О право- и левоворащающем амлодипине или о чисто хронобиологической задачке

На смену право- приходит левовращаюший амлодипин, и одна из причин - частые отеки после назначения первого.
Но вот незадача, хотя и реже, но прием второго ослоняться отеками тоже может.
Опыт клинический показывает, что принимающие правовращающий амлодипин после отмены на отеки спустя некоторое время снова и снова еuо принимают с прекрарещением на время после возобновления отеков.
Мне думается, что отеки развиваются у медленных метаболизаторов и задачку можно решить правильным подбором периодичности приема амлодипина.
Зрим в корень - это чисто хронобиологическая задачка.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Beyond the Dichotomy: When a Heart Attack and Broken Heart Syndrome Are One

Image
  Science rarely arrives as a single revelation. More often, it accumulates — in clinical observations that don't fit the textbook, in questions that outlast careers, and in the partnerships that make sustained thinking possible. The theory I want to describe here is the product of all three. Vladimir Shlyakhover was once my student. He has long since become my colleague in science and my friend in life. We are both from Ukraine — he now lives in Israel, I in the United States. Between us we carry decades of clinical and research experience with the heart under stress. And together we have arrived at something we no longer call a hypothesis. We call it a theory — because the evidence, in our view, demands that elevation. The Two Diagnoses That Should Not Be Separate Cardiology has long maintained a clean boundary between two cardiac conditions. Acute myocardial infarction (AMI)  — the classic heart attack — is understood as the consequence of a blocked coronary artery: oxygen ...
Read more

Why Does Official Medicine Rely on the False Opposition of Health to Disease?

  Modern medicine has achieved extraordinary things. It has conquered infections, extended lifespans, and developed technologies once unimaginable. Yet at its philosophical foundation lies a quiet contradiction — one that has shaped clinical practice, health policy, and global health institutions for generations. Official medicine has been built, and continues to operate, on a false opposition : the idea that health and disease are mutually exclusive categories, that to be healthy is simply to be without disease, and that to be sick is to be without health. Centuries of fundamental scientific research and clinical practice contradict this premise. So how did this happen? Sciences That Competed Instead of Converged When medicine and its branches were first emerging as distinct disciplines, they developed in isolation from one another. Progress was uneven — some fields advanced rapidly, others lagged behind due to circumstance, resources, or cultural context. When these fields even...
Read more