CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 428Cardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic DisordersHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic ControlBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Efficacy of Midodrine vs Placebo in Neurogenic Orthostatic Hypotension: A Randomized, Double-blind Multicenter Study

Low, Phillip A.·1997·JAMA
DOI 10.1001/jama.1997.03540370036033
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective. —To evaluate the efficacy of a 10-mg dose of midodrine 3 times per day in improving blood pressure (BP) and ameliorating symptoms of orthostatic hypotension in patients with neurogenic orthostatic hypotension. Midodrine hydrochloride, an α=agonist, could improve orthostatic BP by increasing vasomotor and venomotor tone. Design/Methods. —A total of 171 patients with orthostatic hypotension participated in a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled study. They were randomized to a 10-mg dose of midodrine or placebo 3 times per day in a 6-week study, comprising single-blind run-in (at week 1) and washout at weeks 5 and 6, with an intervening double-blind period (weeks 2 to 4). Setting. —Twenty-five centers, with most patients evaluated in referral centers. Main Outcome Measures. —The primary end points were improvement in standing systolic BP, symptoms of lightheadedness, and a global symptom relief score (by the investigator and patient separately). Results. —Nine patients were not evaluable because of noncompliance or taking concomitant vasoactive medications (3 in the midodrine group, 6 in the placebo group). In the evaluable patients, midodrine resulted in improvements in standing systolic BP at all time points (P<.001 at visits 2,3,4, and 5), in reported symptoms by the end of the second week of treatment (P=.001), and in the global symptom relief score rated by both the patient (P=.03) and the investigator (P<.001). There was no effect by center, severity of orthostatic hypotension, use of fludrocortisone or compression garments, or diagnosis. The main adverse effects were those of pilomotor reactions, urinary retention, and supine hypertension. Conclusions. —Midodrine is efficacious and safe in the treatment of neurogenic orthostatic hypotension.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.1997.03540370036033

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 428

Related

Metadata

Authors
Low, P. A.
Corresponding author
Low, Phillip A.
ORCID
Low, Phillip A.
Venue
JAMA
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
1997-04-02
Volume
277
Issue
13
Pages
1046
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
DOI
10.1001/jama.1997.03540370036033
OpenAlex
W4294549596
Cited by
425
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 20
FWCI
8.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
JAMA (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Keywords
midodrine, neurogenic orthostatic hypotension, alpha-adrenergic agonists, blood pressure, lightheadedness, symptom relief, vascular tone, adverse effects, urinary retention, supine hypertension

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review