Skip to main content
Log in

Analysis of the receptor involved in the central hypotensive effect of rilmenidine and moxonidine

  • Original article
  • Published:
Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine whether α2-adrenoceptors or imidazoline I1-receptors are responsible for the central sympathoinhibition produced by rilmenidine and moxonidine, two clonidine-like antihypertensive drugs. Rilmenidine and moxonidine were compared with the indirectly acting α2-adrenoceptor agonist α-methyldopa. Three antagonists were used. Yohimbine and SK & F86466 were used as selective α2-adrenoceptor antagonists. They were compared with efaroxan which is also an α2-adrenoceptor antagonist, but, in addition, possesses affinity for imidazoline I1-receptors. According to some but not all studies, the affinity of efaroxan for I1-receptors is much higher than its affinity for α2-adrenoceptors.

Drugs were administered into the cisterna cerebellomedullaris of conscious rabbits by a catheter implanted previously under halothane anaesthesia. Rilmenidine (10 μg kg–1), moxonidine (0.3 μg kg–1) and α-methyldopa (0.4 mg kg–1) lowered blood pressure and the plasma noradrenaline concentration; the degree of sympathoinhibition produced by the three agonists was very similar. When injected after the agonists, efaroxan (0.1–14 μg kg–1; cumulative doses), yohimbine (0.4–14 μg kg–1) and SK & F86466 (0.4–44 μg kg–1) counteracted the effects of the agonists on blood pressure and the plasma noradrenaline concentration. Efaroxan was about tenfold more potent than yohimbine and SK & F86466 at antagonizing the hypotensive effects of α-methyldopa. Similarly, efaroxan was two- to tenfold more potent than yohimbine and SK & F86466 against rilmenidine and moxonidine. Finally, efaroxan was about as potent against α-methyldopa as against rilmenidine and moxonidine.

The results confirm previous observations that selective α2-adrenoceptor antagonists are capable of completely antagonizing effects of rilmenidine and moxonidine. The effects of the α2-adrenoceptor antagonist with an additional high affinity for imidazoline I1-receptors, efaroxan, can also be explained by blockade of α2-adrenoceptors. Efaroxan was more potent against rilmenidine and moxonidine than the selective α2-adrenoceptor antagonists. This was probably due to the fact that the affinity of efaroxan for α2-adrenoceptors is higher than the affinity of yohimbine and SK & F86466, since efaroxan was also the most potent of the three antagonists against the indirectly acting α2-adrenoceptor agonist α-methyldopa. The observation that efaroxan was equally potent against rilmenidine and moxonidine and against α-methyldopa suggests that the same receptors were involved in the effects of the three agonists, α2-adrenoceptors; this observation is not compatible with the high I12 selectivity of efaroxan and the hypothesis that rilmenidine and moxonidine activate I1-receptors, whereas α-methyldopa activates α2-adrenoceptors. Thus, the data do not indicate involvement of I1 imidazoline receptors in the central sympathoinhibition elicited by ril-menidine and moxonidine in rabbits. It is likely that ril-menidine and moxonidine produce sympathoinhibition by activating the same receptors which are activated by the indirectly acting catecholamine α-methyldopa, namely α2-adrenoceptors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Received: 7 December 1998 / Accepted: 2 February 1999

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bock, C., Niederhoffer, N. & Szabo, B. Analysis of the receptor involved in the central hypotensive effect of rilmenidine and moxonidine. Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Arch Pharmacol 359, 262–271 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00005351

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00005351

Navigation