-
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 -
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 -
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 -
Trials Apr 2022Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with significant morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs. Beta blockers are well-established drugs widely... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Use of the oral beta blocker bisoprolol to reduce the rate of exacerbation in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): a randomised controlled trial (BICS).
BACKGROUND
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with significant morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs. Beta blockers are well-established drugs widely used to treat cardiovascular conditions. Observational studies consistently report that beta blocker use in people with COPD is associated with a reduced risk of COPD exacerbations. The bisoprolol in COPD study (BICS) investigates whether adding bisoprolol to routine COPD treatment has clinical and cost-effective benefits. A sub-study will risk stratify participants for heart failure to investigate whether any beneficial effect of bisoprolol is restricted to those with unrecognised heart disease.
METHODS
BICS is a pragmatic randomised parallel group double-blind placebo-controlled trial conducted in UK primary and secondary care sites. The major inclusion criteria are an established predominant respiratory diagnosis of COPD (post-bronchodilator FEV < 80% predicted, FEV/FVC < 0.7), a self-reported history of ≥ 2 exacerbations requiring treatment with antibiotics and/or oral corticosteroids in a 12-month period since March 2019, age ≥ 40 years and a smoking history ≥ 10 pack years. A computerised randomisation system will allocate 1574 participants with equal probability to intervention or control groups, stratified by centre and recruitment in primary/secondary care. The intervention is bisoprolol (1.25 mg tablets) or identical placebo. The dose of bisoprolol/placebo is titrated up to a maximum of 4 tablets a day (5 mg bisoprolol) over 4-7 weeks depending on tolerance to up-dosing of bisoprolol/placebo-these titration assessments are completed by telephone or video call. Participants complete the remainder of the 52-week treatment period on the final titrated dose (1, 2, 3, 4 tablets) and during that time are followed up at 26 and 52 weeks by telephone or video call. The primary outcome is the total number of participant reported COPD exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids and/or antibiotics during the 52-week treatment period. A sub-study will risk stratify participants for heart failure by echocardiography and measurement of blood biomarkers.
DISCUSSION
The demonstration that bisoprolol reduces the incidence of exacerbations would be relevant not only to patients and clinicians but also to healthcare providers, in the UK and globally.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Current controlled trials ISRCTN10497306 . Registered on 16 August 2018.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bisoprolol; Disease Progression; Heart Failure; Humans; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive
PubMed: 35422024
DOI: 10.1186/s13063-022-06226-8 -
Clinical Kidney Journal Mar 2021In this issue of the , Wu present the results of a nationwide population-based study using Taiwanese administrative data to compare safety and efficacy outcomes with...
In this issue of the , Wu present the results of a nationwide population-based study using Taiwanese administrative data to compare safety and efficacy outcomes with initiation of bisoprolol versus carvedilol among patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis for >90 days. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events over 2 years of follow-up. The study found that bisoprolol was associated with a lower risk for both major adverse cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality compared with carvedilol. While the bulk of the existing evidence favors a cardioprotective and survival benefit with β-blockers as a medication class among dialysis patients, there is wide heterogeneity among specific β-blockers in regard to pharmacologic properties and dialyzability. While acknowledging the constraints of observational data, these findings may serve to inform clinicians about the preferred β-blocker agent for dialysis patients to help mitigate cardiovascular risk and improve long-term survival for this high-risk population.
PubMed: 33779640
DOI: 10.1093/ckj/sfaa249