ReviewNaunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology2026
The change in the pharmacological significance of dihydralazine (Germany) and hydralazine (USA).
Review in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Pharmacological assessment of drugs retained in the 1Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dihydralazine and hydralazine have been on the market since the 1950s. The primary indication for those is the treatment of hypertension. The aim of this study is to uncover the reasons why both, dihydralazine in Germany and hydralazine in the USA, have lost importance. The period under investigation covers the years 1955 to 2025. The standard work from the USA The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics (Goodman & Gilman) and three German pharmacology textbooks were selected: Allgemeine und spezielle Pharmakologie und Toxikologie (Aktories), Pharmakologie und Toxikologie (Lüllmann) and Allgemeine und Spezielle Pharmakologie und Toxikologie (Karow). Categories were created for the German and US textbooks. Clinical studies were used to evaluate the textbooks. In addition, the "Rote Liste" (Red List) of drugs was examined for each decade to identify changes. Guidelines and specialist information were also analyzed. Furthermore, learning platforms were examined about the learning content on dihydralazine. The textbooks show that dihydralazine is now only a reserve drug. Hydralazine is also no longer the drug of choice in the USA. The reason for the change in the evaluation of (di)hydralazines is the large number of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). In Goodman & Gilman, the areas of application increased from 1955 to 2023, whereas German pharmacology textbooks (Aktories) and (Lüllmann) show a decrease in indications over time. The (di)hydralazines now have an indication for chronic heart failure (CHF) in African Americans. The dose of hydralazine in the US and dihydralazine in Germany has been reduced over time. The (di)hydralazines have a wide spectrum of ADRs. Dihydralazine is no longer on the German drug list for medical exams. However, it is still covered on learning platforms. Dihydralazine in Germany and hydralazine in the USA have lost pharmacological importance but they are still used in individual situations, if tolerated, to reduce blood presssure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.