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)

Ftorafur, a furanyl analog of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), is reported to be five to six times less toxic and possibly more effective in cancer of the breast and colon than 5-FU. The drug was synthesized, formulated, and utilized in toxicologic studies, and then in 24 patients with advanced incurable malignancies. When Ftorafur is given by intravenous push, it results in immediate flushing, dizziness, nausea, retching, and in some cases transient hypotension. These immediate side effects are largely eliminated by administering the drug slowly by infusion. In patients, 60 mg/kg of Ftorafur given i.v. daily for up to 10 days resulted in mild toxicity. However, 80 mg/kg given i.v. daily for 7 days resulted in severe toxicity, with nausea, vomiting, stomatitis, leukopenia, and thrombocytopenia. These studies confirm those of the Russian investigators as to toxicity and dosage, even with a different method of administration more convenient for therapy. Phase II studies are presently being carried out to compare the effectiveness of Ftorafur and 5-FU.
 ...
PMID:Phase I study of ftorafur, an analog of 5-fluorouracil. 120 38

The antihypertensive effects of the regular immediate release formulation of verapamil (verapamil IR) and the newer sustained release formulation of verapamil (verapamil SR) were compared in Hispanic patients with untreated essential hypertension. Verapamil IR was given in 3 divided doses (80 or 160mg 3 times daily) and verapamil SR was given either as a single daily dose of 240mg or as 240mg every 12 hours. With both formulations there was a significant reduction in systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP); a greater lowering of BP was observed with verapamil 480 mg/day than with 240 mg/day. With verapamil SR 480 mg/day, 91% of patients had reductions in SBP and DBP greater than 20 and 15mm Hg, respectively. In addition, 83% of patients reached normotension. With the lower dose (240mg once daily), 83% of patients had decreases in DBP greater than 10mm Hg and 73% of patients achieved normotension. Comparable effects were achieved with verapamil IR. With verapamil IR there was a more rapid fall in BP which peaked 3 to 4 hours postdose, whereas with verapamil SR a more gradual and sustained BP reduction was observed. Only small changes in heart rate (HR) were observed with verapamil IR and verapamil SR. For verapamil SR, the mean increase in HR was 5 beats/min (to 80 beats/min) and the mean decrease in HR was 13 beats/min (to 62 beats/min). Both verapamil SR and verapamil IR prolonged the PR interval of the ECG. An equal degree of PR prolongation was observed with 240 and 480 mg/day. The incidence of side effects (headache, palpitations, dizziness and flushing) was dose dependent, decreased with continuous treatment and was much higher with verapamil IR than with verapamil SR. Steady-state plasma verapamil concentrations were monitored. Compared with verapamil IR, verapamil SR produced a more gradual rise and a more sustained elevation of plasma verapamil and norverapamil concentrations. Comparable trough verapamil concentrations (Cmin) were observed with verapamil IR (98 micrograms/L) and SR (81 micrograms/L); morning Cmin verapamil concentrations were higher than daytime Cmin values. The normalised area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) and maximum concentration (Cmax) were 10 to 20% greater for verapamil IR than SR. The 2-fold increase in oral dose produced a 2.2- and 2.4-fold increase in AUC for verapamil IR and SR, respectively, associated with a 20% reduction in metabolism to norverapamil. Fasting increased the rate and extent of absorption of verapamil.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)
 ...
PMID:Comparative efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics of verapamil SR vs verapamil IR in hypertensive patients. 128 70

Exercise myocardial-thallium scintigraphy plays a fundamental role in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Once exercise is not always feasible, pharmacological stress became a possible alternative. The authors review the mechanism of action, administrations protocols, indications and side effects of the drugs used for this purpose: dipyridamole, adenosine and dobutamine. Dipyridamole causes coronary hyperemia by increasing the interstitial levels of endogenous adenosine. Perfusion defects result from the mismatch of coronary reserve in different coronary territories. The drug administration is classically performed with a 0.142 mg/kg/min dosage e.v. for 4 minutes, total of 0.56 mg/kg. It is possible to use a greater dose of 0.84 mg/kg e.v. for 10 minutes, increasing sensitivity without loss of specificity for diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Oral dipyridamole protocols with 300 and 400 mg were used with similar results for sensitivity and specificity. The oral protocol has the disadvantage of delayed onset and longer action. Including several dipyridamole studies, 87% was obtained for sensitivity and 84% for specificity, in the diagnosis of CAD. Dipyridamole scintigraphy has been applied to myocardial infarction risk stratification, cardiac risk evaluation of patients proposed to noncardiac surgery and therapeutic efficacy evaluation of reperfusion techniques (angioplasty and surgery). The secondary effects of dipyridamole are frequent, however mild and well tolerated. They occur in half the patients, the most frequent, facial flushing (2%), dizziness (5%), nausea (4%), vomiting (1%), headaches (11%) and chest pain (26%). Some important complications were reported although rare: myocardial infarction, ventricular fibrillation and bronchospasm.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
 ...
PMID:[Role of pharmacologic stimulation with myocardial perfusion scintigraphy in the evaluation of patients with ischemic cardiopathy]. 129 Jun 55

The antihypertensive effects of lisinopril 10-20 mg once daily and felodipine (extended release formulation) 5-10 mg once daily were compared in a double-blind, parallel group study of eight weeks duration involving 219 patients with mild to moderate hypertension. On lisinopril treatment sitting blood pressure fell from 166.3/102.9 +/- 17.5/5.8 mmHg to 146.7/89.7 +/- 19.5/8.7 mmHg and on felodipine blood pressure fell from 166.7/103.3 +/- 18.3/5.4 mmHg to 153.6/92.3 +/- 15.9/7.9 mmHg. The decreases in sitting systolic and diastolic blood pressures were significantly greater on lisinopril than on felodipine treatment (p = 0.019 and p = 0.033). A subgroup analysis in elderly patients (age > or = 65 years) showed that lisinopril and felodipine were equally effective in reducing blood pressure. In young subjects (age < 65 years) felodipine treatment lowered systolic blood pressure less than did lisinopril treatment (p = 0.001). Lisinopril was better tolerated than felodipine. On lisinopril treatment, reports of headache and dizziness were reduced while that of cough increased. On felodipine treatment, dizziness was reduced but reports of flushing and oedema were increased. The results show a better antihypertensive effect and better tolerability for lisinopril compared with extended release felodipine.
 ...
PMID:Efficacy and tolerability of lisinopril compared with extended release felodipine in patients with essential hypertension. Danish Cooperative Study Group. 133 Mar 86

In a randomized, parallel, double-blind study, lisinopril (n = 412) reduced systolic and diastolic blood pressure more than nifedipine did (n = 416) after ten weeks treatment in patients (40-70 years) with mild to moderate essential hypertension. Lisinopril was tolerated better than nifedipine, with fewer withdrawals. Adverse experiences reported after a general question on discomfort were significantly lower for lisinopril than for nifedipine. Questions referring specifically to symptoms revealed higher frequency of coughing with lisinopril, while flushing, edema, palpitations, dizziness, tiredness and rash were reported more frequently with nifedipine. Quality of life was similarly assessed by both patients and spouses. No significant differences in well-being during treatment were found for either drug, except in the case of the highest dose level of nifedipine, which caused a deterioration of well-being.
 ...
PMID:[Treatment with lisinopril or nifedipine in essential hypertension. A Norwegian multicenter study of the effect, tolerance and quality of life of 828 patients]. 133 84

Blood pressure and clinical status of 1,736 patients with cerebrovascular disease were observed during 12 months of treatment with nicardipine. The most common diagnoses were chronic cerebral ischemia (53.2%), transient ischemic attacks (TIA; 25.1%), and cerebral infarct (8.7%); 50.1% of patients were classed as hypertensive [systolic blood pressure (SBP) > or = 160 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) > or = 90 mm Hg]. Most patients (91.2%) received a daily dose of 60 mg nicardipine. Additional treatments included diuretics (37%), beta-blockers (11.5%), other antihypertensive drugs (15.8%), platelet antiaggregants (25.1%), and cardiotonic drugs (15.1%). A total of 282 patients (16.2%) were lost to follow-up, 21 (1.2%) patients withdrew due to side effects, 32 (1.8%) died, and 9 (0.5%) patients had treatment interrupted due to concomitant illness. In the hypertensive subgroup, blood pressure (SBP/DBP) was reduced from a mean baseline value of 175 +/- 22/97 +/- 14 mm Hg to 152 +/- 17/85 +/- 11 mm Hg at 3 months and 149 +/- 23/81 +/- 11 mm Hg after 12 months of treatment. The incidence of TIA or stroke among these patients was reduced from 29 cases (3.5%) during the first 3 months to 11 cases (1.54%) during months 4-12 (p < 0.01). In normotensive patients there were 18 (2.15%) cases during months 1-3 and 13 (1.55%) cases during months 4-12 (difference not significant). In the 280 patients treated with nicardipine alone, the most frequent side effects during the first month were facial flushing (6.8%), gastrointestinal problems (5%), dizziness (3.2%), headache (3.2%), drowsiness (3.2%), and hypotension (1.1%). Most of these side effects were transient.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
 ...
PMID:The influence of nicardipine in patients with high risk of stroke. 136 3

We studied the effects of nifedipine on blood pressure and on clinical and analytical parameters in hypertensive patients. Seven male and eight female subjects (mean age of 46.27 +/- 5.38 years, range of 41-56 years) with essential arterial hypertension were given nifedipine (20 mg b.i.d.) for 3 months. Before and after treatment, history, blood pressure, and biochemical values were recorded [blood: Na, K, Ca, creatinine, uric acid, triglycerides, cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, antidiuretic hormone (ADH), and aldosterone; urine: Na, K, Ca, creatinine, ADH, aldosterone, and percentage fraction of Na, K, and Ca excreted]. After 3 months of treatment, we found (a) significant decreases in systolic (147 +/- 18 vs. 166 +/- 16 mm Hg, p less than 0.001) and diastolic blood pressure (90 +/- 8 vs. 107 +/- 8 mm Hg, p less than 0.0007), triglycerides (107 +/- 47 vs. 120 +/- 49 mg/dl, p less than 0.0007), and cholesterol (236 +/- 4 vs. 257 +/- 44 mg/dl, p less than 0.00075) in blood, and in K excretion (50 +/- 19 vs. 46 +/- 19 mEq/g of creatinine, p less than 0.0007) and excreted fraction of K (49 +/- 6% vs. 8 +/- 5%, p less than 0.0012) in urine; (b) significant increases in HDL cholesterol (65 +/- 13 vs. 58 +/- 13 mg/dl, p less than 0.001) in blood, and in Na (115 +/- 73 vs. 109 +/- 69 mEq/g of creatinine, p less than 0.0007) in urine; and (c) no significant change in the remaining biochemical parameters, or in heart rate. Secondary effects included flushing (34%), headache (20%), ankle swelling (17%), dizziness (13%), palpitations (4%), and pruritus (4%).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
 ...
PMID:Metabolic and antihypertensive effects of nifedipine in hypertensive patients. 137 8

A 6-week open study of the introduction of isradipine treatment was conducted in general practice in Hong Kong. 303 Chinese patients with mild to moderate hypertension entered the study. Side effects were reported in 21% of patients and caused withdrawal from the study in 3 patients. The main side-effects were headache, dizziness, palpitation and flushing and these were not more frequent than reported in other studies with isradipine or with placebo. Supine blood pressure was reduced (P less than 0.01) from 170 +/- 20/102 +/- 6 mmHg to 153 +/- 19/92 +/- 8, 147 +/- 18/88 +/- 7 and 144 +/- 14/87 +/- 6 mmHg at 2, 4 and 6 weeks respectively in evaluable patients. Similar reductions occurred in standing blood pressure and there was no evidence of postural hypotension. Normalization and responder rates at 6 weeks were 86% and 69% respectively. Dosage was increased from 2.5 mg b.d. to 5 mg b.d. at 4 weeks in patients with diastolic blood pressure greater than 90 mmHg and their further response was greater than those remaining on 2.5 mg b.d.
 ...
PMID:Isradipine treatment for hypertension in general practice in Hong Kong. 145 44

The frequency and severity of adverse effects during the first 14 days of treatment with amlodipine (5 mg once daily), nifedipine retard (20 mg twice daily) or placebo were compared in a multicentre, three-way, cross-over study involving 97 patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. All three groups of patients were well matched for age, sex and baseline blood pressure. Amlodipine and nifedipine retard produced highly significant and comparable reductions in blood pressure, indicating that the doses were therapeutically equivalent. The incidence of adverse effects considered to be definitely or probably related to nifedipine retard treatment (41%) was significantly higher than for placebo (16%, p less than 0.01) or amlodipine (27%, p less than 0.05). There were no significant differences in the incidence of vasodilator-related adverse effects between amlodipine and placebo. In contrast, headache, flushing and dizziness were reported more frequently by patients while on nifedipine retard than on placebo or amlodipine. The convenience of once-daily dosing, together with a lower incidence of adverse effects, with consequently fewer withdrawals from therapy, suggests that amlodipine has clinical advantages over nifedipine retard in the treatment of hypertension.
 ...
PMID:Comparison of early side effects with amlodipine and nifedipine retard in hypertension. 153 16

A prospective study was conducted by means of a questionnaire to determine the prevalence of delayed reactions to contrast media administered intravenously (iopamidol) and orally (diatrizoate sodium) in 170 patients who had received interleukin-2 (IL-2) and in 631 patients who did not. Another control group of 100 non-IL-2 patients received only oral contrast medium. Delayed reactions (eg, fever rash, flulike symptoms, joint pain, flushing, pruritus, and dizziness) were reported in 3.9% (25 of 631) of non-IL-2 patients and in 11.8% (20 of 170) of IL-2 patients. Reactions were mild in the non-IL-2 patients but were more severe in the IL-2 patients. Two IL-2 patients required hospitalization. Only rash, flulike symptoms, and pruritus were statistically more common in IL-2 patients than in non-IL-2 patients. The prevalence of delayed reactions to nonionic contrast medium is higher in patients who have received IL-2 than in the general population. Most delayed reactions do not require therapy, but, when necessary, therapy is usually limited to relief of symptoms.
 ...
PMID:Delayed reactions to contrast media after interleukin-2 immunotherapy. 154 55


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