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)

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

We assessed the efficacy of long-acting nifedipine as monotherapy in 52 patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension in a randomized, controlled crossover study. Good blood pressure control was achieved in 34 of 40 patients (85%) receiving nifedipine (mean daily dose, 52 mg in 2 divided doses) compared with 23 of 40 patients (58%) receiving metoprolol (mean daily dose, 155 mg in 2 divided doses). After treatment for 4 weeks, the mean blood pressures with nifedipine (149.7 +/- 16.6/88.7 +/- 11.1 mm of mercury) and metoprolol administration (163.9 +/- 23.3/94.2 +/- 10.2 mm of mercury) were significantly lower than with placebo (176.7 +/- 17.3/100.9 +/- 7.1 mm of mercury) (P less than .05). The mean systolic pressure during nifedipine treatment was 14.2 mm of mercury lower (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.9 to 24.5 mm of mercury) and mean diastolic pressure 5.5 mm of mercury (95% CI, 0.3 to 10.7 mm of mercury) lower than with metoprolol therapy. Both drugs were reasonably well tolerated, and intolerance requiring withdrawal was encountered in 3 of 45 (7%) patients receiving nifedipine, compared with 1 of 45 (2%) of those taking metoprolol and placebo, respectively. Adverse effects of nifedipine, most of which were transient, included palpitations, headache, facial flushing, and ankle edema. Long-acting nifedipine is a promising agent when given alone for mild to moderate hypertension and can be safely administered in clinical practice.
 ...
PMID:Long-acting nifedipine versus metoprolol as monotherapy for essential hypertension. A randomized, controlled crossover study. 240 30

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

The complementary antihypertensive effects of the beta-blocker/calcium antagonist combination has to be weighed against their additive and potentially detrimental negative inotropic, chronotropic, and dromotropic effects inherent in both classes of drugs. We reviewed the main adversity, particularly electrophysiological and hemodynamic effects, of combined treatments with beta-blockers and the calcium antagonists verapamil, diltiazem, and nifedipine. In patients with coronary artery disease, a different picture emerged between the verapamil and nifedipine combination with a beta-blocker. Verapamil was more often associated with conduction problems (up to 9%) and dyspnea or heart failure (up to 8%). These problems had rarely been reported with nifedipine but ankle edema (up to 11%), flushing (up to 11%), and headaches (up to 7%) predominated. The cardiovascular unwanted effects led to withdrawal in 5-8% for the verapamil/beta-blocker or nifedipine/beta-blocker combination. Although there was little cardiac adversity with the nifedipine/beta-blocker combination, the intravenous administration of verapamil in patients on beta-blockers is contraindicated and the oral verapamil/beta-blocker combination should not be sought in patients with impaired left ventricular function and when conduction disturbances are likely to occur. In treating hypertensive patients without overt coronary artery disease, there is no argument against the use of the nifedipine/beta-blocker combination but there is a need for definitive studies of the verapamil/beta-blocker combination.
 ...
PMID:Review of the cardiovascular adversity of the calcium antagonist beta-blocker combination: implications for antihypertensive therapy. 241 10

Felodipine lowers blood pressure by reducing peripheral vascular resistance through a highly selective action on smooth muscle in arteriolar resistance vessels. The selective action may be considered a safeguard against untoward effects on cardiac contractility and conduction. Felodipine does not cause orthostatic hypotension since it has no effect in clinical doses on venous smooth muscle. Felodipine has a natriuretic/diuretic effect, which counteracts the salt and water retention that is often seen during treatment with other potent vasodilators. In clinical studies, felodipine has proved more effective than several established antihypertensive drugs. The combination of felodipine and a beta-adrenergic blocker appears to be a good alternative to standard triple treatment, and felodipine is often effective in patients with previously "refractory" hypertension. The antihypertensive effect of felodipine is dose related. In patients with moderate hypertension, a dose regimen of 5 mg twice a day is usually sufficient, and doses greater than 10 mg twice a day are not often required. Felodipine is generally well tolerated. The most common adverse effects are those expected from a potent arteriolar dilator: ankle swelling, headache, dizziness, flushing, etc. Adverse effects are usually transient or diminish in intensity with continued treatment. The overall frequency of adverse effects with felodipine appears to be similar to that for the established antihypertensive drugs, although the adverse effects differ. Felodipine is a potent arteriolar dilator with therapeutic advantages, especially for patients with moderate to severe hypertension.
 ...
PMID:Felodipine in hypertension--a review. 244 9

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

Iloprost, a stable prostacyclin analogue, was given by intravenous infusion to 29 patients with severe Raynaud's phenomenon, 26 of whom had systemic sclerosis (SS), and compared with placebo infusion in a double blind crossover trial. Iloprost significantly lessened the number and the severity of attacks compared with placebo. Nine patients expressed a preference for effectiveness of treatment, eight of these in favour of Iloprost. Thermography failed to show any long term effect of Iloprost. Side effects of headache, flushing, nausea, and vomiting were common, and the inconvenience of intravenous administration may limit its routine use.
 ...
PMID:Infusion of iloprost, a prostacyclin analogue, for treatment of Raynaud's phenomenon in systemic sclerosis. 244 71

Seven patients with progressive ileal or caecal carcinoid tumors and liver metastases were treated with human recombinant alpha-interferon (IFN alfa-2b) at a dosage of 2-4 x 10(6) U daily or every other day subcutaneously. Six patients had symptoms of the carcinoid syndrome. No change of tumor size lasting 4 to 40+ months (median, 18 months) was noted in 6 patients, and 1 patient had hepatic tumor progression. A decrease in urinary excretion of 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid by more than 50% lasting 2-11 months (median, 4) was observed in 5 patients. Four patients were completely or partially relieved of flushing, diarrhea, obstruction or abdominal pain. The side-effects were negligible with the exception of mild fever, headache and confusion only during the first days of therapy. Treatment with IFN alfa-2b offers good palliation to patients with disseminated ileal or caecal carcinoid tumor and carcinoid syndrome.
 ...
PMID:[Treatment of metastasized carcinoid tumor of the ileum and cecum with recombinant alpha-2b interferon]. 245 Mar 26

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

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


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