-
American Family Physician Jan 2019Migraines impose significant health and financial burdens. Approximately 38% of patients with episodic migraines would benefit from preventive therapy, but less than 13%...
Migraines impose significant health and financial burdens. Approximately 38% of patients with episodic migraines would benefit from preventive therapy, but less than 13% take prophylactic medications. Preventive medication therapy reduces migraine frequency, severity, and headache-related distress. Preventive therapy may also improve quality of life and prevent the progression to chronic migraines. Some indications for preventive therapy include four or more headaches a month, eight or more headache days a month, debilitating headaches, and medication-overuse headaches. Identifying and managing environmental, dietary, and behavioral triggers are useful strategies for preventing migraines. First-line medications established as effective based on clinical evidence include divalproex, topiramate, metoprolol, propranolol, and timolol. Medications such as amitriptyline, venlafaxine, atenolol, and nadolol are probably effective but should be second-line therapy. There is limited evidence for nebivolol, bisoprolol, pindolol, carbamazepine, gabapentin, fluoxetine, nicardipine, verapamil, nimodipine, nifedipine, lisinopril, and candesartan. Acebutolol, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, and telmisartan are ineffective. Newer agents target calcitonin gene-related peptide pain transmission in the migraine pain pathway and have recently received approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration; however, more studies of long-term effectiveness and adverse effects are needed. The complementary treatments petasites, feverfew, magnesium, and riboflavin are probably effective. Nonpharmacologic therapies such as relaxation training, thermal biofeedback combined with relaxation training, electromyographic feedback, and cognitive behavior therapy also have good evidence to support their use in migraine prevention.
Topics: Combined Modality Therapy; Humans; Migraine Disorders; Secondary Prevention
PubMed: 30600979
DOI: No ID Found -
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 -
European Journal of Internal Medicine Jun 2021β-blockers represent a mainstay in the pharmacological approach to patients affected by heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, underuse of this... (Review)
Review
β-blockers represent a mainstay in the pharmacological approach to patients affected by heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, underuse of this class of drugs is still reported, especially in the presence of cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular comorbidities, even if they are not contraindications for prescription of a β-blocker. The prognostic benefit of β-blockers is relevant in the presence of comorbidities, and achievement of the maximum tolerated dose is an important goal to increase their favorable prognostic role. The aim of the present review is to analyze the available evidence on the use of β-blockers in HFrEF patients with the most common comorbidities. In particular, we will discuss the role and most appropriate beta-blocker in patients with pulmonary disease (bisoprolol, metoprolol, nebivolol), diabetes (carvedilol and nebivolol), atrial fibrillation (all indicated for rate control, with metoprolol as the first choice followed by bisoprolol, nebivolol, and carvedilol), erectile dysfunction (bisoprolol and nebivolol), peripheral arterial disease (nebivolol), and other conditions, in order to clarify the correct use of this class of drugs in the clinical practice.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Carbazoles; Heart Failure; Humans; Male; Propanolamines; Stroke Volume
PubMed: 33941435
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejim.2021.03.035 -
Basic & Clinical Pharmacology &... Aug 2019Beta-blocker overdose is potentially harmful due to the strong blood pressure-lowering and heart rate-lowering effects. However, conflicting data exist as to their...
Beta-blocker overdose is potentially harmful due to the strong blood pressure-lowering and heart rate-lowering effects. However, conflicting data exist as to their differential toxicity, single-substance exposures and the effect of co-exposure with additional antihypertensive medication. For this, a 10-year retrospective, explorative analysis of the Mainz Poison Center/Germany database with regard to circumstances of beta-blocker exposure, doses, symptoms and treatment was carried out. Analyses were restricted to adult patients with single-substance exposures and co-exposures with one additional antihypertensive substance. Written follow-up information was obtained in half the cases. A total of 2967 cases were analysed, of which 697 were single-substance exposures. Metoprolol was most frequently reported followed by bisoprolol, atenolol, propranolol and sotalol. Metoprolol showed a linear dose-symptom relationship, whereas propranolol and sotalol seemed to have a threshold dose beyond which symptoms aggravated. Symptoms did not differ substantially, except for more seizures being reported with propranolol, and more CNS depression/vomiting with sotalol. Activated charcoal was used in 38%, gastric lavage in 11%, temporary pacemaker in 3%, glucagon in 1%, intubation for respiratory insufficiency and cardiopulmonary resuscitation in 1% and 0.5%. All patients recovered. In 174 co-exposure cases, the distribution of poisoning severity and rate of worsening of symptoms was comparable with single-substance exposures except one patient deceased after bisoprolol and verapamil co-exposure. In adults with beta-blocker overdose, no significant differences in poisoning severity among beta-blockers were detected, and no fatalities were observed with single-substance exposures. Co-exposures with other antihypertensives, sedatives or alcohol should be carefully attended to as fatalities might occur.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Adult; Aged; Charcoal; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Drug Overdose; Female; Gastric Lavage; Germany; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Poison Control Centers; Retrospective Studies; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30916882
DOI: 10.1111/bcpt.13231 -
Lancet (London, England) Nov 2015Optimal drug treatment for patients with resistant hypertension is undefined. We aimed to test the hypotheses that resistant hypertension is most often caused by... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial
Spironolactone versus placebo, bisoprolol, and doxazosin to determine the optimal treatment for drug-resistant hypertension (PATHWAY-2): a randomised, double-blind, crossover trial.
BACKGROUND
Optimal drug treatment for patients with resistant hypertension is undefined. We aimed to test the hypotheses that resistant hypertension is most often caused by excessive sodium retention, and that spironolactone would therefore be superior to non-diuretic add-on drugs at lowering blood pressure.
METHODS
In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial, we enrolled patients aged 18-79 years with seated clinic systolic blood pressure 140 mm Hg or greater (or ≥135 mm Hg for patients with diabetes) and home systolic blood pressure (18 readings over 4 days) 130 mm Hg or greater, despite treatment for at least 3 months with maximally tolerated doses of three drugs, from 12 secondary and two primary care sites in the UK. Patients rotated, in a preassigned, randomised order, through 12 weeks of once daily treatment with each of spironolactone (25-50 mg), bisoprolol (5-10 mg), doxazosin modified release (4-8 mg), and placebo, in addition to their baseline blood pressure drugs. Random assignment was done via a central computer system. Investigators and patients were masked to the identity of drugs, and to their sequence allocation. The dose was doubled after 6 weeks of each cycle. The hierarchical primary endpoints were the difference in averaged home systolic blood pressure between spironolactone and placebo, followed (if significant) by the difference in home systolic blood pressure between spironolactone and the average of the other two active drugs, followed by the difference in home systolic blood pressure between spironolactone and each of the other two drugs. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with EudraCT number 2008-007149-30, and ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02369081.
FINDINGS
Between May 15, 2009, and July 8, 2014, we screened 436 patients, of whom 335 were randomly assigned. After 21 were excluded, 285 patients received spironolactone, 282 doxazosin, 285 bisoprolol, and 274 placebo; 230 patients completed all treatment cycles. The average reduction in home systolic blood pressure by spironolactone was superior to placebo (-8·70 mm Hg [95% CI -9·72 to -7·69]; p<0·0001), superior to the mean of the other two active treatments (doxazosin and bisoprolol; -4·26 [-5·13 to -3·38]; p<0·0001), and superior when compared with the individual treatments; versus doxazosin (-4·03 [-5·04 to -3·02]; p<0·0001) and versus bisoprolol (-4·48 [-5·50 to -3·46]; p<0·0001). Spironolactone was the most effective blood pressure-lowering treatment, throughout the distribution of baseline plasma renin; but its margin of superiority and likelihood of being the best drug for the individual patient were many-fold greater in the lower than higher ends of the distribution. All treatments were well tolerated. In six of the 285 patients who received spironolactone, serum potassium exceeded 6·0 mmol/L on one occasion.
INTERPRETATION
Spironolactone was the most effective add-on drug for the treatment of resistant hypertension. The superiority of spironolactone supports a primary role of sodium retention in this condition.
FUNDING
The British Heart Foundation and National Institute for Health Research.
Topics: Adrenergic alpha-1 Receptor Antagonists; Adrenergic beta-1 Receptor Antagonists; Aged; Bisoprolol; Cross-Over Studies; Double-Blind Method; Doxazosin; Female; Humans; Hypertension; Male; Middle Aged; Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonists; Spironolactone; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26414968
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00257-3 -
Cardiovascular Drugs and Therapy Oct 2022Bisoprolol and nebivolol are highly selective β-adrenoceptor antagonists, with clinical indications in many countries within the management of heart failure with... (Review)
Review
Therapeutic Properties of Highly Selective β-blockers With or Without Additional Vasodilator Properties: Focus on Bisoprolol and Nebivolol in Patients With Cardiovascular Disease.
Bisoprolol and nebivolol are highly selective β-adrenoceptor antagonists, with clinical indications in many countries within the management of heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF), ischaemic heart disease (IHD), and hypertension. Nebivolol has additional vasodilator actions, related to enhanced release of NO in the vascular wall. In principle, this additional mechanism compared with bisoprolol might lead to more potent vasodilatation, which in turn might influence the effectiveness of nebivolol in the management of HFrEF, IHD and hypertension. In this article, we review the therapeutic properties of bisoprolol and nebivolol, as representatives of "second generation" and "third generation" β-blockers, respectively. Although head-to-head trials are largely lacking, there is no clear indication from published studies of an additional effect of nebivolol on clinical outcomes in patients with HFrEF or the magnitude of reductions of BP in patients with hypertension.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Benzopyrans; Bisoprolol; Cardiovascular Diseases; Ethanolamines; Heart Failure; Humans; Hypertension; Myocardial Ischemia; Nebivolol; Stroke Volume; Vasodilator Agents; Ventricular Function, Left
PubMed: 34106365
DOI: 10.1007/s10557-021-07205-y -
Clinical Research in Cardiology :... Sep 2017Beta-blockers are recommended for the treatment of chronic heart failure (CHF). However, it is disputed whether beta-blockers exert a class effect or whether there are... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
AIMS
Beta-blockers are recommended for the treatment of chronic heart failure (CHF). However, it is disputed whether beta-blockers exert a class effect or whether there are differences in efficacy between agents.
METHODS AND RESULTS
6010 out-patients with stable CHF and a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction prescribed either bisoprolol, carvedilol or metoprolol succinate were identified from three registries in Norway, England, and Germany. In three separate matching procedures, patients were individually matched with respect to both dose equivalents and the respective propensity scores for beta-blocker treatment. During a follow-up of 26,963 patient-years, 302 (29.5%), 637 (37.0%), and 1232 (37.7%) patients died amongst those prescribed bisoprolol, carvedilol, and metoprolol, respectively. In univariable analysis of the general sample, bisoprolol and carvedilol were both associated with lower mortality as compared with metoprolol succinate (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.71-0.91, p < 0.01, and HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.78-0.94, p < 0.01, respectively). Patients prescribed bisoprolol or carvedilol had similar mortality (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.82-1.08, p = 0.37). However, there was no significant association between beta-blocker choice and all-cause mortality in any of the matched samples (HR 0.90; 95% CI 0.76-1.06; p = 0.20; HR 1.10, 95% CI 0.93-1.31, p = 0.24; and HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.95-1.22, p = 0.26 for bisoprolol vs. carvedilol, bisoprolol vs. metoprolol succinate, and carvedilol vs. metoprolol succinate, respectively). Results were confirmed in a number of important subgroups.
CONCLUSION
Our results suggest that the three beta-blockers investigated have similar effects on mortality amongst patients with CHF.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-1 Receptor Antagonists; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Bisoprolol; Carbazoles; Carvedilol; Chronic Disease; England; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Germany; Heart Failure; Humans; Male; Metoprolol; Middle Aged; Norway; Propanolamines; Registries; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28434020
DOI: 10.1007/s00392-017-1115-0 -
JAMA Dec 2020There is little evidence to support selection of heart rate control therapy in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation, in particular those with coexisting heart... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial
IMPORTANCE
There is little evidence to support selection of heart rate control therapy in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation, in particular those with coexisting heart failure.
OBJECTIVE
To compare low-dose digoxin with bisoprolol (a β-blocker).
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
Randomized, open-label, blinded end-point clinical trial including 160 patients aged 60 years or older with permanent atrial fibrillation (defined as no plan to restore sinus rhythm) and dyspnea classified as New York Heart Association class II or higher. Patients were recruited from 3 hospitals and primary care practices in England from 2016 through 2018; last follow-up occurred in October 2019.
INTERVENTIONS
Digoxin (n = 80; dose range, 62.5-250 μg/d; mean dose, 161 μg/d) or bisoprolol (n = 80; dose range, 1.25-15 mg/d; mean dose, 3.2 mg/d).
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary end point was patient-reported quality of life using the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey physical component summary score (SF-36 PCS) at 6 months (higher scores are better; range, 0-100), with a minimal clinically important difference of 0.5 SD. There were 17 secondary end points (including resting heart rate, modified European Heart Rhythm Association [EHRA] symptom classification, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP] level) at 6 months, 20 end points at 12 months, and adverse event (AE) reporting.
RESULTS
Among 160 patients (mean age, 76 [SD, 8] years; 74 [46%] women; mean baseline heart rate, 100/min [SD, 18/min]), 145 (91%) completed the trial and 150 (94%) were included in the analysis for the primary outcome. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome of normalized SF-36 PCS at 6 months (mean, 31.9 [SD, 11.7] for digoxin vs 29.7 [11.4] for bisoprolol; adjusted mean difference, 1.4 [95% CI, -1.1 to 3.8]; P = .28). Of the 17 secondary outcomes at 6 months, there were no significant between-group differences for 16 outcomes, including resting heart rate (a mean of 76.9/min [SD, 12.1/min] with digoxin vs a mean of 74.8/min [SD, 11.6/min] with bisoprolol; difference, 1.5/min [95% CI, -2.0 to 5.1/min]; P = .40). The modified EHRA class was significantly different between groups at 6 months; 53% of patients in the digoxin group reported a 2-class improvement vs 9% of patients in the bisoprolol group (adjusted odds ratio, 10.3 [95% CI, 4.0 to 26.6]; P < .001). At 12 months, 8 of 20 outcomes were significantly different (all favoring digoxin), with a median NT-proBNP level of 960 pg/mL (interquartile range, 626 to 1531 pg/mL) in the digoxin group vs 1250 pg/mL (interquartile range, 847 to 1890 pg/mL) in the bisoprolol group (ratio of geometric means, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.64 to 0.92]; P = .005). Adverse events were less common with digoxin; 20 patients (25%) in the digoxin group had at least 1 AE vs 51 patients (64%) in the bisoprolol group (P < .001). There were 29 treatment-related AEs and 16 serious AEs in the digoxin group vs 142 and 37, respectively, in the bisoprolol group.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Among patients with permanent atrial fibrillation and symptoms of heart failure treated with low-dose digoxin or bisoprolol, there was no statistically significant difference in quality of life at 6 months. These findings support potentially basing decisions about treatment on other end points.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02391337 and clinicaltrialsregister.eu Identifier: 2015-005043-13.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-1 Receptor Antagonists; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Atrial Fibrillation; Bisoprolol; Digoxin; Female; Heart Failure; Heart Rate; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Quality of Life; Single-Blind Method; Stroke Volume
PubMed: 33351042
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2020.23138