-
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Apr 2020Anaphylaxis is an acute, potential life-threatening systemic allergic reaction that may have a wide range of clinical manifestations. Severe anaphylaxis and/or the need... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Anaphylaxis is an acute, potential life-threatening systemic allergic reaction that may have a wide range of clinical manifestations. Severe anaphylaxis and/or the need for repeated doses of epinephrine to treat anaphylaxis are risk factors for biphasic anaphylaxis. Antihistamines and/or glucocorticoids are not reliable interventions to prevent biphasic anaphylaxis, although evidence supports a role for antihistamine and/or glucocorticoid premedication in specific chemotherapy protocols and rush aeroallergen immunotherapy. Evidence is lacking to support the role of antihistamines and/or glucocorticoid routine premedication in patients receiving low- or iso-osmolar contrast material to prevent recurrent radiocontrast media anaphylaxis. Epinephrine is the first-line pharmacotherapy for uniphasic and/or biphasic anaphylaxis. After diagnosis and treatment of anaphylaxis, all patients should be kept under observation until symptoms have fully resolved. All patients with anaphylaxis should receive education on anaphylaxis and risk of recurrence, trigger avoidance, self-injectable epinephrine education, referral to an allergist, and be educated about thresholds for further care.
Topics: Anaphylaxis; Desensitization, Immunologic; Epinephrine; Evidence-Based Medicine; Glucocorticoids; Histamine Antagonists; Humans; Hypersensitivity; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Risk Factors
PubMed: 32001253
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2020.01.017 -
Pain Physician Jul 2017Palmitoylethanolamide (PEA) is a cannabimimetic compound that has been investigated as an analgesic agent in animal models and clinical trials. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Palmitoylethanolamide (PEA) is a cannabimimetic compound that has been investigated as an analgesic agent in animal models and clinical trials.
OBJECTIVES
We conducted a meta-analysis to examine the efficacy of PEA for treating pain in randomized, controlled trials.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
SETTING
This meta-analysis examined all randomized, controlled trials involving the effect of PEA on pain score.
METHODS
We searched PubMed and Embase for randomized, active or placebo-controlled trials of PEA for the treatment of acute or chronic pain. Our primary outcome was the weighted mean difference in visual analog pain scales of PEA treatment compared to inactive controls.
RESULTS
We identified 10 studies including data from 786 patients who received PEA and 512 controls for inclusion in our systematic review. Eight trials included an inactive control group and were included in the meta-analysis. PEA was associated with significantly greater pain reduction compared to inactive control conditions (WMD = 2.03, 95% CI: 1.19 - 2.87, z = 4.75, P < 0.001). Use of placebo control, presence of blinding, allowance for concomitant treatments, and duration or dose of PEA treatment did not affect the measured efficacy of PEA. All-cause dropout was non-significantly reduced in the PEA group compared to inactive control conditions (RR = 0.36, 95% CI: 0.10 - 1.26, z = -1.60, P = 0.11).
LIMITATIONS
This meta-analysis relied on a relatively small number of trials across a variety of conditions causing pain with differing trial designs. Overall quality of the underlying studies and assessment of side effects were often poor.
CONCLUSIONS
PEA may be a useful treatment for pain and is generally well tolerated in research populations. Further, well-designed, randomized, placebo-controlled trials are needed to provide reliable estimates of its efficacy and to identify less serious adverse events associated with this compound.
KEY WORDS
PEA, palmidrol, palmitoylethanolamide, efficacy, pain, pain management, meta-analysis.
Topics: Acute Pain; Amides; Analgesics; Chronic Pain; Ethanolamines; Humans; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Palmitic Acids
PubMed: 28727699
DOI: No ID Found -
The Western Journal of Emergency... Feb 2021Most experts recommend norepinephrine as the first-line agent in septic shock. Our objective was to determine the effectiveness and safety of norepinephrine in patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Most experts recommend norepinephrine as the first-line agent in septic shock. Our objective was to determine the effectiveness and safety of norepinephrine in patients with septic shock.
METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Epistemonikos, as well as MEDLINE from 1966 till August 2019. Screening of full texts, evaluation for eligibility, and data extraction were done by four independent reviewers. We estimated risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) using a random-effects model with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The primary outcomes included the number of participants who achieved the target mean arterial pressure (MAP), time to achieve the target MAP, and number of participants with all-cause 28-day mortality. The secondary outcomes included the length of stay in the intensive care unit, length of hospital stay, incidence of arrhythmia and myocardial infarction, vasopressor-free days, and number of participants with all-cause 90-day mortality.
RESULTS
We identified 11 randomized controlled trials with a total of 4,803 participants. There was no difference in the number of participants who achieved the target MAP between those patients receiving norepinephrine and other vasopressors (RR 1.44; 95% CI, 0.32 to 6.54; P = 0.640; I = 94%; two trials, 116 participants). There was no significant difference in time to achieve the target MAP (MD -0.05; 95%, CI, -0.32 to 0.21; P = 0.690; I = 26%; two trials, 1763 participants) and all-cause 28-day mortality (RR 0.95; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.02; P = 0.160; I = 0%; seven trials, 4,139 participants). Regarding the secondary outcome, norepinephrine may significantly reduce the incidence of arrhythmia as compared to other vasopressors (RR 0.64; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.97; P = 0.030; I = 64%; six trials, 3974 participants). There was no difference in the incidence of myocardial infarction (RR 1.28; 95% CI, 0.79 to 2.09), vasopressor-free day (RR 0.46; 95% CI, -1.82 to 2.74) and all-cause 90-day mortality (RR 1.08; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.21) between norepinephrine and vasopressors.
CONCLUSION
In minimizing the occurrence of an arrhythmia, norepinephrine is superior to other vasopressors, making it safe to be used in septic shock. However, there was insufficient evidence concerning mortality and achievement of the target MAP outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Intensive Care Units; Length of Stay; Norepinephrine; Shock, Septic; Vasoconstrictor Agents
PubMed: 33856300
DOI: 10.5811/westjem.2020.10.47825 -
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 May 2021This systematic review used the GRADE approach to compile evidence to inform the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology's (EAACI) anaphylaxis guideline.
BACKGROUND
This systematic review used the GRADE approach to compile evidence to inform the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology's (EAACI) anaphylaxis guideline.
METHODS
We searched five bibliographic databases from 1946 to 20 April 2020 for studies about the diagnosis, management and prevention of anaphylaxis. We included 50 studies with 18 449 participants: 29 randomized controlled trials, seven controlled clinical trials, seven consecutive case series and seven case-control studies. Findings were summarized narratively because studies were too heterogeneous to conduct meta-analysis.
RESULTS
It is unclear whether the NIAID/FAAN criteria or Brighton case definition are valid for immediately diagnosing anaphylaxis due to the very low certainty of evidence. There was also insufficient evidence about the impact of most anaphylaxis management and prevention strategies. Adrenaline is regularly used for first-line emergency management of anaphylaxis but little robust research has assessed its effectiveness. Newer models of adrenaline autoinjectors may slightly increase the proportion of people correctly using the devices and reduce time to administration. Face-to-face training for laypeople may slightly improve anaphylaxis knowledge and competence in using autoinjectors. We searched for but found little or no comparative effectiveness evidence about strategies such as fluid replacement, oxygen, glucocorticosteroids, methylxanthines, bronchodilators, management plans, food labels, drug labels and similar.
CONCLUSIONS
Anaphylaxis is a potentially life-threatening condition but, due to practical and ethical challenges, there is a paucity of robust evidence about how to diagnose and manage it.
Topics: Anaphylaxis; Bronchodilator Agents; Case-Control Studies; Epinephrine; Humans; Pharmaceutical Preparations
PubMed: 32880997
DOI: 10.1111/all.14580 -
Journal of Psychopharmacology (Oxford,... Feb 2016The effects of propranolol in the treatment of anxiety disorders have not been systematically evaluated previously. The aim was to conduct a systematic review and... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
The effects of propranolol in the treatment of anxiety disorders have not been systematically evaluated previously. The aim was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials, addressing the efficacy of oral propranolol versus placebo or other medication as a treatment for alleviating either state or trait anxiety in patients suffering from anxiety disorders. Eight studies met the inclusion criteria. These studies concerned panic disorder with or without agoraphobia (four studies, total n = 130), specific phobia (two studies, total n = 37), social phobia (one study, n = 16), and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (one study, n = 19). Three out of four panic disorder trials qualified for pooled analyses. These meta-analyses found no statistically significant differences between the efficacy of propranolol and benzodiazepines regarding the short-term treatment of panic disorder with or without agoraphobia. Also, no evidence was found for effects of propranolol on PTSD symptom severity through inhibition of memory reconsolidation. In conclusion, the quality of evidence for the efficacy of propranolol at present is insufficient to support the routine use of propranolol in the treatment of any of the anxiety disorders.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Anti-Anxiety Agents; Anxiety Disorders; Humans; Propranolol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Severity of Illness Index
PubMed: 26487439
DOI: 10.1177/0269881115612236 -
PloS One 2015International guidelines recommend dopamine or norepinephrine as first-line vasopressor agents in septic shock. Phenylephrine, epinephrine, vasopressin and terlipressin... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
International guidelines recommend dopamine or norepinephrine as first-line vasopressor agents in septic shock. Phenylephrine, epinephrine, vasopressin and terlipressin are considered second-line agents. Our objective was to assess the evidence for the efficiency and safety of all vasopressors in septic shock.
METHODS
Systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched electronic database of MEDLINE, CENTRAL, LILACS and conference proceedings up to June 2014. We included randomized controlled trials comparing different vasopressors for the treatment of adult patients with septic shock. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Other clinical and hemodynamic measurements were extracted as secondary outcomes. Risk ratios (RR) and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled.
RESULTS
Thirty-two trials (3,544 patients) were included. Compared to dopamine (866 patients, 450 events), norepinephrine (832 patients, 376 events) was associated with decreased all-cause mortality, RR 0.89 (95% CI 0.81-0.98), corresponding to an absolute risk reduction of 11% and number needed to treat of 9. Norepinephrine was associated with lower risk for major adverse events and cardiac arrhythmias compared to dopamine. No other mortality benefit was demonstrated for the comparisons of norepinephrine to epinephrine, phenylephrine and vasopressin / terlipressin. Hemodynamic data were similar between the different vasopressors, with some advantage for norepinephrine in central venous pressure, urinary output and blood lactate levels.
CONCLUSIONS
Evidence suggests a survival benefit, better hemodynamic profile and reduced adverse events rate for norepinephrine over dopamine. Norepinephrine should be regarded as the first line vasopressor in the treatment of septic shock.
Topics: Epinephrine; Hemodynamics; Humans; Lypressin; Norepinephrine; Phenylephrine; Shock, Septic; Terlipressin; Treatment Outcome; Vasoconstrictor Agents; Vasopressins
PubMed: 26237037
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0129305 -
JAMA Network Open Mar 2022The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) recommends 2 alternative treatments for patients receiving treatment at steps 3 to 5: single inhaler combination inhaled... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) recommends 2 alternative treatments for patients receiving treatment at steps 3 to 5: single inhaler combination inhaled corticosteroid-formoterol as both maintenance and reliever (SMART) or inhaled corticosteroid-long-acting β2-agonist as maintenance plus short-acting β2-agonist as reliever.
OBJECTIVE
To assess whether switching to SMART is associated with longer time to first severe asthma exacerbation compared with a step up or continuation of GINA treatment step with maintenance inhaled corticosteroid-long-acting β2-agonist plus short-acting β2-agonist reliever among patients with poorly controlled asthma.
DATA SOURCES
For this systematic review and meta-analysis, the literature, internal study databases at AstraZeneca and the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, and references from a previous systematic review and meta-analysis on SMART were searched to identify randomized clinical trials published from January 1990 to February 2018, that compared budesonide-formoterol by SMART with maintenance inhaled corticosteroid-long-acting β2-agonist plus short-acting β2-agonist reliever.
STUDY SELECTION
Trials of at least 24 weeks' duration were included if they reported baseline data on GINA treatment step, asthma control status, and efficacy measures of severe exacerbations. Included patients were adults and adolescents with asthma and baseline Asthma Control Questionnaire 5-item version scores of 1.5 or higher.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Patient-level data were identified by independent extraction, and analyses were performed using a fixed-effect model. Data analysis was performed from August 2018 to November 2021.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was time to first severe asthma exacerbation associated with each treatment, analyzed by Cox proportional hazards regression.
RESULTS
Overall, 4863 patients were included (3034 [62.4%] female; mean [SD] age, 39.8 [16.3] years). Switching patients with uncontrolled asthma at GINA step 3 (n = 1950) to SMART at either step 3 or 4 was associated with a prolonged time to first severe asthma exacerbation, with a 29% reduced risk compared with stepping up to step 4 inhaled corticosteroid-long-acting β2-agonist maintenance plus short-acting β2-agonist reliever (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.52-0.97). For patients with uncontrolled asthma at step 3 and step 4 (n = 2913), switching to SMART was associated with a prolonged time to first severe asthma exacerbation and a 30% reduced risk compared with remaining at the same treatment step (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.58-0.85).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, for patients with poorly controlled asthma, SMART was associated with longer time to first severe asthma exacerbation compared with a step up or continuation of GINA step with maintenance inhaled corticosteroid-long-acting β2-agonist plus short-acting β2-agonist reliever. These findings suggest that if an adult or adolescent receiving treatment at GINA step 3 or 4 has poorly controlled asthma, it is preferable to switch to the SMART regimen rather than to step up or continue the GINA treatment step with maintenance inhaled corticosteroid-long-acting β2-agonist plus short-acting β2-agonist reliever therapy.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Adolescent; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Asthma; Budesonide; Budesonide, Formoterol Fumarate Drug Combination; Drug Combinations; Female; Formoterol Fumarate; Humans; Male; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35230437
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.0615 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2023Glucocorticoids are the mainstay for the treatment of croup. The existing evidence demonstrates that glucocorticoids are effective in the treatment of croup in children.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Glucocorticoids are the mainstay for the treatment of croup. The existing evidence demonstrates that glucocorticoids are effective in the treatment of croup in children. However, updating the evidence on their clinical relevance in croup is imperative. This is an update to a review first published in 1999, and updated in 2004, 2011, and 2018.
OBJECTIVES
To investigate the effects and safety of glucocorticoids in the treatment of croup in children aged 18 years and below.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Library, which includes the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2022 Issue 9), Ovid MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to 4 March 2022), Embase (Ovid) (1974 to 4 March 2022). We also searched the WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov on 4 March 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in children (aged 18 years and below) with croup. We assessed the effect of glucocorticoids compared to the following: placebo, any other pharmacologic agents, any other glucocorticoids, any combination of other glucocorticoids, given by different modes of administration, or given in different doses. The included studies must have assessed at least one of our primary outcomes (defined as the change in croup score or return visits, (re)admissions to the hospital or both) or secondary outcomes (defined as the length of stay in hospital or emergency departments, patient improvement, use of additional treatments, or adverse events).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Review authors independently extracted data, with another review author verified. We entered the data into Review Manager 5 for meta-analysis. Two review authors independently assessed studies for risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Two review authors assessed the certainty of the evidence for the primary outcomes using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
This updated review includes 45 RCTs with a total of 5888 children, an increase of two RCTs with 1323 children since the last update. We also identified one ongoing study and one study awaiting classification. We assessed most studies (98%) as at high or unclear risk of bias. Any glucocorticoid compared to placebo Compared to placebo, glucocorticoids may result in greater reductions in croup score after two hours (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.13 to -0.18; 7 RCTs, 426 children; low-certainty evidence); six hours (SMD -0.76, 95% CI -1.12 to -0.40; 11 RCTs, 959 children; low-certainty evidence); and 12 hours (SMD -1.03, 95% CI -1.53 to -0.53; 8 RCTs, 571 children; low-certainty evidence). The evidence for change in croup score after 24 hours is very uncertain (SMD -0.86, 95% CI -1.40 to -0.31; 8 RCTs, 351 children; very low-certainty evidence). One glucocorticoid compared to another glucocorticoid There was little to no difference between prednisolone and dexamethasone for reduction in croup score at two-hour post-baseline score (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.18; 1 RCT, 1231 children; high-certainty evidence). There was likely little to no difference between prednisolone and dexamethasone for reduction in croup score at six-hour post-baseline score (SMD 0.21, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.62; 1 RCT, 99 children; moderate-certainty evidence). However, dexamethasone probably reduced the return visits or (re)admissions for croup by almost half (risk ratio (RR) 0.55, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.11; 4 RCTs, 1537 children; moderate-certainty evidence), and showed a 28% reduction in the use of supplemental glucocorticoids as an additional treatment (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.97; 2 RCTs, 926 children). Dexamethasone given in different doses Compared to 0.15 mg/kg, 0.60 mg/kg dexamethasone probably reduced the severity of croup as assessed by the croup scoring scale at 24-hour postbaseline score (SMD 0.63, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.10; 1 RCT, 72 children; moderate-certainty evidence); however, this was not the case at two hours (SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.76 to 0.22; 2 RCTs, 861 children; high-certainty evidence). There was probably no reduction at six hours (SMD -0.45, 95% CI -1.26 to 0.35; 3 RCTs, 178 children; moderate-certainty evidence), and the evidence at 12 hours is very uncertain (SMD -0.60, 95% CI -4.39 to 3.19; 2 RCTs, 113 children; very low-certainty evidence). There was little to no difference between doses of dexamethasone in return visits or (re)admissions of children or both (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.17; 3 RCTs, 949 children; high-certainty evidence) or length of stay in the hospital or emergency department (mean difference 0.12, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.56; 2 RCTs, 892 children). The need for additional treatments, such as epinephrine (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.75; 2 RCTs, 885 children); intubation (risk difference 0.00, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.00; 2 RCTs, 861 children); or use of supplemental glucocorticoids (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.15; 2 RCTs, 617 children), also did not differ between doses of dexamethasone. There were moderate to high levels of heterogeneity in the analyses for most comparisons. Adverse events were observed for some of the comparisons reported in the review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence that glucocorticoids reduce symptoms of croup at two hours, shorten hospital stays, and reduce the rate of return visits or (re)admissions has not changed in this update. A smaller dose of 0.15 mg/kg of dexamethasone may be as effective as the standard dose of 0.60 mg/kg. More RCTs are needed to strengthen the evidence for effectiveness of low-dose dexamethasone at 0.15 mg/kg to treat croup.
Topics: Child; Humans; Croup; Dexamethasone; Epinephrine; Glucocorticoids; Prednisolone; Respiratory Tract Infections; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Adolescent
PubMed: 36626194
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001955.pub5 -
Clinical Pharmacokinetics Aug 2022Metoprolol is recommended for therapeutic use in multiple cardiovascular conditions, thyroid crisis, and circumscribed choroidal hemangioma. A detailed systematic review...
BACKGROUND
Metoprolol is recommended for therapeutic use in multiple cardiovascular conditions, thyroid crisis, and circumscribed choroidal hemangioma. A detailed systematic review on the metoprolol literature would be beneficial to assess all pharmacokinetic parameters in humans and their respective effects on patients with hepatic, renal, and cardiovascular diseases. This review combines all the pharmacokinetic data on metoprolol from various accessible studies, which may assist in clinical decision making.
METHODOLOGY
The Google Scholar and PubMed databases were searched to screen articles associated with the clinical pharmacokinetics of metoprolol. The comprehensive literature search retrieved 41 articles including data on plasma concentration-time profiles after intravenous and oral (immediate-release, controlled-release, slow-release, or extended-release) routes of administration, and at least one pharmacokinetic parameter was reported in all studies included.
RESULTS
Out of 41 retrieved articles, six were after intravenous and 12 were after oral administration in healthy individuals. The oral studies depict a dose-dependent increase in maximum plasma concentration (C), time to reach maximum plasma concentration (T), and area under the concentration-time curve (AUC). Two studies were conducted in R- and S-enantiomers, in which one study reported the gender differences, depicting greater C and AUC among women, whereas in another study S-metoprolol was found to have higher values of C, T, and AUC in comparison with R-metoprolol. Results in different diseases depicted that after IV administration of 20 mg, patients with renal impairment showed an increase in clearance (CL) (60 L/h vs 48 L/h) compared with healthy subjects, whereas a decrease in CL (36.6 ± 7.8 L/h vs 48 ± 6.6 L/h) was seen in patients with hepatic cirrhosis at a similar dose. In comparison with a single oral dose following administration of 15 mg IV in three divided doses, patients having an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) showed an increase in C (823 nmol/L vs 248 nmol/L) at a steady state. Twenty different studies have reported significant changes in CL, C and AUC of metoprolol when it is co-administered with other drugs. One study has reported a drug-food interaction for metoprolol but no significant changes were seen in the C and AUC.
CONCLUSION
This review summarizes all the pharmacokinetic parameters of metoprolol after pooling up-to-date data from all the studies available. The summarized pharmacokinetic data presented in this review can assist in developing and evaluating pharmacokinetic models of metoprolol. Moreover, this data can provide practitioners with an insight into dosage adjustments among the diseased populations and can assist in preventing potential adverse drug reactions. This review can also help avoid side effects and drug-drug interactions.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Area Under Curve; Female; Food-Drug Interactions; Humans; Liver; Metoprolol
PubMed: 35764772
DOI: 10.1007/s40262-022-01145-y