Gene/Protein Disease Symptom Drug Enzyme Compound
Pivot Concepts:   Target Concepts:
Query: UMLS:C0043352 (xerostomia)
 4,250 document(s) hit in 31,850,051 MEDLINE articles (0.00 seconds)

Azelastine is a new oral antiasthma agent with bronchodilating and antiallergic properties. This 12-wk study compared azelastine (2, 4, 6, and 8 mg) and placebo given twice a day in asthmatics 12 to 60 yr of age requiring daily bronchodilator therapy. Patients were allowed albuterol aerosol, short-acting theophylline, and pseudoephedrine only as needed. The study was completed by 221 asthmatic subjects. No significant differences in symptoms, medication, or pulmonary function existed between groups at baseline. Analysis of the zero hour FEV1 before azelastine administration on eight occasions during the 12 wk of therapy indicated an increasing slope for azelastine 6 mg that was statistically different from that of placebo; similarly, the slope for azelastine 4 mg showed the same trend, but it did not reach statistical significance. All azelastine groups had significant reductions of as-needed medication after 1 wk; only in the 4-mg and 6-mg groups was this reduction sustained for 12 wk. Asthma symptom scores and peak expiratory flow measurements remained stable in the azelastine groups despite significant reductions in concomitant medication administration. Side effects were minor and included: altered taste (30.1 to 51.9%), drowsiness (6.0 to 16.9%), and dry mouth (3.8 to 6.1%). The occurrence of these adverse events decreased with time throughout the study.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
 ...
PMID:Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of multiple doses of azelastine to adult patients with bronchial asthma over time. 217 21

The efficacy and tolerance of trazodone in the treatment of mixed affective disorder was compared with that of dothiepin in a double-blind, parallel group study in 228 general practice patients at 10 centres. After satisfying entry criteria, patients were randomized to receive either 150 mg trazodone at night, or 75 mg dothiepin at night for a 6-week period. Efficacy was assessed using the Hamilton Rating Scales for Depression and Anxiety. Significant improvements were observed in the condition of patients in each of the two treatment groups during the 6-week treatment period (p = 0.0001), with no statistically significant difference between the groups. There were no marked differences between the two treatment groups in the type of side-effects reported in response to open questioning, although a higher percentage of symptoms in the trazodone group were mild compared to the dothiepin group, and a lower percentage were severe. The incidence side-effects recorded by means of a checklist of common psychotropic side-effects was similar for the two treatment groups: dry mouth and drowsiness were the most frequent. A slightly higher proportion of patients withdrew from the dothiepin group, and of those who withdrew a higher percentage was due to side-effects than in the trazodone group.
 ...
PMID:The treatment of mixed affective disorders in general practice: a comparison of trazodone and dothiepin. 218 95

Fifty-seven hospital out-patients with depressive symptoms were studied in a double-blind manner for up to 4 weeks, 30 whilst being treated with intramuscular flupenthixol decanoate (5 to 10 mg/fortnight) and 27 with oral amitriptyline (75 to 150 mg/day). The results of assessment using the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, the Leeds Self-Rating Scale for Depression and the Clinical Global Impressions severity scale showed that both therapies were effective in resolving depression in the patients studied. The two treatments were well tolerated and side-effect profiles were similar, dry mouth, faintness/dizziness and drowsiness being the most frequently reported adverse events. Extrapyramidal signs were seen in similar numbers of patients in each treatment group. One patient from each of the two groups was withdrawn from therapy before the end of the study because of adverse events.
 ...
PMID:A double-blind comparison of oral amitriptyline and low-dose intramuscular flupenthixol decanoate in depressive illness. 218 97

The central anticholinergic syndrome (CAS) includes central signs (somnolence, confusion, amnesia, agitation, hallucinations, dysarthria, ataxia, delirium, stupor, coma) and peripheral signs (dry mouth, dry skin, tachycardia, visual disturbances and difficulty in micturition). It occurs when central cholinergic sites are occupied by specific drugs and also as a result of an insufficient release of acetylcholine. The CAS can be caused by atropine sulphate, hyoscine (scopolamine), promethazine, benzodiazepines, opioids, halothane, influrane, ketamine. The incidence of CAS during the postoperative period depends on choice and dose of anaesthetic agents, type of surgery, patient's condition and diagnostic criteria. It is close to 10% following general anaesthesia and 4% following regional anaesthesia with sedation. The differential diagnosis of CAS includes an overdose of anaesthetic drugs or an alteration in pharmacokinetics, altered hydratation, electrolyte or acid-base state, hypoglycaemia, hypoxia, hypercapnia, hypocapnia, hyperthermia, hypothermia, hormonal disorders, neurological damage resulting from surgery, embolism, haemorrhage or trauma. The diagnosis of CAS is often determined by a process of exclusion and not actually made until a positive therapeutic response to physostigmine, a centrally active anticholinesterase agent has taken place.
 ...
PMID:[Central anticholinergic syndrome during postoperative period]. 219 41

In a double-blind, random-assignment, parallel-group trial, outpatients with major depression received either the new antidepressant clovoxamine, the tricyclic amitriptyline, or placebo for 6 weeks. By an "improvement" criterion of 50% or greater improvement in the Hamilton Depression Scale (HAM-D) total score, 88% of clovoxamine completers improved versus 75% with amitriptyline and 43% with placebo; however, due to small numbers, the differences failed to reach statistical significance. Diminished salivary flow was significantly greater with amitriptyline, as were complaints of dry mouth, somnolence, dizziness, and headache. Nausea and vomiting were more common in the clovoxamine-treated group. With amitriptyline, but not with clovoxamine, memory performance declined over a month. However, psychomotor performance was not affected.
 ...
PMID:Clovoxamine in the treatment of depressed outpatients: a double-blind, parallel-group comparison against amitriptyline and placebo. 220 81

Thirty outpatients between the ages of 60 and 85 with DSM-III Major Depression entered an 8 week randomized, double-blind comparison of desipramine and adinazolam mesylate, a triazolobenzodiazepine derivative. Outcome was assessed on several measures including the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS), Montgomery-Asberg Rating Scale, Clinical Global Impressions (CGI), the 35-item Self-Rating Symptom Scale, and Carroll Depression Scale. Patients in both groups demonstrated a highly significant decrease in average HDRS scores (p less than 0.001) over the course of the study. Adinazolam was associated with significantly greater reduction in average HDRS scores by the third day. Repeated measures analysis of variance showed a significantly greater reduction in HDRS scores for adinazolam over the course of the study. The study medications were associated with distinct patterns of adverse reactions. Desipramine more often produced dry mouth, constipation and nervousness, while adinazolam was more likely to cause drowsiness and lightheadedness. Three of these elderly patients, all of whom were taking desipramine reported at least one fall during the study. Adinazolam may be a promising agent in the treatment of depression in the elderly.
 ...
PMID:A controlled trial of adinazolam versus desipramine in geriatric depression. 223 67

Patients (n = 150) were randomized to a 6-week, double-blind study to evaluate the relative efficacy and safety of mirtazapine, amitriptyline, and placebo in the treatment of major depressive disorder symptoms. Average daily modal doses were mirtazapine, 18 mg; amitriptyline, 111 mg; and placebo, 4.6 capsules. Mirtazapine- and amitriptyline-treated patients had statistically significantly greater mean Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) score reductions (weekly visits 1, 2, 4, and endpoint) compared to placebo. These findings were supported by the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS); the Zung Self-rating Depression Scale (SDS); and the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) scales. Somnolence and weight gain were the only adverse clinical experiences (ACEs) reported substantially more often by mirtazapine-treated patients than by those in the placebo group. However, more amitriptyline-treated patients reported decreased visual accommodation, dry mouth, dyspepsia, constipation, tachycardia, hypertension, hypotension, discoordination, dizziness, and tremor than mirtazapine- or placebo-treated patients. Results of this study indicate that mirtazapine is more effective than placebo in the treatment of these patients, and superior to amitriptyline in respect to anticholinergic and cardiovascular effects.
 ...
PMID:Mirtazapine vs. amitriptyline vs. placebo in the treatment of major depressive disorder. 223 55

Two hundred forty-one elderly depressed patients entered the 8-week, double-blind phase of this parallel-group, multicenter study; 161 patients were randomized to receive sertraline (50-200 mg/day) and 80 were randomized to receive amitriptyline (50-150 mg/day). Among evaluable patients, there were no statistically significant differences between treatments in any of the primary efficacy variables: change in total Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) score (17 items), percentage change in HAM-D score, change in HAM-D Item 1, change in Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) Severity score, change in the Depression Factor of the 56-item Hopkins Symptom Checklist, and the CGI Improvement score at the last visit. Similar results were obtained using data from all patients (intention-to-treat analysis), except that amitriptyline was superior in HAM-D Total score (p = .044). The two drugs produced a similar degree of response: on the basis of the HAM-D criterion, 69.4% of sertraline patients and 62.5% of amitriptyline patients responded, and, on the basis of CGI criterion, 79.5% of sertraline and 73.4% of amitriptyline patients responded. Twenty-eight percent of the sertraline patients withdrew from the study because of a treatment-related side effect and 2.5% (4) because of a laboratory abnormality. In comparison, 35% of the amitriptyline patients withdrew because of treatment-related side effects. Sertraline was associated with a statistically lower frequency of somnolence, dry mouth, constipation, ataxia, and pain and a higher frequency of nausea, anorexia, diarrhea/loose stools, and insomnia; thus, anticholinergic effects were less common and gastrointestinal effects were more common with sertraline than with amitriptyline.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
 ...
PMID:Double-blind, multicenter comparison of sertraline and amitriptyline in elderly depressed patients. 225 79

Guanfacine, an alpha 2 adrenoceptor agonist, was compared with prazosin hydrochloride for the treatment of patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension in an 8-week, double-blind, randomized, parallel evaluation to determine efficacy and safety. The study consisted of a 2-week screening/weaning period (phase I), a 3-week treatment period with chlorthalidone 25 mg every morning (phase II), and an 8-week double-blind treatment period with diuretic plus prazosin or guanfacine (phase III). Those who had an average seated diastolic blood pressure (BP) of 95 to 114 mm Hg at the end of the phase II period were eligible to enter the phase III period and were randomly assigned to chlorthalidone plus either guanfacine, 1 mg every night, or prazosin, 1 mg three times a day. Of the 102 patients who were randomly assigned to guanfacine or prazosin, 80% completed the entire study. Guanfacine and prazosin appeared to be equally effective and reduced seated as well as standing diastolic and systolic BP. The mean seated systolic and diastolic BP were reduced 11/9 mm Hg by guanfacine and 11/10 mm Hg by prazosin. The mean reduction in seated pulse was 3 beats/minute for guanfacine and no change with prazosin. Similar changes occurred in the standing position. Very few adverse effects were reported during the study. Adverse effects with an incidence of 5% or greater for either drug group were dizziness (6% guanfacine, 8% prazosin), xerostomia (6% guanfacine, 2% prazosin), and somnolence (0% guanfacine, 6% prazosin). Three patients (6%) in the prazosin group experienced symptoms of orthostasis requiring premature discontinuation of the drug and termination from the study.
 ...
PMID:Antihypertensive efficacy of guanfacine and prazosin in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension. 227 80

The clinical experience of 763 medical practitioners who treated 3,708 hypertensive patients (51% men) with indoramin, administered alone or in combination with diuretics and/or beta-adrenergic antagonists, is reported. All patients had baseline diastolic blood pressure (DBP) of 95 mm Hg or greater, even though most of the patients (62%) already were receiving optimum doses of diuretics (20%), beta-adrenergic antagonists (15%), or diuretics and beta-adrenergic antagonists (27%). After 6 to 10 weeks of indoramin therapy, the DBP of 70% of the patients was 90 mm Hg or lower; another 17% had treated DBP between 91 and 95 mm Hg. Response rates were similar among patients treated with indoramin alone and those who received concomitant antihypertensive treatment. Indoramin doses of 50 mg/day or less (dose range, 12.5 to 125 mg/day) were required in approximately 70% of the patients. Weight gain and reflex tachycardia were not observed. The most frequently reported side effects were drowsiness/tiredness, dizziness, and dry mouth. Only 6% of the patients discontinued indoramin treatment because of side effects. The results of this study indicate that indoramin, administered alone or in combination with diuretics and/or beta-adrenergic antagonists, is a safe and effective antihypertensive agent when used in relatively low doses in clinical practice.
 ...
PMID:Antihypertensive therapy in the Federal Republic of Germany: clinical practice experience with indoramin (Wydora). 242 96


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