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)

The antihypertensive effects of the regular immediate release formulation of verapamil (verapamil IR) and the newer sustained release formulation of verapamil (verapamil SR) were compared in Hispanic patients with untreated essential hypertension. Verapamil IR was given in 3 divided doses (80 or 160mg 3 times daily) and verapamil SR was given either as a single daily dose of 240mg or as 240mg every 12 hours. With both formulations there was a significant reduction in systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP); a greater lowering of BP was observed with verapamil 480 mg/day than with 240 mg/day. With verapamil SR 480 mg/day, 91% of patients had reductions in SBP and DBP greater than 20 and 15mm Hg, respectively. In addition, 83% of patients reached normotension. With the lower dose (240mg once daily), 83% of patients had decreases in DBP greater than 10mm Hg and 73% of patients achieved normotension. Comparable effects were achieved with verapamil IR. With verapamil IR there was a more rapid fall in BP which peaked 3 to 4 hours postdose, whereas with verapamil SR a more gradual and sustained BP reduction was observed. Only small changes in heart rate (HR) were observed with verapamil IR and verapamil SR. For verapamil SR, the mean increase in HR was 5 beats/min (to 80 beats/min) and the mean decrease in HR was 13 beats/min (to 62 beats/min). Both verapamil SR and verapamil IR prolonged the PR interval of the ECG. An equal degree of PR prolongation was observed with 240 and 480 mg/day. The incidence of side effects (headache, palpitations, dizziness and flushing) was dose dependent, decreased with continuous treatment and was much higher with verapamil IR than with verapamil SR. Steady-state plasma verapamil concentrations were monitored. Compared with verapamil IR, verapamil SR produced a more gradual rise and a more sustained elevation of plasma verapamil and norverapamil concentrations. Comparable trough verapamil concentrations (Cmin) were observed with verapamil IR (98 micrograms/L) and SR (81 micrograms/L); morning Cmin verapamil concentrations were higher than daytime Cmin values. The normalised area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) and maximum concentration (Cmax) were 10 to 20% greater for verapamil IR than SR. The 2-fold increase in oral dose produced a 2.2- and 2.4-fold increase in AUC for verapamil IR and SR, respectively, associated with a 20% reduction in metabolism to norverapamil. Fasting increased the rate and extent of absorption of verapamil.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)
 ...
PMID:Comparative efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics of verapamil SR vs verapamil IR in hypertensive patients. 128 70

A multicenter open trial involving 50 hypertension patients enabled evaluation of the efficacy and tolerability of Isoptine L.P. (sustained release verapamil) in mild to moderate essential hypertension. Following a 2-week placebo run-in period, patients were given Isoptine L.P. (240 mg/24 h) as a morning dose for 3 months, with a possible dose increase (360 mg/24 h) in case of diastolic blood pressure of 95 mmHg or more at the 30-day evaluation. Blood pressure was measured by mercury sphygmomanometer and, in 20 patients, by a Dinamap type Automatic device. After 3 months of treatment, blood pressure levels in supine and standing position, measured manually and automatically, showed a highly significant decrease, with a mean fall of 18.4 mmHg for systolic (13.7 percent) and 13.2 mmHg diastolic (-14.6 percent). 67 percent of patients were responders after 1 month of treatment and 79 percent at 3 months, including one-fifth at the dose of 360 mg/24 h. Seventeen patients, i.e. 34 percent, reported one or more adverse reactions. Among these, four patients had to stop treatment, twice because of headache and twice for constipation. Adverse events seen most frequently were constipation, headache, tiredness and vomiting. No cardiac adverse events were reported with the exception of one case of atrial premature contractions. The electrocardiogram revealed significant slowing of heart rate, as well as slight prolongation of PR and QT intervals and slight widening of the QRS complex. Tolerability on the basis of laboratory parameters was good.
 ...
PMID:[Efficacy and tolerability of isoptine LP in mild to moderate hypertension. A multicenter study with 50 patients]. 130 Sep 22

In this double-blind, parallel, multicenter study, sustained-release (SR) preparations of 2 calcium antagonists, nicardipine and verapamil, were compared for the treatment of mild to moderate systemic hypertension. Two hundred eighteen patients with supine diastolic blood pressures (BP) 95 to 114 mm Hg were randomly assigned to receive nicardipine-SR 45 mg twice daily (n = 73), nicardipine-SR 60 mg twice daily (n = 73) or verapamil-SR 240 mg once daily in the morning (n = 72). All 3 regimens significantly reduced supine and sitting systolic and diastolic BPs compared with baseline values (p < 0.005). The efficacy of drugs became apparent after 2 weeks of therapy, and was sustained throughout the 12-week study. Reductions in sitting diastolic BP and supine and sitting systolic BPs were statistically greater with nicardipine-SR 60 mg twice daily compared with verapamil, and nicardipine-SR 45 mg twice daily was equivalent to verapamil. Asthenia and constipation occurred more frequently in patients treated with verapamil (9.7 and 11.1%, respectively, compared with 6.8 and 4.1% in either nicardipine group). Adverse events reported more frequently with nicardipine were headache (17.8% with nicardipine-SR 60 mg and 15.1% with nicardipine-SR 45 mg vs 13.9% with verapamil) and edema (15.1% in the nicardipine-SR 60 mg group, 8.2% with nicardipine-SR 45 mg vs 4.2% with verapamil). Verapamil, but not nicardipine, produced significant reductions in heart rate. SR preparations of calcium antagonists offer options for effective monotherapy of systemic hypertension. Side-effect profiles differ and may affect choice of therapy.
 ...
PMID:Comparison of sustained-release formulations of nicardipine and verapamil for mild to moderate systemic hypertension. 146 25

The efficacy of sustained release verapamil (Ikapress) was investigated in 237 hypertensive patients of both sexes in a multicenter trial in family practice. There were 4 groups: patients without previous treatment and those treated with nifedipine, with atenolol, or with a combination of drugs. After 4-7 days of washout, all those with diastolic pressures of 95 mm Hg or above received once daily 240 mg of verapamil for 8 weeks. 27 cases had to be withdrawn because of adverse effects: weakness in 10, constipation in 6, rash in 4, impotence in 3, and in 4, other reasons. In 177 blood pressure was brought under control after 4 weeks of treatment. An additional 33 were controlled after 4 weeks of 360 mg of sustained release verapamil. Response to treatment was similar in the 4 trial groups. Mean systolic and diastolic pressures fell 19 and 16 mm Hg, respectively, and mean pulse rate decreased by 5 beats/min. Constipation was the only side-effect reported by those who completed the trial. However, there was a significant reduction in initial scores for headache, dizziness, numbness and edema after 8 weeks of verapamil and all indices of quality of life were significantly improved. These included scores for general well-being, physical fitness, social activity, job fitness, sexual activity, sleep, concentration and mood. Scores for daytime sleepiness and fatigue also decreased significantly. Thus, sustained-release verapamil in a daily dose of 240-360 mg was shown to be an effective antihypertensive. It had few adverse effects and gave considerable improvement in quality of life.
 ...
PMID:[Sustained release verapamil in essential hypertension]. 193 92

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

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

In an open multicenter trial (uncontrolled study) in 4,247 patients (49.1% male, 50.9% female; aged 17-89 years) with mild, moderate, or severe hypertension, the antihypertensive efficacy and in particular the tolerability of verapamil slow-release (SR) 240 mg (Isoptin RR) were studied. The dosage of the drug was adjusted to the therapeutic response; in 88.7% of the patients it was titrated according to the study protocol: 63.2% received constantly one SR tablet throughout the 6-week treatment period; in 15.6% the dosage was increased to one and a half tablet after 2 weeks, and in 9.9% to one tablet b.i.d. after a further 2 weeks. Monotherapy with verapamil SR 240 mg normalized diastolic blood pressure (less than or equal to 90 mm Hg) in 90% of the patients with mild hypertension, 77% of those with moderate, and 61% of those with severe hypertension. It was evident that blood pressure reduction was more pronounced the higher the baseline value. Cardiac and extracardiac tolerability of verapamil SR 240 mg was good. Mean heart rate was slightly reduced, none of the patients developed a second- or third-degree atrioventricular block. Side effects were reported by 480 of the 4,247 patients (11.3%). As expected, constipation (4.03%) was the predominant adverse reaction, followed by dizziness (3.65%), headache (1.54%), and other (less than 1%). In 217 patients (5.1%) therapy was discontinued prematurely, in 139 (3.27%) because of side effects.
 ...
PMID:Efficacy and safety of verapamil SR 240 mg in essential hypertension: results of a multicentric phase IV study. 247 86

Verapamil is a papaverine derivative calcium channel blocking drug that has been effectively utilized in the prophylaxis of migraine. This paper reviews the clinical pharmacology as it applied to headache and the current research on the clinical use of verapamil in migraine prophylaxis. Included are three double-blind, placebo-controlled studies. Ten of 12 patients, eight of 14 patients, and 20 of 23 patients showed improvement, with all studies finding verapamil significantly more effective than placebo in migraine prophylaxis. Research comparing 240 mg/day with 320 mg/day dosing found 320 mg/day significantly more effective in reducing migraine frequency. Review of 133 refractory headache-clinic patients, treated with verapamil and additional drugs reported excellent (100% improvement) or good results (greater than 50% reduction in migraine frequency) in 5% and 40% of patients, respectively. Fair response (less than 50% improvement) was observed in 50% of patients, and poor response was seen in 5% of patients. Analysis of this information reveals that verapamil is a safe, well-tolerated and effective agent for migraine prophylaxis.
Headache 1989 Jul
PMID:Verapamil in migraine prophylaxis--a five-year review. 266 25

Calcium antagonists are a chemically heterogenous group of agents with potent cardiovascular effects which are beneficial in the treatment of angina pectoris, arterial hypertension and cardiac arrhythmias. The main side effects for the group are dose-dependent and the result of the main action or actions of the calcium antagonists, i.e. vasodilatation, negative inotropic effects and antiarrhythmic effects. Pronounced hypotension is reported for the main calcium antagonist drugs; verapamil, diltiazem and nifedipine. While conduction disturbances and bradycardia are seen more often after verapamil and diltiazem, tachycardia, headache and flush are more frequent after nifedipine. Constipation is relatively frequent after verapamil while nifedipine is reported to induce diarrhea in som patients. Idiosyncratic side effects are rare but have been reported from the skin, mouth, musculoskeletal system, the liver and the central nervous system. These side effects include urticarial rashes, gingival hyperplasia, arthralgia, hepathotoxicity and transistory mental confusion or akathisia. Verapamil, diltiazem and possibly also nifedipine have been reported to increase serum digoxin concentrations but the clinical relevance of these drug interactions are not clear. Furthermore, verapamil and diltiazem may potentiate the effects of beta-adrenergic blocking drugs and verapamil may also potentiate the effects of neuromuscular blocking drugs. It is concluded that side effects after calcium antagonist drugs are mostly trivial and transient although they may sometimes be relatively common. Clinically relevant drug interactions are few. Judged from the point of efficacy and safety, calcium antagonists will have a major place in the future pharmacotherapy of several cardiovascular disorders.
 ...
PMID:Calcium channel blockers: spectrum of side effects and drug interactions. 287 68

15 chronic cluster headache patients in whom pain was induced by nitroglycerin received acute intravenous treatment with a calcium entry blocker. At the time of peak pain we noted a sudden decrease after the Verapamil injection. The mechanism by which the calcium entry blocker afforded relief is unlikely to have been vasodilatation in patients whose blood vessels had just been dilated by nitroglycerin. A more probable mechanism is blockade of the release of the pain-inducing neurotransmitters. The vasodilatation phase is not a primary factor in the onset of pain.
 ...
PMID:Calcium entry blocker: treatment in acute pain in cluster headache patients. 310 Apr 76


1 2 3 4 5 Next >>