Gene/Protein Disease Symptom Drug Enzyme Compound
Pivot Concepts:   Target Concepts:
Query: UMLS:C0018681 (headache)
 56,091 document(s) hit in 31,850,051 MEDLINE articles (0.00 seconds)

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.
J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1987
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)
J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1987
PMID:Evaluation of antihypertensive efficacy of lisinopril compared to metoprolol in moderate to severe hypertension. 244 53

The safety and tolerability of lisinopril were assessed in 1,476 patients [1,165 hypertensives and 311 patients with congestive heart failure (CHF)] and 211 normal volunteers. The duration of lisinopril therapy ranged from 1 day to 16 months, with a mean duration of 105 days. In the hypertensive population, the most frequent clinical adverse experiences on lisinopril alone were headache, dizziness, cough, and diarrhea. Not all of these adverse experiences were thought to be drug related. Five percent of patients were discontinued because of adverse clinical experiences; cough and dizziness were the most common reasons for discontinuation. Two of 1,165 (0.17%) hypertensive patients treated with lisinopril died, compared to 0.41% of hypertensive patients on other therapies. Neither case was considered to be drug related. In patients with CHF, the most frequent clinical adverse experiences were dizziness, diarrhea, hypotension, fatigue, headache, and rash. Not all of these adverse experiences were thought to be drug related. The percent of CHF patients discontinuing because of an adverse clinical experience was 7.4%; the most frequent causes for discontinuation were hypotension, dizziness, or renal impairment. Twelve deaths occurred in 311 CHF patients treated with lisinopril (3.9%) compared to 4/104 (3.8%) of CHF patients treated with placebo and 2/65 (3.1%) treated with captopril. Hypotension, orthostatic effects, or dizziness following the initial lisinopril dose occurred infrequently in patients treated with lisinopril. In hypertensive patients with normal renal function, including those treated previously or concomitantly with diuretic therapy, a first-dose hypotensive episode was reported in six of 955, or 0.6%. The incidence was higher (6.7%) in hypertensive patients with impaired renal function.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1987
PMID:The safety and tolerability of lisinopril in clinical trials. 244 61

The antihypertensive efficacy of acute treatment with the serotonin receptor antagonist, ketanserin, in women with preeclampsia has been recently documented. The purpose of this study was to determine the safety and efficacy of chronic ketanserin treatment in a group of 20 hypertensive pregnant women: 10 received daily oral doses of ketanserin (20-80 mg), and 10 were treated with oral alpha-methyldopa (500-2000 mg). This study includes (a) patients with a sustained elevation of systolic blood pressure higher than 159 mm Hg and/or diastolic blood pressure higher than 99 mm Hg at bed rest, and (b) hypertensive patients with systolic blood pressure higher than 140 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure higher than 90 mm Hg with superimposed symptoms such as headaches, stomach aches, and neurological disturbances. A significant and comparable decrease in blood pressure was noted in both groups, in relation with pretreatment levels; no adverse affects were observed in mother or fetus from the ketanserin and alpha-methyldopa groups.
J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1987
PMID:Ketanserin versus alpha-methyldopa in the treatment of hypertension during pregnancy: a preliminary report. 244 54

In the Swiss Ketanserin Study the antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of ketanserin (given in 20 or 40 mg doses twice daily) was investigated, after a placebo run-in phase, as monotherapy (n = 68) as well as in combination with either atenolol (100 mg/day) (n = 30) or the potassium-sparing diuretic hydrochlorothiazide (50 mg/day) and amiloride (5 mg/day) (n = 26) in 124 patients with essential hypertension, aged 41 to 82 years. With the addition of ketanserin, diastolic blood pressure fell by 8 +/- 8, 8 +/- 8, and 7 +/- 9 (+/- SD) mm Hg, respectively (p less than 0.05 for all) in the three treatment groups; heart rate remained unchanged or fell slightly. Ketanserin had no effect on body weight, or biochemical variables, including total serum cholesterol and triglycerides, with the exception of a minor increase in apolipoprotein B. Using a patient self-assessment questionnaire (30 items), the addition of ketanserin was associated with a reduction of most of the symptoms encountered in the placebo phase, including sleep disturbances, general feeling of weakness, headaches, nervousness, and fatigue, but there was a tendency toward increases in stuffy nose and dry mouth. In patients older than 60 years, the antihypertensive efficacy of ketanserin was greater, with 59% achieving a diastolic pressure less than or equal to 95 mm Hg versus 45% in the younger patients. This age trend also emerged when ketanserin was combined with either atenolol or the diuretic.
J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1987
PMID:Antihypertensive efficacy of ketanserin alone or in combination with a beta-blocker or a diuretic: the Swiss Ketanserin Study. 244 58

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.
J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1987
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.
J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1987
PMID:Comparative efficacy of lisinopril and nifedipine retard in essential hypertension: a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. 245 54

The clinical pharmacology of potassium channel openers has been reviewed using pinacidil as a prototype drug. When administered acutely or chronically, the hemodynamic and neuroendocrine profile is that of a peripheral arterial vasodilator. The drug produces decreases in peripheral vascular resistance, and subsequent blood pressure decreases are associated with reflex increments in heart rate. When studied, plasma catecholamines increased about twofold during chronic therapy. Plasma renin activity, however, was not increased during chronic therapy with pinacidil monotherapy. When patients were treated with pinacidil doses ranging from 12.5 to 75 mg b.i.d., 66.9% of patients had a decrease in supine diastolic blood pressure to below 91 mm Hg and 10 mm Hg less than baseline, whereas only 23.9% of patients had similar falls during placebo treatment. During maintenance therapy with pinacidil, the average blood pressure during the daytime dosing interval was 137.8 +/- 1.2/83.4 +/- 0.7 mm Hg (mean +/- SEM). Titration of pinacidil as monotherapy resulted in a characteristic adverse event profile dominated by the presence of dose-related edema. Other characteristic events included tachycardia, palpitations and headache. When pinacidil was given to patients unresponsive to hydrochlorothiazide (25 mg b.i.d.), similar efficacy relative to placebo was noted with a change of post-dose supine diastolic blood pressure in the pinacidil group of 13.5 +/- 0.8 mm Hg and 7.3 +/- 0.9 mm Hg in the placebo group.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1988
PMID:Clinical pharmacology of pinacidil, a prototype for drugs that affect potassium channels. 246 78

The dihydropyridine calcium antagonist nitrendipine offers a pathophysiologically based antihypertensive treatment with a potent dilation of resistance vessels, increased arterial compliance, and an acute natriuretic/diuretic response. Prolonged nitrendipine treatment in essential hypertension is not associated with stimulation of the sympathetic nervous and the renin-angiotensin systems or accumulation of sodium and water. The antihypertensive effectiveness is similar to that of diuretics and beta-blockers, and the responsiveness appears to be greater in elderly and black patients. During long-term (approximately 1 year) nitrendipine treatment in mild to moderate hypertension, the blood pressure reduction is well sustained in "short-term" nitrendipine responders. In patients with severe hypertension, nitrendipine has a potent antihypertensive effect in combination with beta-blockers and/or diuretics. In mild-moderate hypertension, a single daily dose (10-40 mg) may be sufficient, whereas two daily doses (20-80 mg/day) seem necessary in severe hypertension. Common side effects are headache, flush, and palpitations (approximately 20-30%), but these are generally mild and transient. Dizziness and malaise occur in approximately 5%, often later during treatment. Peripheral edema in 5-20% of the patients is generally mild but persistent. Nitrendipine has no adverse effects on glucose and lipid metabolism or on plasma levels of electrolytes and urate. The ultimate aim of antihypertensive treatment is to prevent cardiovascular complications. As for other calcium antagonists, no study on primary prevention of cardiovascular complications in hypertension has been published. With regard to regression of left ventricular hypertrophy accompanying essential hypertension, conflicting results have been found with nitrendipine.
J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1988
PMID:Review of long-term trials with nitrendipine. 246 50

Efficacy and feasibility of antihypertensive monotherapy with the calcium antagonist nitrendipine were investigated in a 6-week open trial in 768 patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension from 191 practicing internists and general practitioners. Previous antihypertensive therapy (n = 501) was withheld for 1 week and therapy then started with nitrendipine 20 mg q.d. If diastolic blood pressure before tablet intake in the morning stayed above 90 mm Hg or fell less than 10 mm Hg, the dose could be doubled to the maximum dose of 20 mg b.i.d. Alternatively, if blood pressure control was good, the dose could be halved to 10 mg q.d. One hundred thirty-four patients discontinued therapy prematurely because of unwanted effects mostly characteristic with dihydropyridines (headaches, flushes, and ankle edema) and mostly within the first 3 weeks. In 72% of the remaining 634 patients, the goal blood pressure was achieved by nitrendipine monotherapy (10 mg q.d. in 8%, 20 mg q.d. in 87%, and 20 mg b.i.d. in 5%) and diastolic blood pressure was between 90 and 95 mm Hg in another 3%. Reductions of blood pressure did not result in changes of heart rate or weight. Nitrendipine was effective in patients of all age groups but patients older than 65 years showed a significantly greater fall of systolic and mean arterial pressure than middle aged or young patients. Nitrendipine's efficacy under conditions of general practice and the high proportion of patients responding to once daily administration appear well suited for first-line therapy of uncomplicated hypertension. The incidence of side effects might have been smaller if therapy had started with a smaller dose.
J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1988
PMID:Antihypertensive monotherapy with nitrendipine in general practice. 246 61


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