-
Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology... May 2017Cocaine abuse remains a significant worldwide health problem. Patients with cardiovascular toxicity from cocaine abuse frequently present to the emergency department for... (Review)
Review
Cocaine abuse remains a significant worldwide health problem. Patients with cardiovascular toxicity from cocaine abuse frequently present to the emergency department for treatment. These patients may be tachycardic, hypertensive, agitated, and have chest pain. Several pharmacological options exist for treatment of cocaine-induced cardiovascular toxicity. For the past 3 decades, the phenomenon of unopposed α-stimulation after β-blocker use in cocaine-positive patients has been cited as an absolute contraindication, despite limited and inconsistent clinical evidence. In this review, the authors of the original studies, case reports, and systematic review in which unopposed α-stimulation was believed to be a factor investigate the pathophysiology, pharmacology, and published evidence behind the unopposed α-stimulation phenomenon. We also investigate other potential explanations for unopposed α-stimulation, including the unique and deleterious pharmacologic properties of cocaine in the absence of β-blockers. The safety and efficacy of the mixed β-/α-blockers labetalol and carvedilol are also discussed in relation to unopposed α-stimulation.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Animals; Cardiovascular Diseases; Cardiovascular System; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Cocaine; Cocaine-Related Disorders; Hemodynamics; Humans; Receptors, Adrenergic, alpha; Sympathetic Nervous System; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28399647
DOI: 10.1177/1074248416681644 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Mar 2022Diverse genetic and/or external factors may induce psoriasis. Drug exposure is 1 such prominent external factor; antihypertensive drugs are reportedly associated with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIMS
Diverse genetic and/or external factors may induce psoriasis. Drug exposure is 1 such prominent external factor; antihypertensive drugs are reportedly associated with psoriasis, but study results have been inconsistent. In this context, we investigated the associations between antihypertensive drugs and incidence if psoriasis via a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
Literature search in databases such as PubMed, Embase and Web of Science was conducted on 8 January 2021, and obtained data were pooled for meta- and network meta-analysis. Fixed- or random effect models were used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for evaluating the strength of the associations between antihypertensive drugs and psoriasis incidence. In addition to meta-analysis, Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed. ResultsThirteen eligible studies were included for meta-analysis with 6 378 116 individuals and 8 studies for network meta-analysis with 5 615 918 individuals. All antihypertensive drugs were significantly associated with psoriasis incidence. In a meta-analysis, the pooled ORs were 1.67 (95% CI: 1.31-2.13) for angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, 1.40 (95% CI: 1.20-1.63) for β-blockers, 1.53 (95% CI: 1.23-1.89) for calcium-channel blockers (CCBs), and 1.70 (95% CI: 1.40-2.06) for thiazide diuretics. For the comparative risks of psoriasis among antihypertensive drugs in the network meta-analysis, ORs were 2.09 (95% CI: 1.39-3.18) for ACE inhibitors, 1.35 (95% CI: 0.99-1.91) for BBs, 1.53 (95% CI: 1.07-2.24) for CCBs and 1.80 (95% CI: 1.23-2.66) for thiazide diuretics.
CONCLUSION
This study confirmed the associations between antihypertensive drugs and psoriasis; ACE inhibitors, BBs, CCBs and thiazide diuretics increased the risk of psoriasis. Therefore, antihypertensive drug users should be carefully monitored for psoriasis.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Antihypertensive Agents; Bayes Theorem; Calcium Channel Blockers; Humans; Hypertension; Network Meta-Analysis; Psoriasis; Sodium Chloride Symporter Inhibitors
PubMed: 34611920
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.15060 -
Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics 2016Adult Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a prevalent psychiatric condition associated with high disability and frequent comorbidity. Current standard... (Review)
Review
Adult Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a prevalent psychiatric condition associated with high disability and frequent comorbidity. Current standard pharmacotherapy (methylphenidate and atomoxetine) improves ADHD symptoms in the short-term, but poor data were published about long-term treatment. In addition a number of patients present partial or no response to methylphenidate and atomoxetine. Research into the main database sources has been conducted to obtain an overview of alternative pharmacological approaches in adult ADHD patients. Among alternative compounds, amphetamines (mixed amphetamine salts and lisdexamfetamine) have the most robust evidence of efficacy, but they may be associated with serious side effects (e.g. psychotic symptoms or hypertension). Antidepressants, particularly those acting as noradrenaline or dopamine enhancers, have evidence of efficacy, but they should be avoided in patients with comorbid bipolar disorder. Finally metadoxine and lithium may be particularly suitable in case of comorbid alcohol misuse or bipolar disorder.
Topics: Adrenergic alpha-Agonists; Adult; Amphetamines; Antidepressive Agents; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Benzhydryl Compounds; Bridged Bicyclo Compounds, Heterocyclic; Bupropion; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Desipramine; Dopamine Agents; Droxidopa; Drug Combinations; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Guanfacine; Histamine Agents; Humans; Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate; Lithium Compounds; Lobeline; Mecamylamine; Memantine; Modafinil; Morpholines; Nicotinic Agonists; Nicotinic Antagonists; Nomifensine; Paroxetine; Pyridines; Pyridoxine; Pyrrolidonecarboxylic Acid; Quinazolinones; Reboxetine; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride; Wakefulness-Promoting Agents
PubMed: 26693882
DOI: 10.1586/14737175.2016.1135735 -
Journal of Affective Disorders May 2020We investigated the comparative efficacy and tolerability of pharmacological treatment strategies for the treatment of acute bipolar depression. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
We investigated the comparative efficacy and tolerability of pharmacological treatment strategies for the treatment of acute bipolar depression.
DATA SOURCES
A systematic review and network meta-analysis was conducted by searching eight registries for published and unpublished, double-blind, randomized controlled trials of pharmacotherapies for the acute treatment of bipolar depression.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
PRISMA guidelines were used for abstracting data, while the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was used to assess data quality. Data extraction was done independently by two reviewers, with discrepancies resolved by consensus. Data were pooled using a random-effects model.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Primary outcomes were efficacy (response and remission rate) and acceptability (completion of treatment and dropouts due to adverse events). Summary odds ratios (ORs) were estimated using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects.
RESULTS
Identified citations (4,404) included 50 trials comprising 11,448 participants. Escitalopram, phenelzine, moclobemide, carbamazepine, sertraline, lithium, paroxetine, aripiprazole, gabapentin and ziprasidone appear to be ineffective as compared to placebo in treatment of bipolar depression. Divalproex, olanzapine/fluoxetine, olanzapine, quetiapine, cariprazine, and lamotrigine, appear to be effective as compared to placebo in treatment of bipolar depression according to the network meta-analysis. Aripiprazole showed higher discontinuation rates versus placebo due to the appearance of any adverse event. Quetiapine was better than placebo at reducing treatment-emergent affective switches. For Bipolar I Disorder, cariprazine, fluoxetine, imipramine, lamotrigine, lurasidone, olanzapine-fluoxetine, and olanzapine were significantly better than placebo at response, while fluoxetine, imipramine, cariprazine, lurasidone, olanzapine-fluoxetine, and olanzapine were significantly better than placebo at remission.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
These results could serve evidence-based practice and inform patients, physicians, guideline developers, and policymakers on the relative benefits of the different antidepressants, antipsychotics, and mood-stabilizing agents for the treatment of bipolar depression.
REGISTRATION
PROSPERO (CRD42019122172).
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Bipolar Disorder; Humans; Lurasidone Hydrochloride; Network Meta-Analysis; Olanzapine
PubMed: 32339131
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2020.03.030 -
JAMA Jun 2021The benefits and harms of adding long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs) for moderate to severe... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
The benefits and harms of adding long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs) for moderate to severe asthma remain unclear.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically synthesize the outcomes and adverse events associated with triple therapy (ICS, LABA, and LAMA) vs dual therapy (ICS plus LABA) in children and adults with persistent uncontrolled asthma.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, ICTRP, FDA, and EMA databases from November 2017, to December 8, 2020, without language restriction.
STUDY SELECTION
Two investigators independently selected randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing triple vs dual therapy in patients with moderate to severe asthma.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analyses, including individual patient-level exacerbation data, were used. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used to assess certainty (quality) of the evidence.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Severe exacerbations, asthma control (measured using the Asthma Control Questionnaire [ACQ-7], a 7-item list with each item ranging from 0 [totally controlled] to 6 [severely uncontrolled]; minimal important difference, 0.5), quality of life (measured using the Asthma-related Quality of Life [AQLQ] tool; score range, 1 [severely impaired] to 7 [no impairment]; minimal important difference, 0.5), mortality, and adverse events.
RESULTS
Twenty RCTs using 3 LAMA types that enrolled 11 894 children and adults (mean age, 52 years [range, 9-71 years]; 57.7% female) were included. High-certainty evidence showed that triple therapy vs dual therapy was significantly associated with a reduction in severe exacerbation risk (9 trials [9932 patients]; 22.7% vs 27.4%; risk ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.77 to 0.90]) and an improvement in asthma control (14 trials [11 230 patients]; standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.06 [95% CI, -0.10 to -0.02]; mean difference in ACQ-7 scale, -0.04 [95% CI, -0.07 to -0.01]). There were no significant differences in asthma-related quality of life (7 trials [5247 patients]; SMD, 0.05 [95% CI, -0.03 to 0.13]; mean difference in AQLQ score, 0.05 [95% CI, -0.03 to 0.13]; moderate-certainty evidence) or mortality (17 trials [11 595 patients]; 0.12% vs 0.12%; risk ratio, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.33 to 2.75]; high-certainty evidence) between dual and triple therapy. Triple therapy was significantly associated with increased dry mouth and dysphonia (10 trials [7395 patients]; 3.0% vs 1.8%; risk ratio, 1.65 [95% CI, 1.14 to 2.38]; high-certainty evidence), but treatment-related and serious adverse events were not significantly different between groups (moderate-certainty evidence).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Among children (aged 6 to 18 years) and adults with moderate to severe asthma, triple therapy, compared with dual therapy, was significantly associated with fewer severe asthma exacerbations and modest improvements in asthma control without significant differences in quality of life or mortality.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists; Adult; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Asthma; Child; Drug Therapy, Combination; Forced Expiratory Volume; Humans; Muscarinic Antagonists; Nebulizers and Vaporizers; Quality of Life; Severity of Illness Index; Symptom Flare Up; Xerostomia
PubMed: 34009257
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2021.7872 -
Annales Pharmaceutiques Francaises Sep 2022Beta-blockers have long been successfully used for the treatment of both supraventricular and ventricular arrhythmias. However, differences exist between their chemical... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Beta-blockers have long been successfully used for the treatment of both supraventricular and ventricular arrhythmias. However, differences exist between their chemical structure, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties (absorption, bioavailability, metabolism, hydrophilic or lipophilic character, selective or non-selective nature, the presence or absence of intrinsic sympathomimetic activity), which may confer different antiarrhythmic properties to different beta-blockers. The aim of this study was to analyze the current existing evidence for bisoprolol for the treatment of both supraventricular and ventricular arrhythmias.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Using the keywords "bisoprolol" and "arrhythmias" or "atrial fibrillation" or "ventricular tachycardia" or "premature ventricular complexes" or "ventricular fibrillation", the Medline database was searched for articles in English or French until April 2020 assessing the role of bisoprolol in the treatment of arrhythmias. Data was then analyzed according to the type of arrhythmia treated and the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.
RESULTS
A total of 325 studies were identified, of which 28 were considered relevant to the current topic. Among these studies, 19 assessed the role of bisoprolol for the treatment of supraventricular arrhythmias, 8 its role in treating ventricular arrhythmias and 1 its role in supraventricular and ventricular arrhythmias. The quality of evidence varied from low (7 studies) to high (5 studies).
CONCLUSION
Current evidence exists supporting the use of bisoprolol for the treatment of supraventricular arrhythmias, especially for rate control during atrial fibrillation. Evidence also exists for its efficacy in the treatment of ventricular arrhythmias, both in primary and in secondary prevention.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Atrial Fibrillation; Bisoprolol; Humans
PubMed: 35093388
DOI: 10.1016/j.pharma.2022.01.007 -
Allergy Apr 2022A significant number of patients with asthma remain uncontrolled despite treatment with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting β2 adrenergic bronchodilators... (Review)
Review
A significant number of patients with asthma remain uncontrolled despite treatment with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting β2 adrenergic bronchodilators (LABA). The addition of long-acting antimuscarinic agents (LAMA) can improve the management of asthma in these patients. Recently, three novel triple therapy (ICS/LABA/LAMA) formulations in a single-inhaler device (SITT) have been investigated in patients with uncontrolled asthma despite ICS/LABA treatment. Here, we review systematically the evidence available to date in relation to SITT in patients with uncontrolled asthma despite ICS-LABA treatment and conclude that SITT is a safe and effective therapeutic alternative in these patients. We also discuss how to position this new therapeutic alternative in their practical clinical management as well as the opportunities and challenges that it may generate for patients, physicians, and payers.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists; Asthma; Bronchodilator Agents; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Muscarinic Antagonists; Nebulizers and Vaporizers; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive
PubMed: 34478578
DOI: 10.1111/all.15076 -
Acta Neuropsychiatrica Apr 2023Several augmentation strategies have been used to improve symptomatology in patients not adequately responding to clozapine. Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Several augmentation strategies have been used to improve symptomatology in patients not adequately responding to clozapine. Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated the efficacy of different strategies to augment clozapine. This systematic review and meta-analysis reviewed the available RCTs that have evaluated the clinical efficacy of various pharmacological agents, non-pharmacological strategies (occupational therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy), and somatic treatment [electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, etc.)] as augmenting agents to clozapine.
METHODS
Data were extracted using standard procedures, and risk of bias was evaluated. Effect sizes were computed for the individual studies.
RESULTS
Forty-five clinical trials were evaluated. The pooled effect size for various antipsychotic medications was 0.103 (95% CI: 0.288-0.493, < 0.001); when the effect size was evaluated for specific antipsychotics for which more than one trial was available, the effect size for risperidone was -0.27 and that for aripiprazole was 0.57. The effect size for lamotrigine was 0.145, and that for topiramate was 0.392. The effect size for ECT was 0.743 (CI: 0.094-1.392). Risk of bias was low (mean Jadad score - 3.93). Largest effect sizes were seen for mirtazapine (effect size of 5.265). Most of the studies can be considered underpowered and limited by small sample sizes.
CONCLUSIONS
To conclude, based on the findings of the present systematic review and meta-analysis, it can be said that compared to other treatment strategies, clozapine non-responsive patients respond maximum to mirtazapine followed by ECT.
Topics: Humans; Clozapine; Schizophrenia; Mirtazapine; Antipsychotic Agents; Risperidone
PubMed: 36380513
DOI: 10.1017/neu.2022.30 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2018This is the first update of a review published in 2009. Sustained moderate to severe elevations in resting blood pressure leads to a critically important clinical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is the first update of a review published in 2009. Sustained moderate to severe elevations in resting blood pressure leads to a critically important clinical question: What class of drug to use first-line? This review attempted to answer that question.
OBJECTIVES
To quantify the mortality and morbidity effects from different first-line antihypertensive drug classes: thiazides (low-dose and high-dose), beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, ACE inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB), and alpha-blockers, compared to placebo or no treatment.Secondary objectives: when different antihypertensive drug classes are used as the first-line drug, to quantify the blood pressure lowering effect and the rate of withdrawal due to adverse drug effects, compared to placebo or no treatment.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials up to November 2017: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized trials (RCT) of at least one year duration, comparing one of six major drug classes with a placebo or no treatment, in adult patients with blood pressure over 140/90 mmHg at baseline. The majority (over 70%) of the patients in the treatment group were taking the drug class of interest after one year. We included trials with both hypertensive and normotensive patients in this review if the majority (over 70%) of patients had elevated blood pressure, or the trial separately reported outcome data on patients with elevated blood pressure.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The outcomes assessed were mortality, stroke, coronary heart disease (CHD), total cardiovascular events (CVS), decrease in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and withdrawals due to adverse drug effects. We used a fixed-effect model to to combine dichotomous outcomes across trials and calculate risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We presented blood pressure data as mean difference (MD) with 99% CI.
MAIN RESULTS
The 2017 updated search failed to identify any new trials. The original review identified 24 trials with 28 active treatment arms, including 58,040 patients. We found no RCTs for ARBs or alpha-blockers. These results are mostly applicable to adult patients with moderate to severe primary hypertension. The mean age of participants was 56 years, and mean duration of follow-up was three to five years.High-quality evidence showed that first-line low-dose thiazides reduced mortality (11.0% with control versus 9.8% with treatment; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.97); total CVS (12.9% with control versus 9.0% with treatment; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.76), stroke (6.2% with control versus 4.2% with treatment; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.77), and coronary heart disease (3.9% with control versus 2.8% with treatment; RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.84).Low- to moderate-quality evidence showed that first-line high-dose thiazides reduced stroke (1.9% with control versus 0.9% with treatment; RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.61) and total CVS (5.1% with control versus 3.7% with treatment; RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.82), but did not reduce mortality (3.1% with control versus 2.8% with treatment; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.05), or coronary heart disease (2.7% with control versus 2.7% with treatment; RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.20).Low- to moderate-quality evidence showed that first-line beta-blockers did not reduce mortality (6.2% with control versus 6.0% with treatment; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.07) or coronary heart disease (4.4% with control versus 3.9% with treatment; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.03), but reduced stroke (3.4% with control versus 2.8% with treatment; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.97) and total CVS (7.6% with control versus 6.8% with treatment; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.98).Low- to moderate-quality evidence showed that first-line ACE inhibitors reduced mortality (13.6% with control versus 11.3% with treatment; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.95), stroke (6.0% with control versus 3.9% with treatment; RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.82), coronary heart disease (13.5% with control versus 11.0% with treatment; RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.94), and total CVS (20.1% with control versus 15.3% with treatment; RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.85).Low-quality evidence showed that first-line calcium channel blockers reduced stroke (3.4% with control versus 1.9% with treatment; RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.84) and total CVS (8.0% with control versus 5.7% with treatment; RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.87), but not coronary heart disease (3.1% with control versus 2.4% with treatment; RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.09), or mortality (6.0% with control versus 5.1% with treatment; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.09).There was low-quality evidence that withdrawals due to adverse effects were increased with first-line low-dose thiazides (5.0% with control versus 11.3% with treatment; RR 2.38, 95% CI 2.06 to 2.75), high-dose thiazides (2.2% with control versus 9.8% with treatment; RR 4.48, 95% CI 3.83 to 5.24), and beta-blockers (3.1% with control versus 14.4% with treatment; RR 4.59, 95% CI 4.11 to 5.13). No data for these outcomes were available for first-line ACE inhibitors or calcium channel blockers. The blood pressure data were not used to assess the effect of the different classes of drugs as the data were heterogeneous, and the number of drugs used in the trials differed.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
First-line low-dose thiazides reduced all morbidity and mortality outcomes in adult patients with moderate to severe primary hypertension. First-line ACE inhibitors and calcium channel blockers may be similarly effective, but the evidence was of lower quality. First-line high-dose thiazides and first-line beta-blockers were inferior to first-line low-dose thiazides.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Antihypertensive Agents; Calcium Channel Blockers; Coronary Disease; Humans; Hypertension; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sodium Chloride Symporter Inhibitors; Stroke; Thiazides
PubMed: 29667175
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001841.pub3 -
Journal of Hepatology Oct 2022Whether non-selective β-blockers can prevent decompensation of cirrhosis warrants clarification. Carvedilol might be particularly effective since its intrinsic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND & AIMS
Whether non-selective β-blockers can prevent decompensation of cirrhosis warrants clarification. Carvedilol might be particularly effective since its intrinsic vasodilatory activity may ameliorate hepatic vascular resistance, a major mechanism of portal hypertension in early cirrhosis. We assessed whether carvedilol may prevent decompensation and improve survival in patients with compensated cirrhosis and clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH).
METHODS
By systematic review we identified randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) comparing carvedilol vs. control therapy (no-active treatment or endoscopic variceal ligation [EVL]) in patients with cirrhosis and CSPH without previous bleeding. We performed a competing-risk time-to-event meta-analysis using individual patient data (IPD) obtained from principal investigators of RCTs. Only compensated patients were included. Primary outcomes were prevention of decompensation (liver transplantation and death were competing events) and death (liver transplantation was a competing event). Models were adjusted using propensity scores for baseline covariates with the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) approach.
RESULTS
Among 125 full-text studies evaluated, 4 RCTs were eligible. The 4 provided IPD and were included, comprising 352 patients with compensated cirrhosis, 181 treated with carvedilol and 171 controls (79 received EVL and 92 placebo). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Standardized differences were <10% by IPTW. The risk of developing decompensation of cirrhosis was lower with carvedilol than in controls (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR] 0.506; 95% CI 0.289-0.887; p = 0.017; I = 0.0%, Q-statistic-p = 0.880), mainly due to a reduced risk of ascites (SHR 0.491; 95% CI 0.247-0.974; p = 0.042; I = 0.0%, Q-statistic-p = 0.384). The risk of death was also lower with carvedilol (SHR 0.417; 95% CI 0.194-0.896; p = 0.025; I = 0.0%, Q-statistic-p = 0.989).
CONCLUSIONS
Long-term carvedilol therapy reduced decompensation of cirrhosis and significantly improved survival in compensated patients with CSPH. This suggests that screening patients with compensated cirrhosis for CSPH to enable the prompt initiation of carvedilol could improve outcomes.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42019144786.
LAY SUMMARY
The transition from compensated cirrhosis to decompensated cirrhosis is associated with markedly reduced life expectancy. Therefore, preventing decompensation in patients with compensated cirrhosis would be associated with greatly improved patient outcomes. There has been controversy regarding the use of non-selective β-blockers (portal pressure-lowering medications) in patients with cirrhosis and elevated portal blood pressure (portal hypertension). Herein, using a competing-risk meta-analysis to optimize sample size and properly investigate cirrhosis as a multistate disease and outcomes as time-dependent events, we show that carvedilol (a non-selective β-blocker) is associated with a reduced risk of decompensating events and improved survival in patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Ascites; Carvedilol; Esophageal and Gastric Varices; Humans; Hypertension, Portal; Liver Cirrhosis; Portal Pressure; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35661713
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2022.05.021