4.6 Article

Efficacy of atomoxetine versus midodrine for neurogenic orthostatic hypotension

Journal

ANNALS OF CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL NEUROLOGY
Volume 7, Issue 1, Pages 112-120

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/acn3.50968

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective The efficacy and safety of 1-month atomoxetine and midodrine therapies were compared. Three-month atomoxetine and combination therapies were investigated for additional benefits. Methods This prospective open-label randomized trial included 50 patients with symptomatic neurogenic orthostatic hypotension (nOH). The patients received either atomoxetine 18 mg daily or midodrine 5 mg twice daily and were evaluated 1 and 3 months later. Those who still met the criteria for nOH at 1 month received both midodrine and atomoxetine for an additional 2 months, and if not, they continued their initial medication. The primary outcome was an improvement in orthostatic blood pressure (BP) drop (maximum BP change from supine to 3 min after standing) at 1 month. The secondary endpoints were symptom scores, percentage of patients with nOH at 1 and 3 months. Results Patients with midodrine or atomoxetine treatment showed comparative improvement in the orthostatic BP drop, and overall only 26.2% of the patients had nOH at 1 month, which was similar between the treatment groups. Only atomoxetine resulted in significant symptomatic improvements at 1 month. For those without nOH at 1 month, there was additional symptomatic improvement at 3 months with their initial medication. For those with nOH at 1 month, the combination treatment resulted in no additional improvement. Mild-to-moderate adverse events were reported by 11.6% of the patients. Interpretation One-month atomoxetine treatment was effective and safe in nOH patients. Atomoxetine improved orthostatic BP changes as much as midodrine and was better in terms of ameliorating nOH symptoms.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available