You're using a free limited version of DrugPatentWatch: Upgrade for Complete Access

Last Updated: November 25, 2024

CLINICAL TRIALS PROFILE FOR CATAPRES


✉ Email this page to a colleague

« Back to Dashboard


All Clinical Trials for CATAPRES

Trial ID Title Status Sponsor Phase Start Date Summary
NCT00223717 ↗ Treatment of Supine Hypertension in Autonomic Failure Completed Vanderbilt University Phase 1 2001-01-01 Supine hypertension is a common problem that affects at least 50% of patients with primary autonomic failure. Supine hypertension can be severe, and complicates the treatment of orthostatic hypotension. Drugs used for the treatment of orthostatic hypotension (eg, fludrocortisone and pressor agents), worsen supine hypertension. High blood pressure may also cause target organ damage in this group of patients. The pathophysiologic mechanisms causing supine hypertension in patients with autonomic failure have not been defined. In a study, we, the investigators at Vanderbilt University, examined 64 patients with AF, 29 with pure autonomic failure (PAF) and 35 with multiple system atrophy (MSA). 66% of patients had supine systolic (systolic blood pressure [SBP] > 150 mmHg) or diastolic (diastolic blood pressure [DBP] > 90 mmHg) hypertension (average blood pressure [BP]: 179 ± 5/89 ± 3 mmHg in 21 PAF and 175 ± 5/92 ± 3 mmHg in 21 MSA patients). Plasma norepinephrine (92 ± 15 pg/mL) and plasma renin activity (0.3 ± 0.05 ng/mL per hour) were very low in a subset of patients with AF and supine hypertension. (Shannon et al., 1997). Our group has showed that a residual sympathetic function contributes to supine hypertension in patients with severe autonomic failure and that this effect is more prominent in patients with MSA than in those with PAF (Shannon et al., 2000). MSA patients had a marked depressor response to low infusion rates of trimethaphan, a ganglionic blocker; the response in PAF patients was more variable. At 1 mg/min, trimethaphan decreased supine SBP by 67 +/- 8 and 12 +/- 6 mmHg in MSA and PAF patients, respectively (P < 0.0001). MSA patients with supine hypertension also had greater SBP response to oral yohimbine, a central alpha2 receptor blocker, than PAF patients. Plasma norepinephrine decreased in both groups, but heart rate did not change in either group. This result suggests that residual sympathetic activity drives supine hypertension in MSA; in contrast, supine hypertension in PAF. It is hoped that from this study will emerge a complete picture of the supine hypertension of autonomic failure. Understanding the mechanism of this paradoxical hypertension in the setting of profound loss of sympathetic function will improve our approach to the treatment of hypertension in autonomic failure, and it could also contribute to our understanding of hypertension in general.
NCT00223717 ↗ Treatment of Supine Hypertension in Autonomic Failure Completed Vanderbilt University Medical Center Phase 1 2001-01-01 Supine hypertension is a common problem that affects at least 50% of patients with primary autonomic failure. Supine hypertension can be severe, and complicates the treatment of orthostatic hypotension. Drugs used for the treatment of orthostatic hypotension (eg, fludrocortisone and pressor agents), worsen supine hypertension. High blood pressure may also cause target organ damage in this group of patients. The pathophysiologic mechanisms causing supine hypertension in patients with autonomic failure have not been defined. In a study, we, the investigators at Vanderbilt University, examined 64 patients with AF, 29 with pure autonomic failure (PAF) and 35 with multiple system atrophy (MSA). 66% of patients had supine systolic (systolic blood pressure [SBP] > 150 mmHg) or diastolic (diastolic blood pressure [DBP] > 90 mmHg) hypertension (average blood pressure [BP]: 179 ± 5/89 ± 3 mmHg in 21 PAF and 175 ± 5/92 ± 3 mmHg in 21 MSA patients). Plasma norepinephrine (92 ± 15 pg/mL) and plasma renin activity (0.3 ± 0.05 ng/mL per hour) were very low in a subset of patients with AF and supine hypertension. (Shannon et al., 1997). Our group has showed that a residual sympathetic function contributes to supine hypertension in patients with severe autonomic failure and that this effect is more prominent in patients with MSA than in those with PAF (Shannon et al., 2000). MSA patients had a marked depressor response to low infusion rates of trimethaphan, a ganglionic blocker; the response in PAF patients was more variable. At 1 mg/min, trimethaphan decreased supine SBP by 67 +/- 8 and 12 +/- 6 mmHg in MSA and PAF patients, respectively (P < 0.0001). MSA patients with supine hypertension also had greater SBP response to oral yohimbine, a central alpha2 receptor blocker, than PAF patients. Plasma norepinephrine decreased in both groups, but heart rate did not change in either group. This result suggests that residual sympathetic activity drives supine hypertension in MSA; in contrast, supine hypertension in PAF. It is hoped that from this study will emerge a complete picture of the supine hypertension of autonomic failure. Understanding the mechanism of this paradoxical hypertension in the setting of profound loss of sympathetic function will improve our approach to the treatment of hypertension in autonomic failure, and it could also contribute to our understanding of hypertension in general.
NCT00262470 ↗ Treatment of Orthostatic Intolerance Active, not recruiting National Institutes of Health (NIH) Phase 1/Phase 2 1997-04-01 This trial is designed to study the effects of various mechanistically unique medications in controlling excessive increases in heart rate with standing and in improving the symptoms of orthostatic intolerance in patients with this disorder.
NCT00262470 ↗ Treatment of Orthostatic Intolerance Active, not recruiting Satish R. Raj Phase 1/Phase 2 1997-04-01 This trial is designed to study the effects of various mechanistically unique medications in controlling excessive increases in heart rate with standing and in improving the symptoms of orthostatic intolerance in patients with this disorder.
NCT00329511 ↗ A Comparison of Compliance Between Clonidine Patch and Methyldopa for the Treatment of Chronic Hypertension in Pregnancy Withdrawn Afshan B. Hameed, M.D. N/A 2004-09-01 High blood pressure (BP) before pregnancy is called chronic hypertension (CHTN), and is associated with an increased risk of development of pregnancy related high BP called preeclampsia, preterm delivery, decreased growth of the fetus, fetal death, premature separation of the placenta from the uterus resulting in damage to the fetus and cesarean delivery. Longer duration and severity of CHTN in pregnancy leads to worse outcomes for the mother and the fetus. Treatment of mild CHTN in pregnancy does not improve these outcomes, and therefore, medications to lower BP are used for moderate to severe hypertension. To date the literature on the medications used in pregnancy is extremely limited. Methyldopa is used as a first choice medicine for CHTN in pregnancy. It acts on the central nervous system (CNS) by relaxation of the blood vessels leading to a decrease in BP. It does not decrease the blood flow to the uterus, placenta, or the fetus (4). Methyldopa is a weak antihypertensive medicine given three or four times a day and frequently needs changes in the dose or may require an additional medication to control BP. This may lead to a greater chance of non compliance. Another option is Clonidine which is an effective antihypertensive treatment and is available in many forms (oral, parenteral, and transdermal.) It acts on the maternal CNS. Clonidine is not associated with teratogenic or neonatal side effects. Transdermal clonidine (catapres-TTS®) is a preparation of clonidine hydrochloride that can be released and absorbed transdermally over a 7-day period. The study will determine differences in compliance between the two antihypertensive regimens- oral methyldopa and Catapres-TTS, comparisons of patient tolerability, compliance and adequacy of BP control, as well as provide information on an alternate option for BP control.
>Trial ID >Title >Status >Phase >Start Date >Summary

Clinical Trial Conditions for CATAPRES

Condition Name

Condition Name for CATAPRES
Intervention Trials
Hypertension 3
Delirium 2
Fecal Incontinence 2
Pain, Postoperative 1
[disabled in preview] 0
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Condition MeSH

Condition MeSH for CATAPRES
Intervention Trials
Hypertension 3
Delirium 3
Fecal Incontinence 2
Pain, Postoperative 2
[disabled in preview] 0
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Clinical Trial Locations for CATAPRES

Trials by Country

Trials by Country for CATAPRES
Location Trials
United States 11
United Kingdom 2
Lithuania 1
Denmark 1
Netherlands 1
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Trials by US State

Trials by US State for CATAPRES
Location Trials
Minnesota 3
Maryland 2
California 2
Tennessee 2
Pennsylvania 1
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Clinical Trial Progress for CATAPRES

Clinical Trial Phase

Clinical Trial Phase for CATAPRES
Clinical Trial Phase Trials
Phase 4 5
Phase 3 3
Phase 2/Phase 3 1
[disabled in preview] 4
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Clinical Trial Status

Clinical Trial Status for CATAPRES
Clinical Trial Phase Trials
Completed 7
Withdrawn 3
Recruiting 3
[disabled in preview] 5
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Clinical Trial Sponsors for CATAPRES

Sponsor Name

Sponsor Name for CATAPRES
Sponsor Trials
Mayo Clinic 3
National Center for Research Resources (NCRR) 2
Queen's University, Belfast 1
[disabled in preview] 2
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Sponsor Type

Sponsor Type for CATAPRES
Sponsor Trials
Other 36
NIH 5
Industry 4
[disabled in preview] 0
This preview shows a limited data set
Subscribe for full access, or try a Trial

Make Better Decisions: Try a trial or see plans & pricing

Drugs may be covered by multiple patents or regulatory protections. All trademarks and applicant names are the property of their respective owners or licensors. Although great care is taken in the proper and correct provision of this service, thinkBiotech LLC does not accept any responsibility for possible consequences of errors or omissions in the provided data. The data presented herein is for information purposes only. There is no warranty that the data contained herein is error free. thinkBiotech performs no independent verification of facts as provided by public sources nor are attempts made to provide legal or investing advice. Any reliance on data provided herein is done solely at the discretion of the user. Users of this service are advised to seek professional advice and independent confirmation before considering acting on any of the provided information. thinkBiotech LLC reserves the right to amend, extend or withdraw any part or all of the offered service without notice.