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)

A double-blind controlled, randomized, parallel, multicenter 12-week study was conducted to compare the antihypertensive efficacy of lisinopril with that of metoprolol in treatment of moderate to severe hypertension. Initially, 118 patients were recruited on lisinopril and 61 on metoprolol; and for the purpose of efficacy analysis at week 8, 115 patients on lisinopril and 60 on metoprolol were included. The doses of lisinopril or metoprolol were 40-80 mg/day and 100-200 mg/day, respectively. At week 4, the pretreatment diastolic blood pressure of 111 mm Hg was decreased to 97 mm Hg (p less than 0.01) with lisinopril: metoprolol decreased the diastolic blood pressure from 110 to 99 mm Hg (p less than 0.01). Similar decreases were noted at week 8; however, the drop in blood pressure with lisinopril was not significantly different from that with metoprolol. Systolic blood pressure also demonstrated a decrease of about 18 mm Hg with lisinopril and 12 mm Hg with metoprolol (p less than 0.01). This larger decrease in systolic blood pressure with lisinopril was statistically significant at week 4 (p less than 0.05). These decreases in systolic blood pressures were maintained at week 8, again with statistical significance (p less than 0.01). Of the 118 lisinopril-treated patients, four were discontinued from lisinopril therapy because of headache, dizziness, rash, flushing, or lymphadenopathy. Four patients out of 61 (9.8%) were discontinued from metoprolol therapy because of fatigue, somnolence, asthenia, weight gain, flatulence, tremor, or bronchospasm. In conclusion, lisinopril 40-80 mg once daily is as effective as metoprolol 100-200 mg once daily in reducing diastolic blood pressure in patients with moderate to severe hypertension.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
 ...
PMID:Evaluation of antihypertensive efficacy of lisinopril compared to metoprolol in moderate to severe hypertension. 244 53

Lisinopril, a long-acting angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor, and the calcium channel blocker nifedipine in its retard formulation, were compared as monotherapy in a group of 45 patients with essential hypertension. Lisinopril in single daily doses (range 20-80 mg, median dose 40 mg) and nifedipine retard in twice daily doses (total daily dose range 40-80 mg, median dose 60 mg) were equally effective in controlling hypertension. The lisinopril group (n = 30), at baseline supine blood pressure 178/109 +/- 23/9 mm Hg (mean +/- 1 SD), after 12 weeks' therapy measured 148/88 +/- 27/14 mm Hg; the nifedipine group (n = 15), at baseline 185/110 +/- 23/11 mm Hg, after 12 weeks' therapy measured 151/89 +/- 14/10 mm Hg. The number of patients who experienced clinical adverse effects was significantly greater in the nifedipine group: 8 of 15 (53%) compared to 4 of 30 (13%) in the lisinopril group. The commonest adverse effects of patients on nifedipine were swollen ankles, flushing, and headache. Two patients on nifedipine were withdrawn from the study because of their adverse experiences. Of the patients on lisinopril there were single reports of flushing, ankle swelling, tiredness, and chest pain. No patient withdrew from lisinopril because of an adverse experience. No adverse laboratory experiences were recorded in either group. In conclusion, lisinopril and nifedipine retard were equally effective in controlling essential hypertension. Lisinopril was, however, better tolerated during this study.
 ...
PMID:Comparative efficacy of lisinopril and nifedipine retard in essential hypertension: a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. 245 54

A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was carried out in 40 patients affected by multi-infarct dementia to see if a daily intravenous infusion of 3 mg co-dergocrine mesylate ('Hydergine') over 14 days would improve severely deteriorated elderly patients and shorten the latent period (3 months) which is observed when the drug is given orally. All the patients had severe mental impairment, psychological deficit or altered consciousness. A Hachinski score of 7 or more, and a cumulative score of at least 12 points on SCAG scale Items 1, 2 and 4 (anxiety/depression) and/or Items 5, 6 and 8 (alertness/confusion) were required for admission. After 1 week of intravenous infusion of placebo, patients were randomly allocated to treatment with co-dergocrine mesylate or placebo, from Day 1 to Day 14. The solutions were infused over a period of 2 hours. During the follow-up period from Day 15 to Day 21, the patients did not receive any treatment. Thirty-six patients (17 on co-dergocrine mesylate, 19 on placebo) completed the study. The results, as rated on the SCAG scale, indicated significant improvements, in favour of co-dergocrine mesylate, in cognitive dysfunction, mood depression, withdrawal and overall impression. Furthermore, the factor fatigue on the Nowlis scale and clinical global assessments by physicians also showed significant advantages of the co-dergocrine mesylate group over placebo. Nine out of 17 co-dergocrine mesylate patients complained of side-effects, usually experienced during infusion; they consisted mainly of nausea (6 patients), gastric discomfort (2 patients), and tremor, nasal congestion, flushing, hypotension and hypertension (1 patient each). Despite the appearance of side-effects, general tolerability was rated as 'good' by both physicians and patients. It is concluded, therefore, that intravenous high dose co-dergocrine mesylate treatment has a fast and clinically relevant effect on the key clinical symptoms of multi-infarct dementia.
 ...
PMID:Effects of intravenous high dose co-dergocrine mesylate ('Hydergine') in elderly patients with severe multi-infarct dementia: a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. 268 Feb 86

Twenty-seven patients with metastatic carcinoid tumor, 24 of whom had the malignant carcinoid syndrome, were treated with recombinant leukocyte A interferon at a planned dose of 24 x 10(6) U/m2. Twenty percent of patients with measurable tumor experienced an objective regression and 39% of those with the carcinoid syndrome experienced a reduction of more than 50% in urine 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5HIAA) excretion. Flushing was partially or completely relieved in 65% of patients and diarrhea was relieved in 33%. Regrettably, these favorable treatment effects were transient in nature, with objective regressions persisting for a median of only 7 weeks and hormonal responses for a median of only 4 weeks. Any therapeutic gain experienced by these patients seemed to be outweighed by the frequency and severity of toxic reactions, which consisted primarily of chills and fever, fatigue, anorexia, weight loss, leukopenia, and abnormalities of liver function. Whereas other interferons, administration by alternative dosages and regimens, or incorporation of interferons into drug combinations may merit future study, we cannot recommend recombinant leukocyte A interferon, administered by the methods we employed, for routine therapy of the carcinoid tumor or syndrome.
 ...
PMID:Therapy of metastatic carcinoid tumor and the malignant carcinoid syndrome with recombinant leukocyte A interferon. 273 23

Thirteen patients with ileal carcinoids complicated by liver metastases were treated with human leukocyte interferon (IFN) subcutaneously (s.c.) at doses of 3-6 x 10(6) IU/day 5 days weekly during 12 months. Objective tumour response was obtained in 2 patients, based on reduction in tumour size in one patient and on reduction in tumour markers in the other. Stable disease was noted during the 12-month treatment period in 10 patients. Progressive disease was seen in one patient. This patient exhibited tumour growth, new metastases and increases in tumour markers. Among patients with daily flushing prior to treatment, 50% were free of flush after 12 months of IFN. Adverse effects, including a mild influenza-like syndrome, joint and muscle pains, tiredness and reduction of blood cells were observed but did not necessitate long-term dose reductions. Thus, IFN therapy to midgut carcinoid patients resulted in tumour response or stable disease in 12 out of 13 patients without causing severe side effects.
 ...
PMID:Interferon treatment in patients with malignant carcinoids. 274 82

A randomised double blind parallel group study was performed to compare the efficacy and acceptability of slow release nifedipine (maximum dose 40 mg twice a day) with those of atenolol (maximum dose 100 mg once a day) as single agents for the treatment of essential hypertension. Of 410 patients recruited almost exclusively from general practices in 22 centres in the United Kingdom 210 received nifedipine and 200 atenolol. Both drugs significantly reduced blood pressure, and control--a reduction of the diastolic pressure to less than 95 mm Hg--was obtained in about 65% of patients. Those who received nifedipine had more pronounced reductions in systolic pressure than those who received atenolol. One hundred and forty nine patients who failed to respond adequately to either atenolol or nifedipine in low doses were given both drugs once daily for eight weeks in a fixed combination capsule that contained atenolol 50 mg and nifedipine 20 mg. All patients showed further reductions in blood pressure, although those who were taking beta atenolol before the combination capsule had more pronounced reductions in systolic pressures. Twenty six patients (12%) were withdrawn because of adverse effects while taking nifedipine compared with 19 (10%) taking atenolol. Flushing and oedema were more common after the calcium antagonist, whereas diarrhoea and dyspepsia were more common after atenolol. The frequencies of headaches, dizziness, fatigue, and dyspnoea were equally distributed between the two groups. When the fixed combination capsule was taken side effects such as flushing and oedema continued. Nifedipine was more effective than atenolol in lowering systolic blood pressure, although neither drug used alone controlled the pressure of more than two thirds of the patients studied. When used in a fixed combination slightly better control of blood pressure was achieved with a lower dose of each drug.
 ...
PMID:Nifedipine and atenolol singly and combined for treatment of essential hypertension: comparative multicentre study in general practice in the United Kingdom. Nifedipine-Atenolol Study Review Committee. 289 83

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

The combination of nifedipine and atenolol must be evaluated in terms of risks and benefits to the hypertensive patient. Disadvantages with single-agent therapy justify trials of combination regimens. beta-Blockers may be unacceptable to some patients because of gastrointestinal upset, musculoskeletal symptoms, tiredness, malaise, insomnia, depression or confusion, sweating, breathlessness or cold extremities. The side effect profile varies from patient to patient and between different beta-blockers. Calcium antagonists also have characteristic side effects, including severe headaches, flushing and oedema, tachycardia and possibly worrying palpitations, and polyuria. Combining a calcium antagonist and a beta-blocker can reduce some side effects; for example, tachycardia is offset by addition of beta-blocker to calcium antagonist therapy, and beta-blocker-induced cold extremities may be reversed with a drug such as nifedipine. Moreover, the antihypertensive efficacy is increased, which is useful in previously resistant patients. However, an excessive fall in blood pressure is a possible adverse effect of the combination. There is also the possibility of precipitating heart failure in patients with cardiomegaly and severely compromised left ventricular function. The combination of nifedipine and atenolol was evaluated in 25 patients in a randomised, crossover trial following a month's treatment with atenolol 50mg twice daily. Patients received either atenolol 50mg twice daily alone, or atenolol 50mg twice daily with sustained release nifedipine 20mg or 40mg twice daily, or placebo twice daily during three 4-week treatment periods. Additional antihypertensive benefit was obtained by addition of the low dose of nifedipine compared with atenolol alone, but no further advantage was obtained with the higher nifedipine dose.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)
 ...
PMID:Aims of combination therapy--improved quality of life or better blood pressure control? 337 14

In 93 patients with hypertension uncontrolled by bendrofluazide 5 mg plus atenolol 100 mg daily, the effects of adding nifedipine (up to 60 mg/day, n = 31), prazosin (up to 20 mg/day, n = 31), or hydralazine (up to 200 mg/day, n = 31) were compared in a 6 month open random parallel group study. The three drugs did not differ significantly as regards antihypertensive effect, withdrawal rate, total number of side effects, or effect on serum biochemical variables. The pattern of side-effects differed. Headache, flushing and oedema were common with nifedipine, tiredness and drowsiness with prazosin, and headache with hydralazine. Nifedipine is an acceptable third-line antihypertensive drug which may have some advantage over hydralazine and prazosin.
 ...
PMID:Comparison of nifedipine, prazosin and hydralazine added to treatment of hypertensive patients uncontrolled by thiazide diuretic plus beta-blocker. 367 Dec 50

A controlled multicentre trial was organised to compare the effects of 20 mg Nifedipine tablets (N) and 2,5 mg Indapamide tablets (I) during a 4 months' treatment period after a placebo period, in 59 patients with moderate essential hypertension (n = 59). The results of blood pressure measurements of 18 patients treated by nifedipine (1 tablet twice daily) and 22 patients treated by indapamide (1 tablet every morning) were compared. The systolic blood pressure, after 10 minutes recumbency, fell from 165 +/- 10 mmHg to 148 +/- 13 mmHg (p less than 0.01), and the diastolic pressure from 104 +/- 6 mmHg to 86 +/- 7 mmHg (p less than 0.01) in the patients treated with nifedipine. In the indapamide group, the SBP fell from 164 +/- 13 mmHg to 152 +/- 15 mmHg (p less than 0.01) and the DBP from 100 +/- 4 mmHg to 87 +/- 6 mmHg (p less than 0.01). There were no significant changes of heart rate with either drug; plasma creatinine, potassium and uric acid concentrations were also unchanged. There was a higher incidence of headaches and tiredness in the nifedipine group, whilst patients treated with indapamide complained more often of muscular cramps. Flushing was observed in nearly a quarter of the patients in both groups. These results confirm that both nifedipine and indapamide induce significant and persistant falls in systolic and diastolic blood pressure. Although the fall was greater with nifedipine than with indapamide, the difference was not statistically significant. The tolerance was satisfactory in both groups of patients.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
 ...
PMID:[Comparative effects of nifedipine and indapamide in the treatment of arterial hypertension]. 393 9


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