Pyridostigmine in the management of orthostatic hypotension: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current pharmacological approaches for the treatment of orthostatic hypotension (OH) may detrimentally affect supine blood pressure (BP). This side effect is often unacceptable and limits the utility of medical management. Pyridostigmine has been proposed as a potential treatment alternative which may improve OH without worsening supine hypertension. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the currently available data regarding the use of pyridostigmine in the treatment of all-cause OH. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane and SCOPUS were searched for publications until 4 June 2024. A random-effects model was used for meta-analysis. RESULTS: The search returned 715 results, of which 6 randomised controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. Several studies reported a statistically significant improvement in orthostatic BP following pyridostigmine administration. Two studies found that pyridostigmine had no effect on standing BP among patients with severe autonomic failure. One study suggested that combination therapy with atomoxetine may elicit a synergistic effect. In most studies, pyridostigmine had no significant effect on supine BP. Adverse effects were minimal across the included studies. The pooled results from the meta-analysis showed that while pyridostigmine alone resulted in lower systolic and diastolic orthostatic drop, neither result was statistically significant. However, when pyridostigmine is combined with midodrine, this demonstrated a significant improvement in systolic orthostatic drop. CONCLUSIONS: Pyridostigmine may be useful in the management of OH, particularly in patients with supine hypertension. The standing BP response to pyridostigmine may be greater in patients who have a relatively preserved baroreflex function and sympathetic reserve. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024555402.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".