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)

The effects of the calcium antagonist nifedipine on uterine activity and lower abdominal pain were studied during the first menstrual day in 10 women with severe primary dysmenorrhoea. Intrauterine pressure was recorded at three different levels by means of microtransducers. Nifedipine, 20 to 40 mg given orally, within 10 to 30 minutes effectively reduced the myometrial activity and relieved the pain. A moderate increase in heart rate, and a transient facial flushing were noted. In some patients receiving 30 or 40 mg this was associated with a slight headache. Otherwise no side effects were observed. It is suggested that calcium antagonists can be used to treat primary dysmenorrhoea and other conditions in which an inhibition of uterine activity is desirable.
 ...
PMID:Effects of nifedipine on myometrial activity and lower abdominal pain in women with primary dysmenorrhoea. 62 24

The effects of the calcium antagonist Nifedipine were investigated on isolated human myometrium and on uterine activity in healthy women during their first menstrual days. Nifedipine (0.01-1.0 microgram/ml) had a concentration-related inhibiting effect on spontaneous activity of the myometrial strips, and relaxed preparations contracted by potassium. In vivo, Nifedipine (20-30 mg) given orally, effectively and rapidly reduced uterine activity, decreasing both amplitude and frequency of uterine contractions, and reduced basal tone. A moderate increase in heart rate and a transient facial flushing were noted, but otherwise no side effects were observed. Calcium antagonists like Nifedipine represent a new approach to the problem of relaxing the myometrium, and might be an interesting therapeutic alternative in situations where inhibition of unwanted uterine activity is desirable.
 ...
PMID:Relaxing effects of Nifedipine on the nonpregnant human uterus in vitro and in vivo. 71 25

The effects of calcium antagonists on psychological well-being, cognitive function, activity and physical symptoms in hypertensive patients are reviewed. Effects on these aspects of quality of life appear to differ according to whether a dihydropyridine calcium antagonist such as nifedipine is employed or verapamil, which is a phenylalkylamine derivative. Nifedipine has been associated with a self-assessment of impaired cognitive function in 2 clinical trials. Nifedipine was also associated with more symptomatic complaints than both atenolol and verapamil in different studies. The problems with nifedipine centred on oedema, flushing and palpitations. Verapamil was associated with constipation. Compared with other classes of antihypertensive drugs, the position of calcium antagonists with respect to the maintenance of patients' quality of life is presently unclear. Verapamil has been associated with improved quality of life compared with propranolol (a beta-blocker) and nifedipine. Verapamil appears to have similar effects on quality of life as atenolol and the angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, captopril. The position of nifedipine remains unclear.
 ...
PMID:Quality of life in the treatment of hypertension. The effect of calcium antagonists. 128 77

Nifedipine antagonises influx of calcium through cell membrane slow channels, and sustained release formulations of the calcium channel blocker have been shown to be effective in the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension and both stable and variant angina pectoris. Preliminary findings also indicate that these formulations are effective in the treatment of Raynaud's phenomenon and hypertension in pregnancy, and that they reduce the frequency of ischaemic episodes in some patients with silent myocardial ischaemia. The exact mechanism of action of nifedipine in all of these disorders has not been defined. However, its potent peripheral and coronary arterial dilator properties, together with improvements in oxygen supply/demand, are of particular importance. A major goal of sustained release therapy is to permit reductions in the frequency of nifedipine administration, preferably to once daily, and thus improve patient compliance. Two new once-daily formulations--the nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system (GITS) and a fixed combination capsule comprising sustained release nifedipine 20 mg and atenolol 50 mg--have exhibited marked antihypertensive efficacy. The GITS preparation has also been used effectively in the treatment of stable angina pectoris, and both formulations appear to be well tolerated. Sustained release nifedipine formulations are generally better tolerated than their conventionally formulated counterparts, particularly with regard to reflex tachycardia. Adverse effects seem to be dose related, are mainly associated with the drug's potent vasodilatory action, and include headache, flushing and dizziness. Generally, these effects are mild to moderate in severity and transient, usually diminishing with continued treatment. Thus, sustained release nifedipine formulations are useful and established cardiovascular therapeutic agents which have demonstrable efficacy in various forms of angina, mild to moderate hypertension and Raynaud's phenomenon. Further, promising results shown by the nifedipine GITS formulation, with its advantage of once daily administration suggest that it is likely to become one of the preferred nifedipine formulations for the treatment of hypertension and the various forms of angina.
 ...
PMID:Sustained release nifedipine formulations. An appraisal of their current uses and prospective roles in the treatment of hypertension, ischaemic heart disease and peripheral vascular disorders. 171 8

Co-dergocrine mesylate (Cod), which inhibits norepinephrine secretion by stimulating presynaptic dopamine receptors, and has no known metabolic side effect, has an additive antihypertensive effect to that of Nifedipine (Nif). Plasma norepinephrine, epinephrine, renin activity and aldosterone have been measured after acute administration of Nif and Cod alone and in combination to 18 patients with a diastolic blood pressure greater than 105 mmHg in a cross-over, randomized, double-blind study. Every patient received 4 mg Cod then 20 mg Nif, placebo then 20 mg Nif and 4 mg Cod then placebo. The second treatment was always given 1 h after the first medication. Blood pressure was measured before and every 15 min during the study period. Blood for measurement of catecholamines, aldosterone and renin activity was collected before medication, 1 h after the first dose and 90 min after the second treatment. Blood pressure was significantly lower (P less than 0.05) where Cod preceded Nif. Cod caused a significant decrease in plasma norepinephrine from 293 to 202 pg.ml-1 and in epinephrine from 67 to 55 pg.ml-1. The Nif-induced increase in norepinephrine from a pre-treatment value of 293 pg.ml-1 with preceding Cod to 331 pg.ml-1 was much less than the increase with placebo as premedication, from 284 to 440 pg.ml-1. Nif caused an increase in renin activity but no increase in aldosterone. Nif-related side effects, such as flushing and headache, occurred in 6 patients of whom 5 had no received Cod as premedication.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
 ...
PMID:Co-dergocrine mesylate inhibits the increase in plasma catecholamines caused by nifedipine in essential hypertension. 207 34

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

In coronary heart disease, beta-blockers are beneficial because they limit the increase in heart rate and blood pressure during exercise, and calcium antagonists are useful because they reduce myocardial oxygen demand. Many different pharmacological combinations of a beta-blocker and a calcium antagonist are possible, and beta-blockade may ameliorate reflex tachycardia induced by peripheral vasodilatation due to calcium antagonists, therefore enhancing the benefit. Studies have shown that combination therapy with propranolol and nifedipine, verapamil or diltiazem has greater antianginal efficacy based on symptomatic and objective assessment than either agent alone. A similar result has been reported for nifedipine or verapamil combined with atenolol. In combination, atenolol and nifedipine did not depress cardiac output or change the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at rest. During exercise atenolol alone resulted in a reduced LVEF response in most patients but the combination did not adversely affect left ventricular function. Nifedipine alone did not significantly change LVEF. When verapamil was combined with atenolol, resting ejection fraction fell, indicating a deterioration in cardiac function. Nifedipine and propranolol combined do not change heart rate significantly. Verapamil and atenolol both reduce resting heart rate and their combination has a greater effect; a combination of propranolol and diltiazem also reduces heart rate to a similar extent. Caution is therefore warranted when prescribing the latter 2 combinations. An increase in side effects can be expected with combination regimens compared with monotherapy; but with the nifedipine-atenolol combination the calcium antagonist can alleviate beta-blocker-induced effects by its vasodilator effect, and beta-blockers may ameliorate nifedipine-induced palpitations and flushing.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
 ...
PMID:Beta-blockers and calcium antagonists in angina pectoris. The potential role of combination therapy. 289 3

Nifedipine, 30 mg/day for 4 weeks, was compared to placebo in a double-blind, randomized, crossover study, as an additional drug added to the usual treatment of 14 patients with bronchial asthma. Nifedipine did not significantly change peak expiratory flow rates or subjective symptoms like cough, sputum, wheezing, shortness of breath, or disturbed sleep. Nifedipine did not decrease the number of salbutamol rotacaps inhaled per day. Arterial blood pressure significantly decreased (p less than 0.01) after nifedipine treatment, and side effects (headache and flushing) were not uncommon. In this study, long-term treatment with nifedipine had essentially no effect on subjective symptoms at peak expiratory flow rates.
 ...
PMID:Nifedipine treatment of patients with bronchial asthma. 329 78

The effect of food on the bioavailability of nifedipine (Procardia), 10 mg capsules, was studied. Each of 15 male volunteers received a single oral 10 mg dose with 120 ml water under three conditions: fasting, after a low-fat (high-carbohydrate) meal, and after a high-fat meal. An open, three-way Latin-square design was employed with a 4-day washout period between administrations. Serial blood samples were collected just before the dose (0 hour) and from 0 to 8 hours after administration. Nifedipine assays were performed by GLC/electron capture detection. Diet did not appreciably alter the AUC from 0 to 8 hours, the AUC from 0 to infinity, or the elimination half-life. The time to peak (tmax) and peak concentrations (Cmax) were significantly altered by food. The mean Cmax values for fasting, low-fat, and high-fat meals were 78.9, 42.2, and 58.7 ng/ml, respectively. The mean tmax values for these three conditions were 0.97, 1.89, and 1.07 hours, respectively. The results indicate that food, in particular a low-fat (high-carbohydrate) meal, slows the rate but does not alter the extent of nifedipine absorption. Insofar as certain side effects (e.g., flushing and headache) may be related to the high peak plasma levels associated with rapid absorption, administration with meals might serve to reduce the incidence of such effects. Clinical trials would be necessary to confirm this possibility. For the majority of patients on routine maintenance therapeutic regimens, nifedipine capsules may be administered without regard to food intake.
 ...
PMID:Effect of food on nifedipine pharmacokinetics. 359 68

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


1 2 Next >>