Effects of the Selective H1and H2Histamine Receptor Antagonists Loratadine and Ranitidine on Autonomic Control of the Heart
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: H1 and H2 histamine receptor subtypes are present throughout the heart and may be involved in disturbances of cardiac rhythm that occur during anaphylaxis. Although H1 and H2 receptor antagonists are used in the treatment of anaphylaxis, there have been reports implicating these drugs in the genesis of dysrhythmias. This study was designed to investigate the effects of the selective H1 and H2 receptor antagonists loratadine and ranitidine on physiologic autonomic control of the healthy cardiovascular system. METHODS: Using a double-blind, crossover design, 14 healthy volunteers completed the protocol and were randomized to receive one dose of loratadine (20 mg), ranitidine (300 mg), or placebo on each of three separate testing sessions. Continuous electrocardiogram and BP recordings were obtained before and 3 h after administration of study drug. Effects on cardiac autonomic control were quantified using power spectral analysis of heart rate variability and calculation of spontaneous baroreflex sensitivity. RESULTS: Neither placebo nor loratadine significantly altered indices of autonomic cardiovascular control. Conversely, H2 antagonism with ranitidine resulted in a 23.3% decrease in baroreflex sensitivity (P < 0.05) and a corresponding 25.0% decrease in the ratio of high frequency to total power of heart rate variability, both indices of parasympathetic modulation (P < 0.01). Furthermore, ranitidine evoked a concomitant 103.8% increase in the ratio of low to high frequency power of heart rate variability, an index of sympathetic control (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: H1 receptor antagonism with loratadine does not influence physiologic cardiovascular control in young healthy subjects. However, the altered cardiac sympathovagal balance after oral administration of the H2 receptor antagonist ranitidine indicates a shift toward sympathetic predominance in heart rate control. The authors postulate that this could have implications regarding susceptibility to arrhythmias in conditions of heightened sympathetic stimulation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".