-
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 -
Infection Control and Hospital... Dec 2010To compare use of chlorhexidine with use of iodine for preoperative skin antisepsis with respect to effectiveness in preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) and cost. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To compare use of chlorhexidine with use of iodine for preoperative skin antisepsis with respect to effectiveness in preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) and cost.
METHODS
We searched the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality website, the Cochrane Library, Medline, and EMBASE up to January 2010 for eligible studies. Included studies were systematic reviews, meta-analyses, or randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing preoperative skin antisepsis with chlorhexidine and with iodine and assessing for the outcomes of SSI or positive skin culture result after application. One reviewer extracted data and assessed individual study quality, quality of evidence for each outcome, and publication bias. Meta-analyses were performed using a fixed-effects model. Using results from the meta-analysis and cost data from the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, we developed a decision analytic cost-benefit model to compare the economic value, from the hospital perspective, of antisepsis with iodine versus antisepsis with 2 preparations of chlorhexidine (ie, 4% chlorhexidine bottle and single-use applicators of a 2% chlorhexidine gluconate [CHG] and 70% isopropyl alcohol [IPA] solution), and also performed sensitivity analyses.
RESULTS
Nine RCTs with a total of 3,614 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Meta-analysis revealed that chlorhexidine antisepsis was associated with significantly fewer SSIs (adjusted risk ratio, 0.64 [95% confidence interval, [0.51-0.80]) and positive skin culture results (adjusted risk ratio, 0.44 [95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.56]) than was iodine antisepsis. In the cost-benefit model baseline scenario, switching from iodine to chlorhexidine resulted in a net cost savings of $16-$26 per surgical case and $349,904-$568,594 per year for the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania. Sensitivity analyses showed that net cost savings persisted under most circumstances.
CONCLUSIONS
Preoperative skin antisepsis with chlorhexidine is more effective than preoperative skin antisepsis with iodine for preventing SSI and results in cost savings.
Topics: 2-Propanol; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Chlorhexidine; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Humans; Iodine; Odds Ratio; Pennsylvania; Pharmaceutical Solutions; Preoperative Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 20969449
DOI: 10.1086/657134 -
Acta Dermato-venereologica Nov 2017To date the efficacy and safety of topical timolol in the treatment of infantile hemangioma has not been reviewed and analysed systematically. We collated all published... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
To date the efficacy and safety of topical timolol in the treatment of infantile hemangioma has not been reviewed and analysed systematically. We collated all published data on the efficacy and safety of topical timolol in the treatment of infantile hemangioma. A total of 31 studies with 691 patients were included. The fixed effects pooled estimate of the response rate defined as any improvement from baseline of infantile hemangioma after treatment with topical timolol was significant (RR = 8.96; 95% CI 5.07-15.47; heterogeneity test p = 0.99), and the treatment was overall well tolerated. However, the quality of evidence was low to moderate. Topical timolol is an effective treatment for small infantile hemangioma, with no significant adverse effects noted. However, there is still a need for adequately powered randomised controlled trials.
Topics: Administration, Cutaneous; Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Age of Onset; Antineoplastic Agents; Hemangioma; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Odds Ratio; Risk Factors; Time Factors; Timolol; Treatment Outcome; Tumor Burden
PubMed: 28421234
DOI: 10.2340/00015555-2681 -
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 Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2017Propranolol is one of the most commonly prescribed drugs for migraine prophylaxis. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Propranolol is one of the most commonly prescribed drugs for migraine prophylaxis.
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to determine whether there is evidence that propranolol is more effective than placebo and as effective as other drugs for the interval (prophylactic) treatment of patients with migraine.
SEARCH METHODS
Potentially eligible studies were identified by searching MEDLINE/PubMed (1966 to May 2003) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 2, 2003), and by screening bibliographies of reviews and identified articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised and quasi-randomised clinical trials of at least 4 weeks duration comparing clinical effects of propranolol with placebo or another drug in adult migraine sufferers.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two reviewers extracted information on patients, methods, interventions, outcomes measured, and results using a pre-tested form. Study quality was assessed using two checklists (Jadad scale and Delphi list). Due to the heterogeneity of outcome measures and insufficient reporting of the data, only selective quantitative meta-analyses were performed. As far as possible, effect size estimates were calculated for single trials. In addition, results were summarised descriptively and by a vote count among the reviewers.
MAIN RESULTS
A total of 58 trials with 5072 participants met the inclusion criteria. The 58 selected trials included 26 comparisons with placebo and 47 comparisons with other drugs. The methodological quality of the majority of trials was unsatisfactory. The principal shortcomings were high dropout rates and insufficient reporting and handling of this problem in the analysis. Overall, the 26 placebo-controlled trials showed clear short-term effects of propranolol over placebo. Due to the lack of studies with long-term follow up, it is unclear whether these effects are stable after stopping propranolol. The 47 comparisons with calcium antagonists, other beta-blockers, and a variety of other drugs did not yield any clear-cut differences. Sample size was, however, insufficient in most trials to establish equivalence.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Although many trials have relevant methodological shortcomings, there is clear evidence that propranolol is more effective than placebo in the short-term interval treatment of migraine. Evidence on long-term effects is lacking. Propranolol seems to be as effective and safe as a variety of other drugs used for migraine prophylaxis.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Adult; Calcium Channel Blockers; Humans; Migraine Disorders; Propranolol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Refusal
PubMed: 28212466
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003225.pub3 -
European Urology Oct 2008Anticholinergic drugs are commonly used in patients with overactive bladder (OAB) who do not achieve symptom relief and quality of life improvement with conservative... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
CONTEXT
Anticholinergic drugs are commonly used in patients with overactive bladder (OAB) who do not achieve symptom relief and quality of life improvement with conservative management. Several drugs, with different doses, formulations, and routes of administration are currently available, making the choice quite difficult.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate efficacy and safety of different doses, formulations, and route of administration of the available anticholinergic drugs.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
A systematic review of the literature was performed in August 2007 using Medline, Embase, and Web of Science. Efficacy (micturitions per 24h, volume voided per micturition, urgency urinary incontinence episodes per 24h, incontinence episodes per 24h) and safety (mainly, adverse events and withdrawal rates) end points were evaluated in the randomized control trials (RCTs) assessing the role of anticholinergic drugs in non-neurogenic OAB. Meta-analysis of RCTs was conducted using the Review Manager software 4.2 (Cochrane Collaboration).
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Our systematic search identified 50 RCTs and three pooled analyses. Tolterodine immediate release (IR) had a more favorable profile of adverse events than oxybutynin IR. Regarding different dosages of IR formulations, dose escalation might yield some limited improvements in the efficacy but at the cost of significant increase in the rate of adverse events. In the comparisons between IR and extended-release (ER) formulations, the latter showed some advantages, both in terms of efficacy and safety. With regard to the route of administration, use if a transdermal route of administration does not provide significant advantage over an oral one.
CONCLUSION
Many of the available RCTs have good methodological quality. ER formulations should be preferred to the IR ones. With regard to IR formulations, dose escalation might yield some improvements in the efficacy with significant increase in the AE. More clinical studies are needed to indicate which of the drugs should be used as first-, second-, or third-line treatment.
Topics: Benzhydryl Compounds; Cresols; Humans; Mandelic Acids; Muscarinic Antagonists; Phenylpropanolamine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tolterodine Tartrate; Urinary Bladder, Overactive
PubMed: 18632201
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2008.06.080 -
Current Medical Research and Opinion 2015Recent growing evidence suggests that beta-blocker treatment could improve cardiovascular dynamics and possibly the outcome of patients admitted to intensive care with... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Recent growing evidence suggests that beta-blocker treatment could improve cardiovascular dynamics and possibly the outcome of patients admitted to intensive care with severe sepsis or septic shock.
DESIGN
Systematic review.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE and EMBASE healthcare databases.
REVIEW METHODS
To investigate this topic, we conducted a systematic review of the above databases up to 31 May 2015. Due to the clinical novelty of the subject, we also included non-randomized clinical studies. We focused on the impact of beta-blocker treatment on mortality, also investigating its effects on cardiovascular, immune and metabolic function. Evidence from experimental studies was reviewed as well.
RESULTS
From the initial search we selected 10 relevant clinical studies. Five prospective studies (two randomized) assessed the hemodynamic effects of the beta1-blocker esmolol. Heart rate decreased significantly in all, but the impact on other parameters differed. The imbalance between prospective studies' size (10 to 144 patients) and the differences in their design disfavor a meta-analysis. One retrospective study showed improved hemodynamics combining metoprolol and milrinone in septic patients, and another retrospective study found no association between beta-blocker administration and mortality. We also found three case series. Twenty-one experimental studies evaluated the hemodynamic, immune and/or metabolic effects of selective and/or non-selective beta-blockers in animal models of sepsis (dogs, mice, pigs, rats, sheep), yielding conflicting results.
CONCLUSIONS
Whilst there is not enough prospective data to conduct a meta-analysis, the available clinical data are promising. We discuss the ability of beta blockade to modulate sepsis-induced alterations at cardiovascular, metabolic, immunologic and coagulation levels.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Animals; Heart Rate; Hemodynamics; Humans; Metoprolol; Propanolamines; Sepsis; Shock, Septic
PubMed: 26121122
DOI: 10.1185/03007995.2015.1062357 -
Clinical Cardiology Oct 2022This meta-analysis aims to look at the impact of early intravenous Metoprolol in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) before percutaneous coronary... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Effect of early metoprolol before PCI in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction on infarct size and left ventricular ejection fraction. A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials.
AIM
This meta-analysis aims to look at the impact of early intravenous Metoprolol in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) before percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on infarct size, as measured by cardio magnetic resonance (CMR) and left ventricular ejection fraction.
METHODS
We searched the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane library, and Web of Science. We included only randomized control trials that reported the use of early intravenous Metoprolol in STEMI before PCI on infarct size, as measured by CMR and left ventricular ejection fraction. RevMan software 5.4 was used for performing the analysis.
RESULTS
Following a literature search, 340 publications were found. Finally, 18 studies were included for the systematic review, and 8 clinical trials were included in the meta-analysis after the full-text screening. At 6 months, the pooled effect revealed a statistically significant association between Metoprolol and increased left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (%) compared to controls (mean difference [MD] = 3.57, [95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.22-4.92], p < .00001), as well as decreased infarcted myocardium(g) compared to controls (MD = -3.84, [95% [CI] = -5.75 to -1.93], p < .0001). At 1 week, the pooled effect revealed a statistically significant association between Metoprolol and increased LVEF (%) compared to controls (MD = 2.98, [95% CI = 1.26-4.69], p = .0007), as well as decreased infarcted myocardium(%) compared to controls (MD = -3.21, [95% CI = -5.24 to -1.18], p = .002).
CONCLUSION
A significant decrease in myocardial infarction and increase in LVEF (%) was linked to receiving Metoprolol at 1 week and 6-month follow-up.
Topics: Humans; Metoprolol; Myocardial Infarction; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction; Stroke Volume; Ventricular Function, Left
PubMed: 36040709
DOI: 10.1002/clc.23894 -
Anesthesia and Analgesia Feb 2011Although β blockers have been found to decrease perioperative myocardial infarction (MI), β-blocker-mediated hypotension is associated with postoperative stroke and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Although β blockers have been found to decrease perioperative myocardial infarction (MI), β-blocker-mediated hypotension is associated with postoperative stroke and mortality. In this systematic review we assessed the safety and efficacy of the β1-specific, adrenergic receptor antagonist esmolol in noncardiac surgery. Safety was assessed by analyzing the incidence of postoperative hypotension and bradycardia, and efficacy was assessed by analyzing the incidence of myocardial ischemia.
METHODS
We searched electronic databases for randomized placebo-controlled trials of the perioperative use of esmolol in noncardiac surgery. We abstracted data on design, demographics, hemodynamic changes (planned or unplanned), myocardial ischemia, and MI. Heterogeneity was assessed via meta-regression.
RESULTS
Our search identified 67 trials, which were well matched for study characteristics. The quality of the studies was limited by small sample size and poorly defined allocation concealment. Overall, the analysis demonstrates an increased incidence of unplanned hypotension (OR 2.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.48 to 3.04), which was found to be dose related (R(2) = 0.408). An increased incidence of significant bradycardia was not demonstrated (OR 1.18; 95% CI, 0.69 to 2.02). Dose titration was shown to influence both the change in arterial blood pressure and heart rate. In comparison with placebo, esmolol decreased the frequency of myocardial ischemia in the 7 evaluating studies (OR 0.17; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.45). We did not assess the effects of esmolol on the incidence of MI or stroke because the incidence of these events was too infrequent in the retrieved studies.
CONCLUSION
This review suggests that titration of esmolol to a hemodynamic end point can be safe and effective. Safety data from studies in higher-risk patients are needed to establish a perioperative safety and efficacy profile of esmolol.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-1 Receptor Antagonists; Blood Pressure; Bradycardia; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Drug Administration Schedule; Evidence-Based Medicine; Heart Rate; Humans; Hypotension; Myocardial Ischemia; Perioperative Care; Postoperative Complications; Propanolamines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 21127279
DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3182025af7 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jan 2015Changes in air pressure during flying can cause ear-drum pain and perforation, vertigo, and hearing loss. It has been estimated that 10% of adults and 22% of children... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Changes in air pressure during flying can cause ear-drum pain and perforation, vertigo, and hearing loss. It has been estimated that 10% of adults and 22% of children might have changes to the ear drum after a flight, although perforation is rare. Symptoms usually resolve spontaneously.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of interventions to prevent middle-ear pain during air travel? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to July 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 three 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: nasal balloon inflation, nasal decongestants (topical), and oral pseudoephedrine.
Topics: Air Travel; Earache; Humans; Nasal Decongestants; Pseudoephedrine
PubMed: 25599243
DOI: No ID Found