-
Annals of Surgery Dec 2017To determine if beta-(β)-blockers improve outcomes after acute traumatic brain injury (TBI). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To determine if beta-(β)-blockers improve outcomes after acute traumatic brain injury (TBI).
BACKGROUND
There have been no new inpatient pharmacologic therapies to improve TBI outcomes in a half-century. Treatment of TBI patients with β-blockers offers a potentially beneficial approach.
METHODS
Using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases, eligible articles for our systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42016048547) included adult (age ≥ 16 years) blunt trauma patients admitted with TBI. The exposure of interest was β-blocker administration initiated during the hospitalization. Outcomes were mortality, functional measures, quality of life, cardiopulmonary morbidity (e.g., hypotension, bradycardia, bronchospasm, and/or congestive heart failure). Data were analyzed using a random-effects model, and represented by pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and statistical heterogeneity (I).
RESULTS
Data were extracted from 9 included studies encompassing 2005 unique TBI patients with β-blocker treatment and 6240 unique controls. Exposure to β-blockers after TBI was associated with a reduction of in-hospital mortality (pooled OR 0.39, 95% CI: 0.27-0.56; I = 65%, P < 0.00001). None of the included studies examined functional outcome or quality of life measures, and cardiopulmonary adverse events were rarely reported. No clear evidence of reporting bias was identified.
CONCLUSIONS
In adults with acute TBI, observational studies reveal a significant mortality advantage with β-blockers; however, quality of evidence is very low. We conditionally recommend the use of in-hospital β-blockers. However, we recommend further high-quality trials to answer questions about the mechanisms of action, effectiveness on subgroups, dose-response, length of therapy, functional outcome, and quality of life after β-blocker use for TBI.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Brain Injuries; Bronchial Spasm; Cardiovascular Diseases; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Quality of Life; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28525411
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002286 -
Critical Care (London, England) Jun 2021β-adrenergic antagonists (BAAs) are used to treat cardiovascular disease such as ischemic heart disease, congestive heart failure, dysrhythmias, and hypertension....
BACKGROUND
β-adrenergic antagonists (BAAs) are used to treat cardiovascular disease such as ischemic heart disease, congestive heart failure, dysrhythmias, and hypertension. Poisoning from BAAs can lead to severe morbidity and mortality. We aimed to determine the utility of extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs) in BAAs poisoning.
METHODS
We conducted systematic reviews of the literature, screened studies, extracted data, and summarized findings following published EXTRIP methods.
RESULTS
A total of 76 studies (4 in vitro and 2 animal experiments, 1 pharmacokinetic simulation study, 37 pharmacokinetic studies on patients with end-stage kidney disease, and 32 case reports or case series) met inclusion criteria. Toxicokinetic or pharmacokinetic data were available on 334 patients (including 73 for atenolol, 54 for propranolol, and 17 for sotalol). For intermittent hemodialysis, atenolol, nadolol, practolol, and sotalol were assessed as dialyzable; acebutolol, bisoprolol, and metipranolol were assessed as moderately dialyzable; metoprolol and talinolol were considered slightly dialyzable; and betaxolol, carvedilol, labetalol, mepindolol, propranolol, and timolol were considered not dialyzable. Data were available for clinical analysis on 37 BAA poisoned patients (including 9 patients for atenolol, 9 for propranolol, and 9 for sotalol), and no reliable comparison between the ECTR cohort and historical controls treated with standard care alone could be performed. The EXTRIP workgroup recommends against using ECTR for patients severely poisoned with propranolol (strong recommendation, very low quality evidence). The workgroup offered no recommendation for ECTR in patients severely poisoned with atenolol or sotalol because of apparent balance of risks and benefits, except for impaired kidney function in which ECTR is suggested (weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence). Indications for ECTR in patients with impaired kidney function include refractory bradycardia and hypotension for atenolol or sotalol poisoning, and recurrent torsade de pointes for sotalol. Although other BAAs were considered dialyzable, clinical data were too limited to develop recommendations.
CONCLUSIONS
BAAs have different properties affecting their removal by ECTR. The EXTRIP workgroup assessed propranolol as non-dialyzable. Atenolol and sotalol were assessed as dialyzable in patients with kidney impairment, and the workgroup suggests ECTR in patients severely poisoned with these drugs when aforementioned indications are present.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Consensus; Drug Overdose; Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation; Humans
PubMed: 34112223
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-021-03585-7 -
International Journal of Chronic... 2023To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of bisoprolol in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of bisoprolol in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
RESEARCH METHODS
This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statements. The primary outcome measures analyzed included: Pulmonary function(FEV1, FEV1%, FVC), 6-minute walking distance (6MWD), adverse events and inflammatory cytokines(IL-6, IL-8, CRP).
RESULTS
Thirty-five studies were included with a total of 3269 study participants, including 1650 in the bisoprolol group and 1619 in the control group. The effect of bisoprolol on lung function in patients with COPD, FEV, MD (0.46 [95% CI, 0.27 to 0.65], P=0.000), FEV%, MD (-0.64 [95% CI, 0.42 to 0.86], P=0.000), FVC, MD (0.20 [95% CI, 0.05 to 0.34], P=0.008), the results all showed a statistically significant result. The effect of bisoprolol on 6MWD in COPD patients, MD (1.37 [95% CI, 1.08 to 1.66], P=0.000), which showed a statistically significant result. The occurrence of adverse events in COPD patients treated with bisoprolol, RR (0.83 [95% CI, 0.54 to 1.26], P=0.382), resulted in no statistical significance. The effect of bisoprolol on inflammatory cytokines in COPD patients, IL-6, MD (-1.16 [95% CI, -1.67 to -0.65], P=0.000), IL-8, MD (-0.94 [95% CI, -1.32 to -0.56], P=0.000), CRP, MD (-1.74 [95% CI, -2.40 to -1.09], P=0.000), the results were statistically significant. We performed a subgroup analysis of each outcome indicator according to whether the patients had heart failure or not, and the results showed that the therapeutic effect of bisoprolol on COPD did not change with the presence or absence of heart failure.
CONCLUSION
Bisoprolol is safe and effective in the treatment of COPD, improving lung function and exercise performance in patients with COPD, and also reducing inflammatory markers in patients with COPD, and this effect is independent of the presence or absence of heart failure.
Topics: Humans; Bisoprolol; Heart Failure; Interleukin-6; Interleukin-8; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Quality of Life
PubMed: 38152590
DOI: 10.2147/COPD.S438930 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Jul 2016Drug-induced Raynaud's phenomenon (RP) has long been associated with the use of different drugs, including cancer chemotherapy or β-adrenoceptor blockers. However,... (Review)
Review
AIM
Drug-induced Raynaud's phenomenon (RP) has long been associated with the use of different drugs, including cancer chemotherapy or β-adrenoceptor blockers. However, sources report extremely variable prevalence and the level of evidence for each class is heterogeneous. Moreover, new signals are emerging from case reports and small series. Our objective was therefore to review available evidence about this adverse drug effect and to propose a mechanistic approach of drug-induced RP.
METHODS
A systematic review of English and French language articles was performed through Medline (1946-2015) and Embase (1974-2015). Further relevant papers were identified from the reference lists of retrieved articles.
RESULTS
We identified 12 classes of drugs responsible for RP, with a variety of underlying mechanisms such as increased sympathetic activation, endothelial dysfunction, neurotoxicity or decreased red blood cell deformability. Cisplatin and bleomycin were associated with the highest risk, followed by β-adrenoceptor blockers. Recent data suggest a possible involvement of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI), through an unknown mechanism.
CONCLUSION
Drug-induced RP is a probably underestimated adverse drug event, with limited available evidence regarding its prevalence. Although rare, serious complications like critical digital ischaemia have been reported. When these treatments are started in patients with a history of RP, careful monitoring must be made and, if possible, alternative therapies that do not alter peripheral blood flow should be considered.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Animals; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Humans; Prevalence; Raynaud Disease
PubMed: 26949933
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.12912 -
World Journal of Emergency Surgery :... 2017The objective of this systematic review was to determine the effectiveness and safety of propranolol compared to placebo or usual care for improving clinical relevant... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The objective of this systematic review was to determine the effectiveness and safety of propranolol compared to placebo or usual care for improving clinical relevant outcomes in severely burned patients (TBSA >20%).
METHODS
Relevant articles from randomized controlled trials were identified by a literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL. We included trials involving patients with a severe burn (>20% of total body surface area affected). Trials were eligible if they evaluated propranolol and compared to usual care or placebo. Two investigators independently assessed articles for inclusion and exclusion criteria and selected studies for the final analysis. We conducted a meta-analysis using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
We included ten studies in our systematic review. These studies randomized a total of 1236 participants. There were no significant differences between propranolol and placebo with respect to mortality (RD -0.02 [95% CI -0.06 to 0.02]), sepsis (RD -0.03 [95% CI -0.09 to 0.04]), and the overall hospital stay (MD -0.37 [-4.52 to 3.78]). Propranolol-treated adults had a decrease in requirements of blood transfusions (MD -185.64 [95% CI -331.06 to -40.43]) and a decreased heart rate (MD -26.85 [95% CI -39.95 to -13.75]).
CONCLUSIONS
Our analysis indicates that there were no differences in mortality or sepsis in severely burned patients treated with propranolol compared with those who had usual care or placebo. However, the use of propranolol in these patients resulted in lower requirements of blood transfusion and lower values of heart rate. The evidence synthesized in this systematic review is limited to conclude that propranolol reduces the length of hospital stay among severely burned patients. Future trials should assess the impact of propranolol on clinically relevant outcomes such as mortality and adverse events.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Burns; Humans; Patient Safety; Propranolol
PubMed: 28265298
DOI: 10.1186/s13017-017-0124-7 -
Current Cardiology Reviews 2021Aortic aneurysms are worrisome because of their predisposition to dissection and rupture. Beta-blockers are considered first-line therapy for aortic aneurysms. The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Aortic aneurysms are worrisome because of their predisposition to dissection and rupture. Beta-blockers are considered first-line therapy for aortic aneurysms. The following meta-analysis assesses if beta-blockers diminish aortic aneurysm growth.
METHODS
A literature search was performed to collect information on clinical trials that have assessed aortic aneurysm growth between beta-blockers and placebo. The primary endpoint was aortic aneurysm growth rate per year. A forest plot with a random-effects model was used for analysis.
RESULTS
Eight clinical trials were included in the analysis. Beta-blockers showed a statistically non-significant effect on aortic aneurysm growth (standard mean difference -0.44; 95% CI [-0.44, 0.00]).
CONCLUSION
Beta-blockers do not significantly influence aortic aneurysm growth. Further studies are required to find a suitable medical therapy to reduce growth rates.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal; Humans
PubMed: 33143615
DOI: 10.2174/1573403X16999201102213619 -
Biology Direct Oct 2023The social impact of glaucoma is worth of note: primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) is one of the leading causes of irreversible blindness worldwide, affecting some 68.56... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The social impact of glaucoma is worth of note: primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) is one of the leading causes of irreversible blindness worldwide, affecting some 68.56 million people with overall prevalence of 2.4%. Since one of the main risk factors for the development of POAG is the increase of intraocular pressure (IOP) causing retinal ganglion cells death, the medical treatment of POAG consists in the use of drugs endowed with neuroprotective effect and able to reduce IOP. These drugs include beta-blockers, prostaglandin analogues, carbonic anhydrase inhibitors, alpha or cholinergic agonists and rho kinase inhibitors. However, not all the patients respond to the same extent to the therapy in terms of efficacy and safety. Genetics and genome wide association studies have highlighted the occurrence of mutations and polymorphisms influencing the predisposition to develop POAG and its phenotype, as well as affecting the response to pharmacological treatment. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aims at identifying genetic variants and at verifying whether these can influence the responsiveness of patients to therapy for efficacy and safety. It follows the most updated Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 recommendations. The literature search was conducted consulting the most relevant scientific databases, i.e. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science and Public Health Genomics and Precision Health Knowledge Base up to June 14th, 2023. The search retrieved 1026 total records, among which eight met the eligibility criteria for inclusion in the analysis. The results demonstrated that the most investigated pharmacogenetic associations concern latanoprost and timolol, and that efficacy was studied more in depth than safety. Moreover, the heterogeneity of design and paucity of studies prompt further investigation in randomized clinical trials. In fact, adequately powered and designed pharmacogenetic association studies are needed to provide body of evidence with good certainty for a more appropriate use of medical therapy in POAG.PROSPERO registration: CRD42023434867.
Topics: Humans; Glaucoma, Open-Angle; Antihypertensive Agents; Genome-Wide Association Study; Timolol; Genotype
PubMed: 37833756
DOI: 10.1186/s13062-023-00423-4 -
JAMA Pediatrics Apr 2020Migraine is one of the most common neurologic disorders in children and adolescents. However, a quantitative comparison of multiple preventive pharmacologic treatments... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Migraine is one of the most common neurologic disorders in children and adolescents. However, a quantitative comparison of multiple preventive pharmacologic treatments in the pediatric population is lacking.
OBJECTIVE
To examine whether prophylactic pharmacologic treatments are more effective than placebo and whether there are differences between drugs regarding efficacy, safety, and acceptability.
DATA SOURCES
Systematic review and network meta-analysis of studies in MEDLINE, Cochrane, Embase, and PsycINFO published through July 2, 2018.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials of prophylactic pharmacologic treatments in children and adolescents diagnosed as having episodic migraine were included. Abstract, title, and full-text screening were conducted independently by 4 reviewers.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Data extraction was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis network meta-analysis guidelines. Quality was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Effect sizes, calculated as standardized mean differences for primary outcomes and risk ratios for discontinuation rates, were assessed in a random-effects model.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Primary outcomes were efficacy (ie, migraine frequency, number of migraine days, number of headache days, headache frequency, or headache index), safety (ie, treatment discontinuation owing to adverse events), and acceptability (ie, treatment discontinuation for any reason).
RESULTS
Twenty-three studies (2217 patients) were eligible for inclusion. Prophylactic pharmacologic treatments included antiepileptics, antidepressants, calcium channel blockers, antihypertensive agents, and food supplements. In the short term (<5 months), propranolol (standard mean difference, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.03-1.17) and topiramate (standard mean difference, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.03-1.15) were significantly more effective than placebo. However, the 95% prediction intervals for these medications contained the null effect. No significant long-term effects for migraine prophylaxis relative to placebo were found for any intervention.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Prophylactic pharmacologic treatments have little evidence supporting efficacy in pediatric migraine. Future research could (1) identify factors associated with individual responses to pharmacologic prophylaxis, (2) analyze fluctuations of migraine attack frequency over time and determine the most clinically relevant length of probable prophylactic treatment, and (3) identify nonpharmacologic targets for migraine prophylaxis.
Topics: Adolescent; Anticonvulsants; Antidepressive Agents; Antihypertensive Agents; Calcium Channel Blockers; Child; Dietary Supplements; Humans; Migraine Disorders; Propranolol; Topiramate; Vasodilator Agents
PubMed: 32040139
DOI: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.5856 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Aug 2016Peripheral vasoconstriction has long been described as a vascular adverse effect of β-adrenoceptor blockers. Whether β-adrenoceptor blockers should be avoided in... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
Peripheral vasoconstriction has long been described as a vascular adverse effect of β-adrenoceptor blockers. Whether β-adrenoceptor blockers should be avoided in patients with peripheral vascular disease depends on pharmacological properties (e.g. preferential binding to β1 -adrenoreceptors or intrinsic sympathomimetic activity). However, this has not been confirmed in experimental studies. We performed a network meta-analysis in order to assess the comparative risk of peripheral vasoconstriction of different β-adrenoceptor blockers.
METHOD
We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including β-adrenoceptor blockers that were published in core clinical journals in the Pubmed database. All RCTs reporting peripheral vasoconstriction as an adverse effect of β-adrenoceptor blockers and controls were included. Sensitivity analyses were conducted including possibly confounding covariates (latitude, properties of the β-adrenoceptor blockers, e.g. intrinsic sympathomimetic activity, vasodilation, drug indication, drug doses). The protocol and the detailed search strategy are available online (PROSPERO registry CRD42014014374).
RESULTS
Among 2238 records screened, 38 studies including 57 026 patients were selected. Overall, peripheral vasoconstriction was reported in 7% of patients with β-adrenoceptor blockers and 4.6% in the control groups (P < 0.001), with heterogeneity among drugs. Atenolol and propranolol had a significantly higher risk than placebo, whereas pindolol, acebutolol and oxprenolol had not.
CONCLUSION
Our results suggest that β-adrenoceptor blockers have variable propensity to enhance peripheral vasoconstriction and that it is not related to preferential binding to β1 -adrenoceptors. These findings challenge FDA and European recommendations regarding precautions and contra-indications of use of β-adrenoceptor blockers and suggest that β-adrenoceptor blockers with intrinsic sympathomimetic activity could be safely used in patients with peripheral vascular disease.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sympathomimetics; Vasoconstriction; Vasodilation
PubMed: 27085011
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.12980 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2015People undergoing major vascular surgery have an increased risk of postoperative cardiac complications. Beta-adrenergic blockers represent an important and established... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
People undergoing major vascular surgery have an increased risk of postoperative cardiac complications. Beta-adrenergic blockers represent an important and established pharmacological intervention in the prevention of cardiac complications in people with coronary artery disease. It has been proposed that this class of drugs may reduce the risk of perioperative cardiac complications in people undergoing major non-cardiac vascular surgery.
OBJECTIVES
To review the efficacy and safety of perioperative beta-adrenergic blockade in reducing cardiac or all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and other cardiovascular safety outcomes in people undergoing major non-cardiac vascular surgery.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (January 2014) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2013, Issue 12). We searched trials databases and checked reference lists of relevant articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included prospective, randomised controlled trials of perioperative beta-adrenergic blockade of people over 18 years of age undergoing non-cardiac vascular surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed study selection and data extraction. We resolved disagreements through discussion. We performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model with odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
MAIN RESULTS
We included two studies in this review, both of which were double-blind, randomised controlled trials comparing perioperative beta-adrenergic blockade (metoprolol) with placebo, on cardiovascular outcomes in people undergoing major non-cardiac vascular surgery. We included 599 participants receiving beta-adrenergic blockers (301 participants) or placebo (298 participants). The overall quality of studies was good. However, one study did not report random sequence generation or allocation concealment techniques, indicating possible selection bias, and the other study did not report outcome assessor blinding and was possibly underpowered. It should be noted that several of the outcomes were only reported in a single study and neither of the studies reported on vascular patency/graft occlusion, which reduces the quality of evidence to moderate. There was no evidence that perioperative beta-adrenergic blockade reduced all-cause mortality (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.03 to 15.02), cardiovascular mortality (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.32), non-fatal myocardial infarction (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.49; P value = 0.53), arrhythmia (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.88), heart failure (OR 1.71, 95% CI 0.40 to 7.23), stroke (OR 2.67, 95% CI 0.11 to 67.08), composite cardiovascular events (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.39; P value = 0.57) or re-hospitalisation at 30 days (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.52). However, there was strong evidence that beta-adrenergic blockers increased the odds of intra-operative bradycardia (OR 4.97, 95% CI 3.22 to 7.65; P value < 0.00001) and intra-operative hypotension (OR 1.84, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.59; P value = 0.0005).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis currently offers no clear evidence that perioperative beta-adrenergic blockade reduces postoperative cardiac morbidity and mortality in people undergoing major non-cardiac vascular surgery. There is evidence that intra-operative bradycardia and hypotension are more likely in people taking perioperative beta-adrenergic blockers, which should be weighed with any benefit.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Adult; Cardiovascular Diseases; Cause of Death; Humans; Injections, Intravenous; Metoprolol; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Reduction Behavior; Vascular Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 25879091
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006342.pub2