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)

There have been major advances in the understanding of the basic pharmacology of drugs acting upon voltage-dependent and receptor-activated calcium channels using patch-clamp techniques. The structure of the L channel is known and the (different) binding sites for various calcium antagonists have been identified using the methods of molecular biology. Although calcium slow-channel antagonists are very widely used in the treatment of hypertension, advances in the clinical pharmacology of angina and, to a lesser extent, cardiac arrhythmias, have not kept up with the basic research in molecular biology. All of the calcium antagonists in current use dilate arteries, and their therapeutic action largely depends on this property. There is evidence of differences in response between arteries and veins, and some degree of selectivity between vascular territories, but the goal of much more specific or localized vasodilation has not been achieved. The most prominent difference between the three main classes of antihypertensive drugs is the mild reflex increase of heart rate seen with the dihydropyridines and the bradycardia seen with verapamil. Most of the side effects of calcium antagonists are also based on vasodilatation, such as flushing and headache. The mild edema often seen with the dihydropyridines probably depends on the changes in capillary pressure brought about by arterial dilatation. Despite their undoubted efficacy as vasodilators, there are no studies thus far which allow any conclusions as to the long-term effect of calcium antagonists on the morbidity and mortality due to hypertension.
 ...
PMID:Clinical pharmacology of calcium antagonists. 202 57

Nicardipine and nifedipine are structurally similar dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers with demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of stable angina pectoris. The present study was a prospective randomized trial designed to evaluate the relative incidence of dizziness, flushing, headache, pedal edema, and palpitations during use of these drugs in patients with angina pectoris. Of 250 patients who entered into the comparative treatment part of the study, 140 patients were susceptible to developing symptoms to nifedipine as identified during a 1-month open-label treatment with nifedipine. These patients were compared with a parallel cohort of 110 patients, who were identified during the same open-label period, but remained mostly asymptomatic. After a 1-week washout of nifedipine, equal numbers of patients in each cohort began an 8-week period of randomized, double-blind treatment with nifedipine (20 mg three times daily) or nicardipine (30 mg three times daily). Patients who experienced these symptoms during the open-label nifedipine treatment had a higher incidence of the same symptoms during the blinded treatment regimen. Nicardipine-treated patients had a lower incidence of each of the symptoms than did the nifedipine-treated patients. Statistically significant differences were reported for dizziness, the most common of the side effects. Patients who were free of these symptoms in the open-label period usually remained free of them in the blinded comparison. However, even among those free of dizziness during the open-label nifedipine treatment, more patients reported experiencing dizziness in the blinded phase from nifedipine than from nicardipine (18% vs 6%; p = 0.02).
 ...
PMID:Randomized double-blind comparison of side effects of nicardipine and nifedipine in angina pectoris. The Nicardipine Investigators Group. 240 16

Vasodilators of resistive vessels may induce ischemia in patients with coronary artery disease. To evaluate this possibility during prostacyclin (PGI2; scalar doses up to 10 ng/kg/min) and prostacyclin analog (iloprost; scalar doses up to 6 ng/kg/min) infusions, we studied 33 patients with angina pectoris and proved coronary artery disease. Patients were also submitted to dipyridamole (0.15 mg/kg/min for 4 minutes) and exercise stress testing (starting at 25 W and increasing 25 W every 2 minutes). In a preliminary study the hemodynamic and side effects of iloprost were studied in seven healthy subjects. At an iloprost dose of 4 to 6 ng/kg/min, these subjects had a significant decrease in mean arterial pressure and total peripheral and pulmonary vascular resistances. Side effects were limited to facial flushing and slight headache and were readily reversible. PGI2 induced typical chest pain and significant ST segment depression in six patients with severe coronary artery disease (three with left main and three with triple vessel disease) and poor exercise tolerance (means +/- SD = 362 +/- 99 seconds). All six patients had had angina during the dipyridamole infusion. Similar findings were observed after iloprost infusion in four of these. Aminophylline (125 mg iv) completely relieved chest pain. Although the rate-pressure products occasionally rose during PGI2 and iloprost infusions, there were no significant changes between ischemic (11.3 +/- 2.3 and 10.6 +/- 1.4 X 10(-3) U) and preischemic (10.8 +/- 1.5 and 10.7 +/- 1.4 X 10(-3) U) rates of infusion. Our data indicate that PGI2 and iloprost may induce ischemia independently of changes in oxygen demand, and suggest that these drugs dilate small coronary vessels. This may result in decreased subendocardial perfusion pressure and/or "coronary steal."
 ...
PMID:Myocardial ischemia induced by prostacyclin and iloprost. 240 9

From a hemodynamic point of view, the calcium antagonists represent an interesting way of treating hypertension, because they reduce total peripheral resistance without compromising cardiac output. Blood flow is also maintained during muscular exercise. Verapamil and diltiazem induce slight reduction in heart rate, but this is compensated by increase in stroke volume. Verapamil and diltiazem also prolong atrioventricular conduction time, in contrast to the dihydropyridines. Most clinical data are available for verapamil, diltiazem, and nifedipine. In patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension, these compounds seem as effective as diuretics and beta-blockers. They do not induce disturbances in glucose metabolism, serum uric acid, or serum potassium, and unwanted disturbances in blood lipids have not been described. The dihydropyridines may safely be combined with beta-blockers, but the combination of either verapamil or diltiazem with a beta-blocker should be avoided (because of the high risk of bradycardia). The calcium antagonists seem particularly useful in patients with the combination of hypertension and angina pectoris or peripheral vascular diseases or chronic obstructive lung diseases or diabetes. They are also effective in hypertensive crises. They may also be tried as a first line drug in patients with mild and moderate essential hypertension, particularly when diuretics or beta-blockers are contraindicated. Temporary side effects due to vasodilatation (headache, flushing, and palpitations) are seen frequently, particularly on the dihydropyridines. Edema is the most frequent serious side effect of the dihydropyridines, and constipation is most common with verapamil. At this point, few long-term data are available and it is not known whether the calcium antagonists will give better or worse results, with respect to morbidity and mortality, than the beta-blockers, diuretics, or other more recent antihypertensive agents.
 ...
PMID:Clinical use of calcium antagonists in hypertension: update 1986. 245 35

The primary aim of this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, crossover study in 529 patients with stable angina pectoris was to compare the tolerability of epanolol, a novel antianginal agent, administered as a single oral daily dose of 200mg, with an oral retard formulation of twice-daily nifedipine 20mg and to determine patient preference (VISA 2). Confirmation of equal efficacy and safety monitoring were secondary aims of the study. Treatment consisted of 4 weeks on each therapy, and at the end of the study each patient was asked to state their treatment preference. 448 patients (85%) answered the preference question. Preliminary analysis of the data showed that 61% of patients preferred epanolol vs 31% who preferred nifedipine (p less than 0.001). Reason for a preference for epanolol were mainly fewer adverse experiences (11% vs. 23% with nifedipine), a general improvement in well-being (16% vs 10% with nifedipine) and a decrease in the number of angina attacks (11% vs 10% with nifedipine). A tolerability questionnaire comprising 43 questions and covering 7 different body systems showed that epanolol had a better profile than nifedipine for the following 7 side effects: poor sleep, abdominal pain, flushing, swollen ankles, palpitations, headache and a general feeling of being unwell. Four patients died during the study; none of the deaths were associated with the study treatment. Treatment with nifedipine resulted in 63 patient withdrawals compared with 31 patient withdrawals during epanolol treatment; there were 5 patient withdrawals from both treatments. The main reasons for withdrawal of patients from nifedipine treatment were adverse events (9% vs 4% with epanolol) and a lack of efficacy (3% vs 2% with epanolol).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
 ...
PMID:Comparative multicentre study of the tolerability and efficacy of epanolol versus nifedipine in patients with stable angina pectoris. 257 83

It is generally agreed that bicarbonate dialysate is preferable to acetate dialysate, but the major limiting factors of high cost and technical difficulty in maintaining its stability for prolonged periods preclude its widespread use. The procedure developed by the authors stabilizes bicarbonate dialysate for up to 4 days, rendering bicarbonate dialysate feasible for routine out-patient use. HCO3 dialysate is produced in our dialysis unit after an initial investment of $10,000.00, at a cost per 4-h treatment of $1.22 at a dialysate flow of 500 cc/min. One hundred fifty-one chronic dialysis patients participated in an 18-week study to evaluate clinical symptomatology when bicarbonate was substituted for acetate as the dialysis base buffer. Evaluation of each dialysis treatment (total of 8,183 treatments) consisted of both subjective and objective criteria (vomiting, angina, cramps, hypotension, and frequency of use of mannitol, hypertonic saline, and nitroglycerine). The patients were unaware of the change in dialysate solutions. There was a significant reduction (p less than 0.001) in the incidence of vomiting, cramps, hypotension, nausea, flushing, and the use of mannitol and hypertonic saline during bicarbonate dialysate treatment compared with acetate dialysate. Shortness of breath, angina, mental confusion, and paresthesias were not statistically changed. Although the method of HCO3 dialysate production is associated with occasional higher bacterial count than currently recommended by AAMI standards, no adverse reactions were observed in patients treated with standard efficiency dialyzers. It is concluded that the process for incenter HCO3 production is safe, economical, and better tolerated than acetate dialysate.
 ...
PMID:An economical new process for incenter bicarbonate dialysate production: comparison with acetate in a large dialysis population. 280 52

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

Treatment with metoprolol (100 mg twice daily), nifedipine (10 mg 3 times daily) and both drugs combined were compared for effect on clinical variables, bicycle ergometer exercise tolerance and adverse effects in a randomized double-blind, crossover study in patients with stable effort angina (n = 62). Nitroglycerin consumption and anginal attack rate as recorded in patient diaries indicated a higher antianginal efficacy (p less than or equal to 0.001) with metoprolol and combination therapy than with nifedipine monotherapy. All exercise test variables showed a significantly higher antianginal efficacy with combination therapy than with nifedipine monotherapy (15 to 26%). The combination therapy was also better than metoprolol in all exercise variables (9 to 14%), except for onset and duration of chest pain. Furthermore, metoprolol showed a higher efficacy than nifedipine in all exercise variables (7 to 23%) except total exercise time. More adverse symptoms of peripheral vasodilation were reported for nifedipine than for metoprolol (tachycardia, flushing, headache, p less than or equal to 0.05). It is concluded that combined treatment with metoprolol and nifedipine increased antianginal efficacy compared with the monotherapies, without increasing adverse effects. In effort angina, metoprolol in these doses was more effective and better tolerated than nifedipine.
 ...
PMID:Metoprolol, nifedipine, and the combination in stable effort angina pectoris. 308 64

Forty-seven patients with chronic stable angina pectoris entered a thirteen-week open-label study with a transdermal therapeutic system of nitroglycerin in order to evaluate its clinical efficacy, safety, and patient acceptance. In 19 patients, a beta-blocker and in 17 patients a calcium-channel blocker were continued throughout the study period without alteration of their doses. The study consisted of a two-week run-in period and an eleven-week active drug period. Acute titration was done with nitroglycerin patches on the basis of weekly patient diaries on frequency of angina and sublingual nitroglycerin consumption. Overall, reductions in frequency of angina and in nitroglycerin consumption were statistically significant (p less than 0.05). Adverse reactions were common but tolerable. The reported side effects were headache in 32, skin rash in 18, dizziness in 10, palpitation and itching in 9 each, nausea in 7, flushing in 3, and vomiting in 1 patient. In conclusion, the present study demonstrates that individual dose titration with nitroglycerin patches for obtaining significant antianginal effect is essential. The present therapeutic system is convenient to use and well tolerated and had acceptable side effects in our study population.
 ...
PMID:Clinical experience with a transdermal nitroglycerin system. 310 41

To compare the clinical efficacy and dose equivalency of standard nifedipine versus a new gastrointestinal therapeutic system (GITS) formulation of nifedipine, 98 patients with chronic stable angina pectoris participated in a 14-week, multicenter, open-label, crossover trial. All patients were administered nifedipine capsules for one month prior to study entry and continued receiving other antianginal, non-calcium blocker medications. Ninety-one patients (93 percent), 80 men and 11 women, mean age 62 +/- 1 years, completed the trial, which included two weeks receiving standard nifedipine followed by 12 weeks receiving nifedipine GITS starting at a dosage equal to the 24-hour total dose of nifedipine capsules and titrated upward as necessary. However, throughout the trial, mean nifedipine dosage was similar on nifedipine GITS compared with standard nifedipine. Angina frequency was significantly less with nifedipine GITS at Weeks 6, 10, and 14 (0.8 episodes/week) compared with baseline with standard nifedipine (1.3 episodes/week, p less than 0.05). Likewise, nitroglycerin consumption was also less at Weeks 6, 10, and 14, but only significantly less at Week 6 (nifedipine 1.2/week versus nifedipine GITS at six weeks, 0.7/week; p less than 0.05). Resting hemodynamic parameters, including systolic and diastolic blood pressure and heart rate, were not significantly different with standard nifedipine versus nifedipine GITS during the 12-week study. Total incidences of side effects were similar for both treatments (standard nifedipine, 16; nifedipine GITS, 17). However, incidence of vasodilator side effects (flushing, dizziness, and light-headedness) was significantly less frequent with nifedipine GITS (standard nifedipine, 12; nifedipine GITS, six; p less than 0.05). Thus, results from this open-label, crossover trial suggest that nifedipine GITS dosing is similar to multidose standard nifedipine with equivalent 24-hour efficacy for nifedipine GITS.
 ...
PMID:Nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system in stable angina pectoris. Results of a multicenter open-label crossover comparison with standard nifedipine. 314 Jun 60


<< Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next >>