-
Clinical Toxicology (Philadelphia, Pa.) Oct 2020Beta-adrenoreceptor antagonist (beta-blocker) poisoning is a common overdose which can lead to significant morbidity and mortality. To evaluate the effects of...
Beta-adrenoreceptor antagonist (beta-blocker) poisoning is a common overdose which can lead to significant morbidity and mortality. To evaluate the effects of treatments for beta-adrenoreceptor antagonist poisoning. Searches were conducted across MEDLINE (1946-26 November 2019, Ovid); Embase (1974-26 November 2019, Ovid); and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, to 26 November 2019) utilising a combination of subject headings and free text. The search strategy identified 15, 553 citations. Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts prior to selecting 141 articles (Kappa on articles included = 0.982, 95% CI 0.980-0.985). Primary outcomes included mortality and improvement in haemodynamic parameters (e.g., heart rate, blood pressure or a composite measure able to quantitate a haemodynamic response). The risk of bias was high for all interventions. Fifteen case reports described the administration of activated charcoal and five detailed the use of gastric lavage. As there was concurrent utilisation of multiple interventions, it was difficult to draw definitive conclusions regarding the relative contribution of these interventions to mortality or survival. The use of catecholamines in treating beta-blocker toxicity was reported in 16 case reports, 3 case series and 2 animal studies. These agents most likely provided a survival benefit and improved haemodynamics. Multiple intravenous boluses of atropine were associated with improvement in heart rate and blood pressure in one case report. Intravenous calcium was associated with an improvement in haemodynamics in three out of six case reports but in association with multiple other therapies as well as in two animal studies. The use of this therapy was associated with mortality benefit in 10 case series. Two case reports showed clear haemodynamic improvement in a timeframe consistent with insulin administration (bolus then continuous infusion). Maintenance dosing ranged from 1 to 10 units/kg/h of insulin. However, it is unclear whether high-dose insulin euglycaemic therapy improved haemodynamic response above catecholamines and other inotropic agents in humans. Hypoglycaemia and hypokalemia were commonly observed adverse effects. Glucagon was associated with minor improvements in haemodynamics through an increase in heart rate in two cases series, nine case reports and five animal studies. Four case reports reported an association with improvement in haemodynamics following administration of methylene blue but in the setting of co-ingestion with amlodipine. There was variable response to intravenous lipid emulsion therapy reported in 10 case series, 5 animal studies and 21 case reports. There were four case reports showing variable response to lignocaine in arrhythmias secondary to beta-blocker toxicity. Fructose diphosphate, levosimendan and amrinone did not provide a mortality or significant haemodynamic benefit in three animal studies and nine case reports. . Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was associated with improved survival in patients with severe cardiogenic shock or cardiac arrest in an observational study and four cases series. The evidence of four case reports suggest haemodialysis may assist in the management of massive overdose of specific water-soluble beta-blockers (e.g., atenolol) by improving elimination; however, a survival or haemodynamic benefit was not established. One case series and a single case report showed the utility of temporary overdrive cardiac pacing to prevent arrhythmias in sotalol toxicity. Catecholamines, vasopressors, high-dose insulin euglycaemic therapy and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation were associated with reduced mortality. However, it must be acknowledged that multiple treatments were often given simultaneously. Haemodynamic improvements in blood pressure and cardiac output were seen with the use of catecholamines, vasopressin and high-dose insulin euglycaemic therapy. Evidence for treatment recommendations is almost entirely drawn from very low- to low-quality studies and subject to bias. However, it is reasonable to have a graduated response to cardiovascular instability beginning with intravenous fluids, commencement of a single or a combination of catecholamine inotropes and vasopressors depending upon the type of haemodynamic compromise (bradycardia, left ventricular dysfunction, vasodilation). High-dose insulin euglycaemic therapy can be introduced as an adjunctive inotrope and lastly, more invasive methods such as veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation should be considered in cases unresponsive to other therapies.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Animals; Atropine; Catecholamines; Drug Overdose; Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation; Fat Emulsions, Intravenous; Hemodynamics; Humans; Insulin; Practice Guidelines as Topic
PubMed: 32310006
DOI: 10.1080/15563650.2020.1752918 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2017Beta-blockers refer to a mixed group of drugs with diverse pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties. They have shown long-term beneficial effects on mortality and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Beta-blockers refer to a mixed group of drugs with diverse pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties. They have shown long-term beneficial effects on mortality and cardiovascular disease (CVD) when used in people with heart failure or acute myocardial infarction. Beta-blockers were thought to have similar beneficial effects when used as first-line therapy for hypertension. However, the benefit of beta-blockers as first-line therapy for hypertension without compelling indications is controversial. This review is an update of a Cochrane Review initially published in 2007 and updated in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of beta-blockers on morbidity and mortality endpoints in adults with hypertension.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials up to June 2016: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2016, Issue 6), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), and ClinicalTrials.gov. We checked reference lists of relevant reviews, and reference lists of studies potentially eligible for inclusion in this review, and also searched the the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 06 July 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least one year of duration, which assessed the effects of beta-blockers compared to placebo or other drugs, as first-line therapy for hypertension, on mortality and morbidity in adults.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We selected studies and extracted data in duplicate, resolving discrepancies by consensus. We expressed study results as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and conducted fixed-effect or random-effects meta-analyses, as appropriate. We also used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. GRADE classifies the certainty of evidence as high (if we are confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of effect), moderate (if the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of effect), low (if the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of effect), and very low (if we are very uncertain about the estimate of effect).
MAIN RESULTS
Thirteen RCTs met inclusion criteria. They compared beta-blockers to placebo (4 RCTs, 23,613 participants), diuretics (5 RCTs, 18,241 participants), calcium-channel blockers (CCBs: 4 RCTs, 44,825 participants), and renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors (3 RCTs, 10,828 participants). These RCTs were conducted between the 1970s and 2000s and most of them had a high risk of bias resulting from limitations in study design, conduct, and data analysis. There were 40,245 participants taking beta-blockers, three-quarters of them taking atenolol. We found no outcome trials involving the newer vasodilating beta-blockers (e.g. nebivolol).There was no difference in all-cause mortality between beta-blockers and placebo (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.11), diuretics or RAS inhibitors, but it was higher for beta-blockers compared to CCBs (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.14). The evidence on mortality was of moderate-certainty for all comparisons.Total CVD was lower for beta-blockers compared to placebo (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.97; low-certainty evidence), a reflection of the decrease in stroke (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.96; low-certainty evidence) since there was no difference in coronary heart disease (CHD: RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.07; moderate-certainty evidence). The effect of beta-blockers on CVD was worse than that of CCBs (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.29; moderate-certainty evidence), but was not different from that of diuretics (moderate-certainty) or RAS inhibitors (low-certainty). In addition, there was an increase in stroke in beta-blockers compared to CCBs (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.40; moderate-certainty evidence) and RAS inhibitors (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.53; moderate-certainty evidence). However, there was little or no difference in CHD between beta-blockers and diuretics (low-certainty evidence), CCBs (moderate-certainty evidence) or RAS inhibitors (low-certainty evidence). In the single trial involving participants aged 65 years and older, atenolol was associated with an increased CHD incidence compared to diuretics (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.32). Participants taking beta-blockers were more likely to discontinue treatment due to adverse events than participants taking RAS inhibitors (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.54; moderate-certainty evidence), but there was little or no difference with placebo, diuretics or CCBs (low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Most outcome RCTs on beta-blockers as initial therapy for hypertension have high risk of bias. Atenolol was the beta-blocker most used. Current evidence suggests that initiating treatment of hypertension with beta-blockers leads to modest CVD reductions and little or no effects on mortality. These beta-blocker effects are inferior to those of other antihypertensive drugs. Further research should be of high quality and should explore whether there are differences between different subtypes of beta-blockers or whether beta-blockers have differential effects on younger and older people.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Adult; Aged; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Antihypertensive Agents; Atenolol; Calcium Channel Blockers; Coronary Disease; Diuretics; Heart Arrest; Humans; Hypertension; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stroke
PubMed: 28107561
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002003.pub5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2014Stroke affects 15 million people per year worldwide. Despite recent developments in acute stroke treatment, prevention remains very important. Stroke has a high rate of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Stroke affects 15 million people per year worldwide. Despite recent developments in acute stroke treatment, prevention remains very important. Stroke has a high rate of recurrence; therefore secondary prevention is also important. Many clinical approaches to control risk factors have been proposed. One of these approaches is the prescription of beta-blockers that have effects beyond the reduction of blood pressure, which can reduce the recurrence of stroke.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy of beta-blockers for preventing stroke recurrence and for reducing death and major vascular events in people with a previous stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA), and to determine their safety, particularly with regard to the development of diabetes mellitus.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (May 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 5), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) (May 2014), MEDLINE (1966 to May 2014), EMBASE (1980 to May 2014), and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (1982 to May 2014). We also searched ongoing trials registers and reference lists.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included participants with previous stroke or TIA due to arterial thrombosis or embolism. The intervention was any beta-blocker versus control, or beta-blocker plus other treatment versus other treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened the trials identified, appraised quality, and extracted data.
MAIN RESULTS
We included two RCTs involving 2193 participants in the review. Both studies randomised participants to either beta-blocker (atenolol 5 mg) or placebo and were of a high methodological quality. We noted no statistical differences among the groups in risks of fatal and non-fatal stroke (risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 1.18). For other outcomes analysed (major vascular events, death from all causes, death from cardiovascular causes) , we observed no significant differences between the groups. There were minor blood pressure reductions in the intervention group. Neither of the included studies reported the occurrence of diabetes among their outcomes or assessed quality of life. Adverse events were significantly more frequent in participants taking atenolol than in those given placebo, and were the most common reason given for discontinuing treatment (RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.35).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
To date, no available evidence supports the routine use of beta-blockers for secondary prevention after stroke or TIA. More studies with larger samples are needed.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-1 Receptor Antagonists; Atenolol; Humans; Ischemic Attack, Transient; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Secondary Prevention; Stroke
PubMed: 25317988
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007890.pub3 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Nov 2014Acute atrial fibrillation is rapid, irregular, and chaotic atrial activity of recent onset. Various definitions of acute atrial fibrillation have been used in the... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Acute atrial fibrillation is rapid, irregular, and chaotic atrial activity of recent onset. Various definitions of acute atrial fibrillation have been used in the literature, but for the purposes of this review we have included studies where atrial fibrillation may have occurred up to 7 days previously. Risk factors for acute atrial fibrillation include increasing age, cardiovascular disease, alcohol, diabetes, and lung disease. Acute atrial fibrillation increases the risk of stroke and heart failure. The condition resolves spontaneously within 24 to 48 hours in more than 50% of people; however, many people will require interventions to control heart rate or restore sinus rhythm.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of interventions to prevent embolism, for conversion to sinus rhythm, and to control heart rate in people with recent-onset atrial fibrillation (within 7 days) who are haemodynamically stable? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to April 2014 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 26 studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: amiodarone, antithrombotic treatment before cardioversion, atenolol, bisoprolol, carvedilol, digoxin, diltiazem, direct current cardioversion, flecainide, metoprolol, nebivolol, propafenone, sotalol, timolol, and verapamil.
Topics: Acute Disease; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Atrial Fibrillation; Electric Countershock; Humans; Safety
PubMed: 25430048
DOI: No ID Found -
Journal of Indian Association of... 2022Infantile hemangioma (IH) is the most common benign vascular tumor of infancy. Propranolol is considered first-line therapy for IH. However, it is associated with side...
BACKGROUND
Infantile hemangioma (IH) is the most common benign vascular tumor of infancy. Propranolol is considered first-line therapy for IH. However, it is associated with side effects. Therefore, there was a need for alternative therapy. Atenolol, a selective b1-blocker may be free from such side effects. Hence, the present study aims to develop a more accurate estimate of the safety and efficacy of atenolol compared to propranolol in the treatment of IH.
METHODOLOGY
A search of various literature databases (PubMed, Embase, Ovid, Scopus, Cochrane Central, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Google Scholar) was done to identify studies which compared propranolol versus atenolol in the treatment of IH. The combined odds ratio along with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were evaluated using a fixed-effects model.
RESULTS
A total of 300 articles were screened of which five studies including 116 patients in atenolol arm and 138 patients in the propranolol arm were analyzed. Atenolol was comparable to propranolol in terms of efficacy as no significant difference was seen between both the treatment arms in terms of hemangioma activity score (mean difference 0.25 [95% CI;‒0.21, 0.71]) and complete response (odds ratio [OR] =0.43; 95% CI; 0.17, 1.11; = 0.08,). Atenolol therapy was better than propranolol in terms of safety, i.e., serious/potentially serious side effect, (OR = 0.11; 95% CI; 0.02, 0.51; = 0.005) and wheezing/bronchial hyperreactivity (OR = 0.11; 95% CI; 0.02, 0.51; = 0.005).
CONCLUSION
The present meta-analysis provides evidence that atenolol has got a comparable efficacy and better safety profile with propranolol.
PubMed: 35733601
DOI: 10.4103/jiaps.jiaps_3_21 -
The Annals of Otology, Rhinology, and... Mar 2023Although propranolol has been established as the gold standard when treatment is sought for infantile hemangioma, concerns over its side effect profile have led to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Although propranolol has been established as the gold standard when treatment is sought for infantile hemangioma, concerns over its side effect profile have led to increasing usage of atenolol, a beta-1 selective blocker.
METHODS
A systematic review of PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, Google Scholar, and Cochrane was conducted following PRISMA guidelines using MeSH terms and keywords for the terms propranolol, atenolol, and infantile hemangioma, including alternative spellings. All randomized control trials (RCTs) or cohort studies directly comparing outcomes of hemangioma treatment with atenolol and propranolol were included. A meta-analysis with pooled mean differences, pooled odds ratios, and analysis of proportions was performed.
RESULTS
A total of 669 participants in 7 studies (3 RCTs and 4 cohort) were included. Propranolol showed a significantly higher rate of complete response compared to atenolol (73.3% vs 85.4%, = .0004). The pooled mean difference of 0.07 (95% CI -0.12, 0.27) in Hemangioma Activity Score (HAS) was not statistically significant. In terms of side effects, there were significantly more agitation and bronchial hyperreactivity events in the propranolol group ( = .0245 and < .0001, respectively). Overall, there was a significantly greater number of adverse events in the propranolol group compared to the atenolol group (185 vs 117, < .00001). The overall pooled odds ratio was 2.70 (95% CI 1.90, 3.84), indicating that there is 2.7 times higher odds of adverse events in the propranolol group.
CONCLUSION
Propranolol treatment leads to a significantly higher rate of complete response than atenolol. However, its use must be weighed against its greater side effect profile.
Topics: Humans; Infant; Propranolol; Atenolol; Hemangioma, Capillary; Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Hemangioma; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35466712
DOI: 10.1177/00034894221089758 -
Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine Aug 2020Infantile haemangioma (IH) is a benign vascular tumour type that occurs in 3-10% of infants. In the present meta-analysis, previous studies comparing clinical outcomes,...
Infantile haemangioma (IH) is a benign vascular tumour type that occurs in 3-10% of infants. In the present meta-analysis, previous studies comparing clinical outcomes, including the recovery rate and haemangioma activity score (HAS), adverse effects and relapse rates, were compared between patients treated with atenolol and those treated with propranolol for IH. A systematic search in various databases, including Medline, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, ScienceDirect and Google Scholar from inception until July 2019 was performed. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the quality of published trials. A meta-analysis with a random-effects model and reported pooled mean differences (MD) or odds ratios (OR) with 95% CIs was performed. In total, 8 studies including 608 participants were analyzed. Only 2 studies were randomized controlled trials, while the majority of studies had low or unclear bias risks. Except for the response to medication (pooled OR=1.49; 95% CI, 0.85-2.18), all other outcomes (HAS, adverse reactions and relapse rate) were better for the atenolol group than the propranolol group. Atenolol resulted in better HAS (pooled MD=0.16; 95% CI, -0.42 to 0.73). Propranolol had more adverse reactions (pooled OR=2.17; 95% CI, 0.93-5.06) and a higher relapse rate (pooled OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 0.44-6.41) when compared to atenolol. However, these findings were not statistically significant. The results of this analysis suggest that atenolol may be non-inferior to propranolol and may offer advantages, including lower adverse reactions and relapse rates.
PubMed: 32742396
DOI: 10.3892/etm.2020.8842 -
Journal of the American Society of... Jul 2017The differential efficacy of lipophilic and hydrophilic β-blockers on clinical outcomes has not been investigated. We sought to compare the effects of lipophilic and... (Review)
Review
The differential efficacy of lipophilic and hydrophilic β-blockers on clinical outcomes has not been investigated. We sought to compare the effects of lipophilic and hydrophilic β-blockers on mortality and cardiovascular outcomes by conducting a comprehensive systematic review and network meta-analysis. MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database were searched for all dates to January 5, 2015, for randomized trials with comparisons between all β-blockers or between β-blockers and other antihypertensive agents. Mortality and cardiovascular outcomes were also reported. Characteristics of each study and associated clinical outcomes were extracted, including all-cause mortality, coronary heart disease, stroke, and cardiovascular death. Thirteen trials with 90,935 participants were included, focusing on lipophilic β-blockers (metoprolol, propranolol, and oxprenolol) and a hydrophilic β-blocker (atenolol). In this review, lipophilic β-blockers showed a significant reduction for the risk of cardiovascular mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI; 0.54-0.97]) compared with hydrophilic β-blocker, and lipophilic β-blockers showed decreased trend for the risk of all-cause mortality (OR 0.86, 95% CI [0.72-1.03]) and coronary heart disease (OR 0.88, 95% CI [0.64-1.23]). When the risk of stroke was evaluated using age stratification, lipophilic β-blockers showed a significant reduction in the risk of stroke (OR 0.63, 95% CI [0.41-0.99]) compared with hydrophilic β-blocker in patients aged <65 years.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Age Factors; Antihypertensive Agents; Atenolol; Coronary Disease; Humans; Hydrophobic and Hydrophilic Interactions; Hypertension; Incidence; Metoprolol; Network Meta-Analysis; Oxprenolol; Propranolol; Stroke; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28760243
DOI: 10.1016/j.jash.2017.05.001 -
The Australasian Journal of Dermatology Aug 2019Recently, several studies have reported their experience in using oral atenolol in patients with infantile haemangioma (IH), especially as an alternative to propranolol,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Recently, several studies have reported their experience in using oral atenolol in patients with infantile haemangioma (IH), especially as an alternative to propranolol, but the efficacy and safety of oral atenolol has not been evaluated. We searched PubMed (Medline), Central, Embase, Web of Science and EBSCOhost (until May 2018) for the eligible studies reporting more than 10 IH patients who were treated with oral atenolol with detailed original data, including outcomes, regimens and adverse events (AEs). The data was standardised and analysed by using R software with meta-package. A total of 9 of 141 identified articles, including 341 infantile haemangioma patients treated with oral atenolol therapy, were included. The pooled response rate of atenolol was 0.90 (95% CI: 0.85-0.93), and the rebound rate was 0.11 (95% CI: 0.08-0.16). Among the 341 patients, 44 patients were switched to atenolol therapy from propranolol due to adverse events. The response rate of subsequent atenolol treatment was 90.9% (40/44). Regarding AEs, 141 patients reported 177 episodes of AEs, and the pooled rate was 0.26 (95% CI: 0.12-0.47). Gastrointestinal symptoms (e.g. constipation, diarrhoea and vomiting) were the most frequent AEs (22.6%). Widely known propranolol-related AEs, including hypoglycaemia, bronchospasm, bradycardia and hypotension, were not recorded. Overall, atenolol appears to be an effective and safe therapy for the treatment of IH and may be a promising alternative to propranolol.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Adrenergic beta-1 Receptor Antagonists; Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Atenolol; Hemangioma; Humans; Infant; Propranolol
PubMed: 30515761
DOI: 10.1111/ajd.12966 -
Cephalalgia : An International Journal... Jun 2023Currently, only a few specific blood pressure-lowering medications are recommended for migraine prevention. Whether benefits extend to other classes or drugs is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Currently, only a few specific blood pressure-lowering medications are recommended for migraine prevention. Whether benefits extend to other classes or drugs is uncertain.
METHODS
Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials were searched for randomized control trials on the effect of blood pressure-lowering medications compared with placebo in participants with episodic migraine. Data were collected on four outcomes - monthly headache or migraine days, and monthly headache or migraine attacks, with a standardised mean difference calculated for overall. Random effect meta-analysis was performed.
RESULTS
In total, 50 trials (70% of which were crossover) were included, comprising 60 comparisons. Overall mean age was 39 years, and 79% were female. Monthly headache days were fewer in all classes compared to placebo, and this was statistically significant for all but one class: alpha-blockers -0.7 (95% CI: -1.2, -0.1), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors -1.3 (95% CI: -2.9, 0.2), angiotensin II receptor blockers -0.9 (-1.6, -0.1), beta-blocker -0.4 (-0.8, -0.0) and calcium channel blockers -1.8 (-3.4, -0.2). Standardised mean difference was significantly reduced for all drug classes and was separately significant for numerous specific drugs: clonidine, candesartan, atenolol, bisoprolol, metoprolol, propranolol, timolol, nicardipine and verapamil.
CONCLUSION
Among people with episodic migraine, a broader number of blood pressure-lowering medication classes and drugs reduce headache frequency than those currently included in treatment guidelines. The study was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42017079176).
Topics: Humans; Female; Adult; Male; Blood Pressure; Migraine Disorders; Calcium Channel Blockers; Propranolol; Headache
PubMed: 37350141
DOI: 10.1177/03331024231183166