|
Commentary
Clonidine and α-methyl-dopa, developed in the 1960s, are the prototypes
of centrally acting antihypertensive drugs. Their antihypertensive efficacy
is beyond any doubt, but their position in the management of hypertension has
been greatly weakened because of their side-effect profile. This situation may
be improved by the introduction of newer drugs which are as effective as antihypertensives
as the classical drugs, but are better tolerated. Examples of
this development are the newer agents which interact with imidazoline I1 receptors,
such as rilmenidine and moxonidine.
The question then arises as to whether it is indeed useful to develop new centrally
acting agents. This matter was discussed exhaustive and critically by Bousquet
et al in the present paper.
On theoretical grounds centrally acting drugs which cause peripheral sympatho-inhibition
(and possibly also some activation of the parasympathomimetic system) may offer
certain hemodynamic/pathophysiological advantages.
Important cardiovascular diseases, such as hypertension, and even more so congestive
heart failure, are known to be associated with an activated sympathetic nervous
system.Suppression of this activated system, starting at the origin (the central
nervous system) therefore seems a logical approach.
Besides hypertension and heart failure, other pathologic targets can be thought
of, such as certain types of cardiac tachyarrhythmias. It should be realized
that several mechanisms and receptor systems are involved in the central nervous
regulation of the sympathetic system and the cardiovascular system, such as
NO, GABA, and muscarinic receptors, besides the already mentioned α2-adrenoceptors
and imidazoline I1 receptors. Since only the α2-
and I1 receptors have been investigated as clinically beneficial
drug targets, many alternative possibilities can be thought of for the further
development of new centrally acting drugs. Considering the potential advantages
of centrally acting drugs, such investigations would appear well worthwhile.
|