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

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 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

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

The major antihypertensive mechanism of calcium antagonists is by decreasing the systemic vascular resistance, modified by the counter-regulatory responses of the baroreflexes and the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. In severe hypertension, the concept that calcium overload of the vascular myocyte could precipitate or aggravate peripheral vasoconstriction provides a logical basis for the use of these agents as first choice therapy; nifedipine, especially, has been well tested. As monotherapy for mild to moderate hypertension each of the three first-generation agents compares well with beta-blockers. Calcium antagonists may have a special role in the therapy of certain patient groups (elderly, black) or in those subjects whose life style involves intense physical or mental exertion (hemodynamics better maintained than with beta-blockade) or in patients with early end-organ damage such as left ventricular hypertrophy or renal insufficiency. However, the goal blood pressure may not be reached during monotherapy so that drug combinations may be required. Further indications for these compounds are as follows. Verapamil and diltiazem are frequently used in supraventricular tachycardias including acute and chronic atrial fibrillation. In the arrhythmias of the Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome, there is the potential danger of provocation of anterograde conduction. Further indications for calcium antagonists, still under evaluation, include congestive heart failure (controversial), hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (verapamil), primary pulmonary hypertension (high doses required), Raynaud's phenomenon (nifedipine and diltiazem effective), peripheral vascular disease (proof not yet documented), cerebral insufficiency and subarachnoid hemorrhage (nimodipine promising), migraine, exertional bronchospasm, renal disease, atherosclerosis (experimental), and primary aldosteronism (nifedipine inhibits aldosterone release). Second-generation agents include dihydropyridines, such as nitrendipine, nicardipine, felodipine, amlodipine, nisoldipine, nimodipine, and isradipine. From these will be selected agents that are longer acting and provide higher vascular selectivity. New preparations of existing agents include slow-release formulations of nifedipine, verapamil, and diltiazem. Minor side effects include those caused by vasodilation (flushing and headaches), constipation (verapamil), and ankle edema. Serious side effects are rare and result from improper use of these agents, as when intravenous verapamil is given to patients with sinus or atrioventricular nodal depression from drugs or disease, or nifedipine to patients with aortic stenosis. The potential of a marked negative inotropic effect is usually offset by afterload reduction, especially in the case of nifedipine. Yet caution is required when calcium antagonists, especially verapamil, are given to patients with myocardial failure unless caused by hypertensive heart disease. Drug interactions of calcium antagonists occur with other cardiovascular agents such as alpha-adrenergic blockers, beta-adrenergic blockers, digoxin, quinidine, and disopyramide.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)
 ...
PMID:Calcium channel antagonists. Part III: Use and comparative efficacy in hypertension and supraventricular arrhythmias. Minor indications. 315 29

Calcium channel blocking drugs are a chemically heterogenous group, so it might be expected that their effects on vascular smooth muscle, cardiac contractility, and conduction tissue may differ. However, the majority of adverse reactions are predictable from their pharmacological actions and may be conveniently grouped in the following categories: 1) vasodilatation, 2) negative inotropic effects, 3) conduction disturbances, 4) gastrointestinal effects, 5) metabolic effects, and 6) drug interactions. Vasodilatory symptoms, namely, dizziness, headaches, flushing sensation, and palpitation, are more likely with nifedipine. Peripheral edema is also common with nifedipine, but the mechanism is uncertain. For a given degree of vasodilation, the greatest negative inotropic effect is seen with verapamil first, diltiazem second, and nifedipine last. Calcium channel blocking drugs are contraindicated in hypertensive patients with second and third degree heart block, sick sinus syndrome, and severe heart failure. Verapamil and diltiazem have a significant effect on cardiac conduction, whereas nifedipine, in therapeutic doses, does not. Local gastrointestinal symptoms, such as nausea and constipation, are common with verapamil. None of the calcium channel blocking drugs have been reported to adversely affect lipid or protein metabolism. However, nifedipine, verapamil, and diltiazem in high doses may inhibit liberation of insulin. The significance of this finding needs to be explored further in hypertensive diabetics. Serum digoxin levels have been shown to increase after administration of verapamil and nifedipine, but there is no evidence that this change has any clinical relevance.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
 ...
PMID:Side effects of calcium channel blockers. 328 Apr 92

We compared verapamil and propranolol hydrochloride for monotherapy of hypertension. Verapamil lowered blood pressure (BP) more effectively than propranolol in black and white patients. Verapamil was equally effective in blacks and whites, whereas propranolol was more effective in whites. Heart rate was reduced by 6.0 beats per minute by verapamil, and by 13.6 beats per minute by propranolol. In blacks, verapamil lowered systolic BP 16.9 vs 8.1 mm Hg for propranolol; verapamil reduced diastolic BP 12.8 vs 8.6 mm Hg for propranolol. In whites, verapamil lowered systolic BP 19.0 vs 12.7 mm Hg for propranolol; verapamil reduced diastolic BP 16.7 vs 12.3 mm Hg for propranolol. Increases in systolic BP were observed in 22% and 3.4% of patients receiving propranolol and verapamil, respectively. The PR interval was increased from 163.5 to 174.9 ms for verapamil vs 160.3 to 164.4 ms for propranolol. Constipation (15%) and headaches (10%) were most frequent complaints for verapamil vs fatigue (18%) and dizziness (7%) for propranolol. Changes in blood biochemistry values were of small magnitude. We conclude that verapamil monotherapy is a safe and effective means of achieving BP control in patients with essential hypertension.
 ...
PMID:A comparison of verapamil and propranolol for the initial treatment of hypertension. Racial differences in response. 353 60


1 2 3 4 Next >>