Key result
Methazolamide and acetazolamide similarly reduced the estimated apnoeic threshold compared to placebo (28 and 26 vs 32 mmHg, P<0.001) without significantly altering CO2 sensitivity.
Why the study?
Does methazolamide affect ventilatory control similarly to acetazolamide in young male subjects?
RCT (n=14)
Double-blind
cross-over
Does methazolamide affect ventilatory control similarly to acetazolamide in young male subjects?
Absolute Event Rate: 28% vs 32%
p-value: p=<0.001
Methazolamide has similar effects on ventilatory control as acetazolamide, suggesting it could be a preferred alternative with potentially fewer side effects for indications requiring a carbonic anhydrase inhibitor.
Methazolamide may serve as alternative to acetazolamide for ventilatory modulation; confirms similar effects in RCT of healthy subjects.
New Findings What is the central question of this study? Acetazolamide and methazolamide both reduce hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction equally, but methazolamide does not impair skeletal muscle function. The effect of methazolamide on respiratory control in humans is not yet known. What is the main finding and its importance? Similar to acetazolamide after chronic oral administration, methazolamide causes a metabolic acidosis and shifts the ventilatory CO2 response curve leftwards without reducing O2 sensitivity. The change in ventilation over the change in log provides a more accurate measure of hypoxic sensitivity than the change in ventilation over the change in arterial oxyhaemoglobin saturation. Abstract Acetazolamide is used to prevent/treat acute mountain sickness and both central and obstructive sleep apnoea. Methazolamide, like acetazolamide, reduces hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction, but has fewer side‐effects, including less impairment of skeletal muscle function. Given that the effects of methazolamide on respiratory control in humans are unknown, we compared the effects of oral methazolamide and acetazolamide on ventilatory control and determined the ventilation–log relationship in humans. In a double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, randomized cross‐over design, we studied the effects of acetazolamide (250 mg three times daily), methazolamide (100 mg twice daily) and placebo in 14 young male subjects who were exposed to 7 min of normoxic hypercapnia and to three levels of eucapnia and hypercapnic hypoxia. With placebo, methazolamide and acetazolamide, the CO2 sensitivities were 2.39 ± 1.29, 3.27 ± 1.82 and 2.62 ± 1.79 l min−1 mmHg−1 (n.s.) and estimated apnoeic thresholds 32 ± 3, 28 ± 3 and 26 ± 3 mmHg, respectively (P < 0.001, placebo versus methazolamide and acetazolamide). The relationship between ventilation ( ) and log (using arterialized venous in hypoxia) was linear, and neither agent influenced the relationship between hypoxic sensitivity ( ) and arterial [H+]. Using rather than Δ /Δ arterial oxyhaemoglobin saturation enables a more accurate estimation of oxygenation and ventilatory control in metabolic acidosis/alkalosis when right‐ or leftward shifts of the oxyhaemoglobin saturation curve occur. Given that acetazolamide and methazolamide have similar effects on ventilatory control, methazolamide might be preferred for indications requiring the use of a carbonic anhydrase inhibitor, avoiding some of the negative side‐effects of acetazolamide.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Teppema et al. (2019) reported an RCT. Methazolamide vs. Placebo and Acetazolamide (250 mg three times daily) was evaluated on Estimated apnoeic thresholds (mmHg) (p=<0.001). Methazolamide and acetazolamide similarly reduced the estimated apnoeic threshold compared to placebo (28 and 26 vs 32 mmHg, P<0.001) without significantly altering CO2 sensitivity.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: