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 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

In a randomized, parallel, double-blind study, lisinopril (n = 412; average dose 18.8 mg) reduced systolic and diastolic blood pressure (change = 20.2/13.8 mmHg; P less than 0.01/P less than 0.01) more than nifedipine (n = 416; average dose 37.4 mg; change = 13.3/11.2 mmHg) after 10-week treatment in patients, aged 40-70 years, with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. Lisinopril was better tolerated than nifedipine. The withdrawals from treatment were fewer in the lisinopril-treated group (11 versus 46; P less than 0.01). The frequency of adverse experiences reported after a general question of discomfort was significantly lower for lisinopril than for nifedipine (P less than 0.01). When questioned on specific symptoms, frequency of coughing was higher with lisinopril (P less than 0.01), while flushing, edema, palpitations, dizziness, tiredness and rash were reported more frequently (P less than 0.01, for all) in the nifedipine-treated group. Quality of life was assessed by both patients and spouses. No significant changes in wellbeing were observed for either drug, except for the highest dose level of nifedipine which caused a deterioration.
 ...
PMID:Lisinopril or nifedipine in essential hypertension? A Norwegian multicenter study on efficacy, tolerability and quality of life in 828 patients. 166 65

The antihypertensive efficacy and safety of lisinopril, a long-acting angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, were assessed in 40 elderly patients (aged 65 years or over) with mild to moderate systolic/diastolic or isolated systolic hypertension, in an open study of 12 weeks' duration. Lisinopril was given orally in single daily doses. The starting dose was 5 mg in patients with glomerular filtration rate (GFR) of 30-60 ml/min and 10 mg in patients with GFR greater than 60 ml/min. The dose of lisinopril could be titrated upwards to a maximum of 40 mg daily according to blood pressure response. A thiazide diuretic was then added if blood pressure was not controlled. Thirty-six patients completed the study. Mean sitting blood pressure was significantly reduced by lisinopril treatment. There was no significant alteration in the heart rate, and postural hypotension did not occur. The median dose of lisinopril given was 20 mg daily (range 5-40 mg daily), and only two patients had a diuretic added to the lisinopril. One patient was withdrawn from the study because of unstable angina, and another was discontinued from lisinopril treatment because of anorexia and facial flushing. One patient was withdrawn after 8 weeks because of interruption of lisinopril therapy for a transurethral resection of the prostate, and one patient was lost to follow-up. No clinically significant haematological or biochemical changes were observed. The mean glomerular filtration rate was unchanged during the study. Proteinuria did not occur de novo, nor did established proteinuria increase. Thus lisinopril was well-tolerated and effective therapy in a group of elderly hypertensive patients.
 ...
PMID:Lisinopril in elderly patients with hypertension. 244 57

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 total of 4676 patients and 1759 patients were treated with lisinopril and nifedipine respectively in a post-marketing surveillance study conducted in general practice in the UK. Patients were followed up for 12 months. Most of the lisinopril patients had hypertension, but a small number (180) had heart failure. Most of the nifedipine patients had uncomplicated hypertension, but some (22.57%) had other cardiovascular disease with or without hypertension. Lisinopril and nifedipine were equally effective in reducing blood pressure. During the study, 1.5% of hypertensive patients assigned to lisinopril died compared with 1.8% of patients assigned to nifedipine, and 15.1% of lisinopril patients compared with 19.7% of patients in the nifedipine group withdrew because of adverse events. Cough, malaise and fatigue, nausea and vomiting were more frequent causes of withdrawal from lisinopril than nifedipine. Conversely, headaches, pallor and flushing, oedema and palpitations caused more frequent withdrawals from nifedipine. Anaemia was more often encountered on nifedipine treatment than on lisinopril. In hypertensive patients, the frequency of first-dose hypotension was similar on both treatments. Serious events occurred in 0.8% and 0.5% of patients given lisinopril and nifedipine respectively. Lisinopril was well tolerated by heart failure patients: 16 patients (8.88%) died and an incidence of 4.44% of serious adverse events was reported, a pattern to be anticipated in such patients; dizziness, giddiness, dyspnoea, cough, nausea and vomiting were the most frequent causes of withdrawal; the incidence of first-dose hypotension was low (2.22%).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
 ...
PMID:Post-marketing surveillance of lisinopril in general practice in the UK. 811 50