Nadolol versus diltiazem and combination for preventing exercise-induced ischemia in severe angina pectoris

Micellar liquid chromatographic determination of five antianginals in pharmaceuticals

A procedure was developed for the determination of five antianginals (diltiazem, nadolol, nifedipine, propranolol and verapamil), using hybrid micellar mobile phases of sodium dodecyl sulphate (SDS) and pentanol, a C18 column and UV detection. All possible combinations of antianginals were resolved and determined using a mobile phase of 0.05 M SDS-5% pentanol with an analysis time of 9 min. Repeatabilities and intermediate precision were evaluated at four different drug concentrations in the 2-20 microg/ml (n=5) range. Limits of detection were in the range 0.028 microg/ml for diltiazem and 0.130 microg/ml for verapamil. The range of the limit of quantitation was from 0.092 to 0.431 microg/ml for the same compounds. Antianginal drugs were studied in pharmaceuticals with no interference from related compounds. The results of the analyses of pharmaceuticals formulations were in agreement with the declared compositions.

Long-term double-blind evaluation of amlodipine and nadolol in patients with stable exertional angina pectoris. The Investigators of Study 152

The efficacy and tolerability of amlodipine 2.5-10 mg once daily was compared with nadolol 40-160 mg once daily in a long-term double-blind parallel-group study in patients with stable exertional angina pectoris. A total of 80 patients were randomized to receive amlodipine or nadolol for 26 weeks after a 2-week single-blind placebo run-in period. The effects of amlodipine and nadolol on total exercise time were minimal and not significantly different. However, amlodipine produced a slightly but not significantly greater increase in time to onset of angina than nadolol (+21% amlodipine; +8% nadolol). No significant differences were noted between amlodipine and nadolol on ST-segment depression, angina attack rate, or nitroglycerin consumption. A slightly greater improvement was attained after amlodipine on patient and investigator assessments of treatments. A statistically significant difference (p < 0.0001) was found between treatments on the effects on myocardial oxygen requirements (as assessed by the rate pressure product). Nadolol produced a reduction of 29% compared with a slight reduction of 4% with amlodipine. Fewer side effects were reported with amlodipine (43%) than with nadolol (83%) (p < 0.0001), resulting in discontinuation of therapy in three amlodipine and four nadolol patients. Long-term treatment with amlodipine and nadolol produced comparable effects in patients with angina pectoris, with fewer side effects being reported after treatment with amlodipine.