-
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 -
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... 2000There are two reasons to believe anxiolytics might help in smoking cessation. Anxiety may be a symptom of nicotine withdrawal. Second, smoking appears to be due, in... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
There are two reasons to believe anxiolytics might help in smoking cessation. Anxiety may be a symptom of nicotine withdrawal. Second, smoking appears to be due, in part, to deficits in dopamine, serotonin and norepinephrine, all of which are increased by anxiolytics and antidepressants.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this review is to assess the effectiveness of anxiolytic drugs in aiding long term smoking cessation. The drugs include buspirone; diazepam; doxepin; meprobamate; ondansetron; and the beta-blockers metoprolol, oxprenolol and propanolol.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register which includes trials indexed in Medline, Embase, SciSearch and PsycLit, and meetings abstracts.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered randomized trials comparing anxiolytic drugs to placebo or an alternative therapeutic control for smoking cessation. We excluded trials with less than 6 months follow-up.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We extracted data in duplicate on the type of study population, the nature of the drug therapy, the outcome measures, method of randomisation, and completeness of follow-up. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up in patients smoking at baseline. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed effects model.
MAIN RESULTS
There was one trial each of the anxiolytics diazepam, meprobamate, metoprolol and oxprenolol. There were two trials of the anxiolytic buspirone. None of the trials showed strong evidence of an effect for any of these drugs in helping smokers to quit. However, confidence intervals were wide, and an effect of anxiolytics cannot be ruled out on current evidence.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS
There is no consistent evidence that anxiolytics aid smoking cessation, but the available evidence does not rule out a possible effect.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Anti-Anxiety Agents; Humans; Smoking; Smoking Cessation
PubMed: 11034774
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002849 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... 2000There are two reasons to believe antidepressants and anxiolytics might help in smoking. First, anxiety and depression are symptoms of nicotine withdrawal, and smoking... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
There are two reasons to believe antidepressants and anxiolytics might help in smoking. First, anxiety and depression are symptoms of nicotine withdrawal, and smoking cessation sometimes precipitates depression. Second, smoking appears to be due, in part, to deficits in dopamine, serotonin and norepinephrine, all of which are increased by anxiolytics and antidepressants.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this review is to assess the effectiveness of such drugs in aiding long term smoking cessation. The drugs include bupropion; buspirone; diazepam; doxepin; fluoxetine; imipramine; meprobamate; moclobemide; nortriptyline; tryptophan; ondansetron; venlafaxine and the beta-blockers metoprolol, oxprenolol and propanolol.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register which includes trials indexed in Medline, Embase, SciSearch and PsycLit, and meetings abstracts.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered randomized trials comparing anxiolytic or antidepressant drugs to placebo or an alternative therapeutic control for smoking cessation. We excluded trials with less than 6 months follow-up.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We extracted data in duplicate on the type of study population, the nature of the drug therapy, the outcome measures, method of randomisation, and completeness of follow-up. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up in patients smoking at baseline. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed effects model.
MAIN RESULTS
There was one trial each of the anxiolytics diazepam, meprobamate, metoprolol and oxprenolol. There were two trials of the anxiolytic buspirone. None of these showed evidence of effectiveness in helping smokers to quit. There was one trial each of the antidepressants fluoxetine and moclobemide, two of nortriptyline, and four trials of bupropion. Nortriptyline and bupropion increased cessation and other antidepressants might also be effective. One trial found combined bupropion and nicotine patch produced higher quit rates than patch alone.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS
There is little evidence that anxiolytics aid smoking cessation. Some antidepressants (bupropion and nortriptyline) can aid smoking cessation. It is not clear whether these effects are specific for individual drugs, or a class effect.
Topics: Anti-Anxiety Agents; Antidepressive Agents; Humans; Smoking Cessation
PubMed: 10796472
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000031 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2014Partial agonists are a subclass of beta blockers used to treat hypertension in many countries. Partial agonist act by stimulating beta receptors when they are quiescent... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Partial agonists are a subclass of beta blockers used to treat hypertension in many countries. Partial agonist act by stimulating beta receptors when they are quiescent and blocking beta receptors when they are active. The blood pressure (BP) lowering effect of partial agonist beta blockers has not been quantified.
OBJECTIVES
To quantify the dose-related effects of various partial agonists beta blockers on systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and heart rate versus placebo in patients with primary hypertension.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Hypertension Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized controlled trials up to October 2014. The WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) is searched for inclusion in the Group's Specialised Register.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled parallel or cross-over trials. Studies must contain a partial agonist monotherapy arm with fixed dose. Patients enrolled into the studies must have primary hypertension at baseline (defined as SBP/DBP > 140/90 mmHg). Duration of studies must be between three to 12 weeks.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors (GW and HB) confirmed the inclusion of studies and extracted the data independently.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirteen randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled trials that examined the blood pressure lowering efficacy of six partial agonists in 605 hypertensive patients were included in this review. Five of the included studies were parallel studies and the other eight were cross-over studies. The overall risk of bias is high in this review due to the small sample size and high risk of detection bias. Pindolol, celiprolol and alprenolol lowered SBP and DBP compared to placebo. Acebutolol lowered SBP but there was no clear evidence that it lowered DBP. There was no clear evidence that pindolol and oxprenolol lowered SBP or DBP. Other than for celiprolol, sample sizes were generally small increasing the uncertainty in findings for individual agents versus placebo. In patients with moderate to severe hypertension, partial agonists (considered as a subclass) lowered peak BP by an average of 8 mmHg systolic (95% CI, -10 to -6, very low quality evidence), 4 mmHg diastolic (95%CI, -5 to -3, very low quality evidence) and reduced heart rate by five beats per minute (95%CI, -6 to -4, very low quality evidence). Higher dose partial agonists did not appear to provide additional BP lowering effects compared to lower dose. The maximum BP lowering effect of the overall subclass occurred at the starting dose. Partial agonists reduced pulse pressure by 4 mmHg (95% CI, -5 to -2, very low evidence). Only one study reported withdrawal due to adverse effects, the risk ratio (95% confidence interval) was 0.72 (0.07, 7.67).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was very low quality evidence that in patients with moderate to severe hypertension, partial agonists lowered peak BP by an average of 8/4 mmHg and reduced heart rate by five beats per minute. There was no evidence of a greater effect at doses higher than the initial doses. This estimate was probably exaggerated as it was subject to a high risk of bias. Based on the indirect comparison of the results in this review and two Cochrane reviews on angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), which also used similar inclusion criteria as this review, the BP lowering effect appeared to be less than the effect in patients with mild to moderate elevated BP who were taking ACE inhibitors and ARBs based on an indirect comparison. Withdrawals due to adverse effects were only reported in one trial so it is impossible to assess the harm of these drugs.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-1 Receptor Antagonists; Antihypertensive Agents; Blood Pressure; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Essential Hypertension; Heart Rate; Humans; Hypertension; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25427719
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007450.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2019Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have yielded conflicting results regarding the ability of beta-blockers to influence perioperative cardiovascular morbidity and...
BACKGROUND
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have yielded conflicting results regarding the ability of beta-blockers to influence perioperative cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Thus routine prescription of these drugs in an unselected population remains a controversial issue. A previous version of this review assessing the effectiveness of perioperative beta-blockers in cardiac and non-cardiac surgery was last published in 2018. The previous review has now been split into two reviews according to type of surgery. This is an update, and assesses the evidence in non-cardiac surgery only.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of perioperatively administered beta-blockers for the prevention of surgery-related mortality and morbidity in adults undergoing non-cardiac surgery.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Biosis Previews and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science on 28 June 2019. We searched clinical trials registers and grey literature, and conducted backward- and forward-citation searching of relevant articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs and quasi-randomized studies comparing beta-blockers with a control (placebo or standard care) administered during the perioperative period to adults undergoing non-cardiac surgery. If studies included surgery with different types of anaesthesia, we included them if 70% participants, or at least 100 participants, received general anaesthesia. We excluded studies in which all participants in the standard care control group were given a pharmacological agent that was not given to participants in the intervention group, studies in which all participants in the control group were given a beta-blocker, and studies in which beta-blockers were given with an additional agent (e.g. magnesium). We excluded studies that did not measure or report review outcomes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 83 RCTs with 14,967 participants; we found no quasi-randomized studies. All participants were undergoing non-cardiac surgery, and types of surgery ranged from low to high risk. Types of beta-blockers were: propranolol, metoprolol, esmolol, landiolol, nadolol, atenolol, labetalol, oxprenolol, and pindolol. In nine studies, beta-blockers were titrated according to heart rate or blood pressure. Duration of administration varied between studies, as did the time at which drugs were administered; in most studies, it was intraoperatively, but in 18 studies it was before surgery, in six postoperatively, one multi-arm study included groups of different timings, and one study did not report timing of drug administration. Overall, we found that more than half of the studies did not sufficiently report methods used for randomization. All studies in which the control was standard care were at high risk of performance bias because of the open-label study design. Only two studies were prospectively registered with clinical trials registers, which limited the assessment of reporting bias. In six studies, participants in the control group were given beta-blockers as rescue therapy during the study period.The evidence for all-cause mortality at 30 days was uncertain; based on the risk of death in the control group of 25 per 1000, the effect with beta-blockers was between two fewer and 13 more per 1000 (risk ratio (RR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 1.54; 16 studies, 11,446 participants; low-certainty evidence). Beta-blockers may reduce the incidence of myocardial infarction by 13 fewer incidences per 1000 (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.87; 12 studies, 10,520 participants; low-certainty evidence). We found no evidence of a difference in cerebrovascular events (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.81; 6 studies, 9460 participants; low-certainty evidence), or in ventricular arrhythmias (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.47; 5 studies, 476 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Beta-blockers may reduce atrial fibrillation or flutter by 26 fewer incidences per 1000 (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.79; 9 studies, 9080 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, beta-blockers may increase bradycardia by 55 more incidences per 1000 (RR 2.49, 95% CI 1.74 to 3.56; 49 studies, 12,239 participants; low-certainty evidence), and hypotension by 44 more per 1000 (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.51; 49 studies, 12,304 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).We downgraded the certainty of the evidence owing to study limitations; some studies had high risks of bias, and the effects were sometimes altered when we excluded studies with a standard care control group (including only placebo-controlled trials showed an increase in early mortality and cerebrovascular events with beta-blockers). We also downgraded for inconsistency; one large, well-conducted, international study found a reduction in myocardial infarction, and an increase in cerebrovascular events and all-cause mortality, when beta-blockers were used, but other studies showed no evidence of a difference. We could not explain the reason for the inconsistency in the evidence for ventricular arrhythmias, and we also downgraded this outcome for imprecision because we found few studies with few participants.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence for early all-cause mortality with perioperative beta-blockers was uncertain. We found no evidence of a difference in cerebrovascular events or ventricular arrhythmias, and the certainty of the evidence for these outcomes was low and very low. We found low-certainty evidence that beta-blockers may reduce atrial fibrillation and myocardial infarctions. However, beta-blockers may increase bradycardia (low-certainty evidence) and probably increase hypotension (moderate-certainty evidence). Further evidence from large placebo-controlled trials is likely to increase the certainty of these findings, and we recommend the assessment of impact on quality of life. We found 18 studies awaiting classification; inclusion of these studies in future updates may also increase the certainty of the evidence.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Anesthesia, General; Arrhythmias, Cardiac; Bradycardia; Cause of Death; Humans; Hypotension; Morbidity; Myocardial Infarction; Perioperative Care; Postoperative Complications; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Procedures, Operative
PubMed: 31556094
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013438