Fouad-Tarazi F M, Okabe M, Goren H
Department of Cardiology, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Ohio, USA.
Am J Med. 1995 Dec;99(6):604-10. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9343(99)80246-0.
In this double-blind study, the authors compared the safety and efficacy of the investigational oral agent midodrine, a specific alpha 1-sympathomimetic agent, with ephedrine, a nonspecific alpha- and beta-adrenergic receptor agonist. Eight patients (4 men and 4 women) with refractory orthostatic hypotension resulting from autonomic failure were studied. This study was based on the notion that neurogenic orthostatic hypotension results from attenuation of adrenergic nerve traffic and not from alpha-adrenergic receptor dysfunction. Although arteriolar vasoconstrictors seem to be appropriate therapeutic agents, their success has been limited, and the search for an ideal drug is ongoing.
The authors employed a blocked, double-blind, randomized crossover design. The single-blind placebo run-in period was 2 days. The double-blind titration period with either midodrine or ephedrine was 3 to 5 days; the titration end point was to increase standing systolic blood pressure to > or = 80 mm Hg and to maintain a supine pressure below 180/100 mm Hg. The maintenance period was 3 to 5 days. A 4-day placebo washout period was interposed at the crossover point.
The ability to stand improved in patients treated with midodrine but not with ephedrine. Midodrine significantly increased both systolic (P < 0.001) and diastolic (P < 0.001) standing blood pressure over placebo (P < 0.001) and ephedrine (P < 0.05). In contrast, ephedrine-induced changes in standing pressures did not significantly differ from placebo (P > 0.05). Midodrine treatment improved the frequency of the ability to stand as compared with ephedrine, and was associated with a significantly higher incidence of standing systolic pressures > 80 mm Hg than was placebo (P < 0.001). Both midodrine and ephedrine significantly increased supine systolic and diastolic blood pressures over placebo (P < 0.001, P < 0.01, P < 0.01, P < 0.01, respectively), but were not significantly different from each other. Ephedrine significantly increased (P < 0.05) the pulse rate as compared with placebo and midodrine, whereas midodrine produced a statistically significant (P < 0.05) but clinically minimal decrease in pulse rate compared with placebo. Neither drug affected clinical laboratory variables.
Midodrine safely and effectively improved orthostatic hypotension caused by autonomic failure. Our data suggest that the ability to stand is improved better by midodrine than by ephedrine.
在这项双盲研究中,作者比较了研究性口服药物米多君(一种特异性α1 - 拟交感神经药)与麻黄碱(一种非特异性α和β肾上腺素能受体激动剂)的安全性和有效性。对8例因自主神经功能衰竭导致顽固性直立性低血压的患者(4例男性和4例女性)进行了研究。本研究基于这样一种观点,即神经源性直立性低血压是由肾上腺素能神经传导减弱引起的,而非α肾上腺素能受体功能障碍。尽管小动脉血管收缩剂似乎是合适的治疗药物,但其疗效有限,目前仍在寻找理想的药物。
作者采用了分组、双盲、随机交叉设计。单盲安慰剂导入期为2天。使用米多君或麻黄碱的双盲滴定期为3至5天;滴定终点是使站立收缩压升高至≥80 mmHg,并使仰卧位血压维持在180/100 mmHg以下。维持期为3至5天。在交叉点设置4天的安慰剂洗脱期。
接受米多君治疗的患者站立能力有所改善,而接受麻黄碱治疗的患者则没有。与安慰剂(P < 0.001)和麻黄碱(P < 0.05)相比,米多君显著提高了站立时的收缩压(P < 0.001)和舒张压(P < 0.001)。相比之下,麻黄碱引起的站立血压变化与安慰剂无显著差异(P > 0.05)。与麻黄碱相比,米多君治疗改善了站立能力的频率,且站立收缩压>80 mmHg的发生率显著高于安慰剂(P < 0.001)。与安慰剂相比,米多君和麻黄碱均显著提高了仰卧位收缩压和舒张压(分别为P < 0.001、P < 0.01、P < 0.01、P < 0.01),但两者之间无显著差异。与安慰剂和米多君相比,麻黄碱显著提高了心率(P <