Synergistic Pressor Effect of Atomoxetine and Pyridostigmine in Patients With Neurogenic Orthostatic Hypotension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients with autonomic failure are characterized by disabling orthostatic hypotension because of impaired sympathetic activity, but even severely affected patients have residual sympathetic tone which can be harnessed for their treatment. For example, norepinephrine transporter blockade with atomoxetine raises blood pressure (BP) in autonomic failure patients by increasing synaptic norepinephrine concentrations; acetylcholinesterase inhibition with pyridostigmine increases BP by facilitating ganglionic cholinergic neurotransmission to increase sympathetic outflow. We tested the hypothesis that pyridostigmine will potentiate the pressor effect of atomoxetine and improve orthostatic tolerance and symptoms in patients with severe autonomic failure. Twelve patients received a single oral dose of either placebo, pyridostigmine 60 mg, atomoxetine 18 mg or the combination on separate days in a single blind, crossover study. BP was assessed seated and standing before and 1-hour postdrug. In these severely affected patients, neither pyridostigmine nor atomoxetine improved BP or orthostatic tolerance compared with placebo. The combination, however, significantly increased seated BP in a synergistic manner (133±9/80±4 versus 107±6/66±4 mm Hg for placebo, 105±5/67±3 mm Hg for atomoxetine, and 99±6/64±4 mm Hg for pyridostigmine; P<0.001); the maximal increase in seated BP with the combination was 33±8/18±3 mm Hg at 60 minutes postdrug. Only the combination showed a significant improvement of orthostatic tolerance and symptoms. In conclusion, the combination pyridostigmine and atomoxetine had a synergistic effect on seated BP which was associated with improvement in orthostatic tolerance and symptoms. This pharmacological approach could be useful in patients with severe autonomic failure but further safety and long-term efficacy studies are needed.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".