel blocking drugs have been reported to adversely affect lipid or protein metabolism. However, nifedipine, verapamil, and diltiazem in high doses may inhibit liberation of insulin. The significance of this finding needs to be explored further in hypertensive diabetics. Serum digoxin levels have been shown to increase after administration of verapamil and nifedipine, but there is no evidence that this change has any clinical relevance.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
Hypertension 1988 Mar
PMID:Side effects of calcium channel blockers. 328 Apr 92

In this randomised, double-blind, crossover trial, the efficacy in hypertension of atenolol and nifedipine as single agents or in combination was compared. 81 patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension (sitting diastolic blood pressure 100-120 mm Hg, aged 20-70 years) from 6 outpatient clinics entered the study. By use of a Latin-square design, patients received, in randomised fashion, sustained release nifedipine 20mg twice daily, atenolol 50mg in the morning and then placebo in the evening, or sustained release nifedipine 20mg plus atenolol 50mg in the morning and then placebo in the evening. Each schedule was followed for 4 weeks. All treatments lowered systolic and diastolic blood pressure in the supine and standing positions compared with pretreatment values. The combination regimen significantly reduced supine and standing systolic (p less than 0.01 and p less than 0.001, respectively) and diastolic (p less than 0.001) blood pressure compared with nifedipine alone, and it also significantly reduced supine and standing systolic (p less than 0.01 and p less than 0.03, respectively) and diastolic (p less than 0.01) blood pressure compared with atenolol alone. Heart rate was significantly decreased by atenolol and the combination compared with nifedipine alone. 15 patients withdrew because of side effects: 9 during nifedipine treatment, 2 during atenolol treatment and 4 during combination treatment. Side effects were typical of those associated with nifedipine or atenolol. Flushes and hot sweats, which were frequent with nifedipine, were significantly less (p less than 0.001) with atenolol or the combination.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
 ...
PMID:Atenolol and sustained release nifedipine alone and in combination in hypertension. A randomised, double-blind, crossover study. 328 67

Nicardipine is an antagonist of calcium influx through the slow channel of the cell membrane and has been shown to be an effective and relatively well-tolerated treatment for stable effort angina and rest angina due to coronary artery spasm, and mild to moderate hypertension. Although its exact mechanism of action in these disease states has not been precisely defined, the potent coronary and peripheral arterial dilator properties of nicardipine, with concomitant improvements in oxygen supply/demand and reductions in systemic vascular resistance, are of major importance. Clinical studies have shown that nicardipine appears to be effective in the treatment of chronic stable exercise-induced angina pectoris and possibly in angina at rest due to coronary artery spasm. In the treatment of stable angina, nicardipine has proved to be equally as effective as nifedipine. However, haemodynamic and clinical studies indicate that nicardipine may have a further advantage of not depressing cardiac conduction or left ventricular function, even in patients with compromised cardiac pumping ability. Nicardipine also appears to be useful as initial monotherapy or in combination with other antihypertensive drugs when used in the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension, and may have some advantages over other vasodilators in this regard in that it may not be as frequently associated with fluid retention or weight gain as other similar drugs. In the treatment of hypertension nicardipine has been shown to be as effective as drugs such as hydrochlorothiazide, cyclopenthiazide, propranolol and verapamil in short term studies although confirmation of its long term usefulness in well-designed clinical trials is still required. Similarly, although the use of nicardipine in other disorders such as congestive heart failure and cerebrovascular disease has provided encouraging preliminary results, more studies are needed to clarify its place in their treatment. Side effects appear to be dose related and more frequent within the first few weeks of therapy. Most of these effects are minor and transient in nature and include headache, flushing and peripheral oedema. Thus, there is no doubt that nicardipine provides a suitable alternative to other drugs available for the treatment of angina and hypertension. However, further well-designed comparative clinical trials are needed to clarify its relative place in the long term management of these disorders.
 ...
PMID:Nicardipine. A review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties, and therapeutic efficacy, in the treatment of angina pectoris, hypertension and related cardiovascular disorders. 329 16

Nicardipine is currently being evaluated in clinical trials as a treatment for angina and hypertension. Over 2,000 patients have received nicardipine, most at dosages of 20 to 40 mg 3 times daily. In 12 double-blind, parallel-group studies (4 of them placebo-controlled) the efficacy of nicardipine was evaluated in mild to moderate hypertension; supine systolic blood pressure was lowered by 10 to 15 mm Hg and supine diastolic blood pressure by 10 mm Hg. A clear dose response is present at dosages from 10 to 40 mg 3 times daily. Patients with angina were treated in 9 double-blind, crossover design studies: 4 of these were placebo-controlled; 3 were comparison studies with beta blockers; 2 were comparisons with nifedipine. Treadmill exercise tests were the major measure of efficacy. Results of these studies showed consistent, statistically significant improvement in exercise tolerance and time to onset of angina, and clinical improvement in patients with chronic stable angina. The effective dosages of nicardipine were 30 or 40 mg 3 times daily. A placebo-controlled study demonstrated remarkable efficacy in patients with vasospastic angina. No deaths or serious adverse reactions were attributed to nicardipine during clinical trials. The most common side effects reported were flushing, palpitations, headache and pedal edema. These appeared to be due to the drug's pharmacologic property of vasodilatation.
 ...
PMID:An overview of the safety and efficacy of nicardipine in clinical trials. 330 Feb 39

The Restaurant syndromes can be caused by five major factors: food allergens, sulfites, monosodium glutamate (MSG), tartrazine, and scombroidosis (and other seafood poisoning). A history of atopy and ingestion of known food allergens such as peanuts, egg, fish, and walnuts, together with positive results of skin tests or RAST to these foods, will favor a diagnosis of food allergy. Allergic reactions to peanuts have produced fatalities in minutes through an IgE mediated reaction. An extremely rapid onset (minutes) of symptoms consisting of flushing, bronchospasm and hypotension is consistent with a sulfite reaction. Burning, pressure, and tightness or numbness in the face, neck, and upper chest following ingestion of Chinese food favors a diagnosis of adverse reaction to MSG. Also, development of late onset bronchospasm (up to 14 hours) may be related to MSG reactions. Bronchospasm and urticaria in a patient with a history of aspirin intolerance suggests tartrazine sensitivity. If everyone ingesting a fish meal develops flushing, urticaria, pruritus, gastrointestinal complaints, or bronchospasm, this implies scombroidosis, ciguatera, or other seafood poisoning. Finally, severe headache or hypertension can result from ingestion of naturally occurring amines, such as tyramine (cheese, red wine) and phenylethylamine (chocolate). A double-blind oral challenge test may be the only way of confirming the diagnosis for most of the etiological factors of the Restaurant syndromes. The treatment of choice for acute reaction is epinephrine followed by antihistamine. Proper labeling and avoidance of these ingredients in sensitive individuals are the best preventive measures.
 ...
PMID:The restaurant syndromes. 330 66


<< Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next >>