-
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 -
Nature Reviews. Disease Primers Jul 2020The main inherited cardiac arrhythmias are long QT syndrome, short QT syndrome, catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia and Brugada syndrome. These rare... (Review)
Review
The main inherited cardiac arrhythmias are long QT syndrome, short QT syndrome, catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia and Brugada syndrome. These rare diseases are often the underlying cause of sudden cardiac death in young individuals and result from mutations in several genes encoding ion channels or proteins involved in their regulation. The genetic defects lead to alterations in the ionic currents that determine the morphology and duration of the cardiac action potential, and individuals with these disorders often present with syncope or a life-threatening arrhythmic episode. The diagnosis is based on clinical presentation and history, the characteristics of the electrocardiographic recording at rest and during exercise and genetic analyses. Management relies on pharmacological therapy, mostly β-adrenergic receptor blockers (specifically, propranolol and nadolol) and sodium and transient outward current blockers (such as quinidine), or surgical interventions, including left cardiac sympathetic denervation and implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator. All these arrhythmias are potentially life-threatening and have substantial negative effects on the quality of life of patients. Future research should focus on the identification of genes associated with the diseases and other risk factors, improved risk stratification and, in particular for Brugada syndrome, effective therapies.
Topics: Anemia; Autoimmune Diseases; Disease Management; Dyspepsia; Gastritis, Atrophic; Humans; Satiety Response
PubMed: 32678103
DOI: 10.1038/s41572-020-0188-7 -
Continuum (Minneapolis, Minn.) Aug 2015This article reviews the evidence base for the preventive treatment of migraine. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
This article reviews the evidence base for the preventive treatment of migraine.
RECENT FINDINGS
Evidence-based guidelines for the preventive treatment of migraine have recently been published by the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) and the Canadian Headache Society (CHS), providing valuable guidance for clinicians. Strong evidence exists to support the use of metoprolol, timolol, propranolol, divalproex sodium, sodium valproate, and topiramate for migraine prevention, according to the AAN. Based on best available evidence, adverse event profile, and expert consensus, topiramate, propranolol, nadolol, metoprolol, amitriptyline, gabapentin, candesartan, Petasites (butterbur), riboflavin, coenzyme Q10, and magnesium citrate received a strong recommendation for use from the CHS.
SUMMARY
Migraine preventive drug treatments are underutilized in clinical practice. Principles of preventive treatment are important to improve compliance, minimize side effects, and improve patient outcomes. Choice of preventive treatment of migraine should be based on the presence of comorbid and coexistent illness, patient preference, reproductive potential and planning, and best available evidence.
Topics: Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Migraine Disorders
PubMed: 26252585
DOI: 10.1212/CON.0000000000000199 -
JAMA Pediatrics Jan 2022Propranolol for infantile hemangiomas (IH) has been shown to be effective and relatively safe. However, other less lipophilic β-blockers, such as nadolol, may be... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
IMPORTANCE
Propranolol for infantile hemangiomas (IH) has been shown to be effective and relatively safe. However, other less lipophilic β-blockers, such as nadolol, may be preferable in individuals who experience propranolol unresponsiveness or adverse events.
OBJECTIVE
To document the noninferiority and safety of oral nadolol compared with oral propranolol in infants with IH.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
This double-blind noninferiority prospective study with a noninferiority margin of 10% compared propranolol with nadolol in infants aged 1 to 6 months with problematic IH. The study was conducted in 2 academic pediatric dermatology centers in Canada between 2016 and 2020. Infants aged 1 to 6 months with a hemangioma greater than 1.5 cm on the face or 3 cm or greater on another body part causing or with potential to cause functional impairment or cosmetic disfigurement.
INTERVENTIONS
Oral propranolol and nadolol in escalating doses up to 2 mg/kg/d.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURE
Between-group differences comparing changes in the bulk (size and extent) and color of the IH at week 24 with baseline using a 100-mm visual analog scale.
RESULTS
The study included 71 patients. Of these, 36 were treated with propranolol. The mean (SD) age in this group was 3.1 (1.4) months, and 31 individuals (86%) were female. Thirty-five infants were treated with nadolol. The mean (SD) age in this group was 3.2 (1.6) months, and 26 individuals (74%) were female. The difference in IH between groups by t test was 8.8 (95% CI, 2.7-14.9) for size and 17.1 (95% CI, 7.2-30.0) for color in favor of the nadolol group, demonstrating that nadolol was noninferior to propranolol. Similar differences were noted at 52 weeks: 6.0 (95% CI, 1.9-10.1) and 10.1 (95% CI, 2.9-17.4) for size and color improvement, respectively. For each doubling of time unit (week), the coefficient of involution was 2.4 (95% CI, 0.5-4.4) higher with nadolol compared with propranolol. Safety data were similar between the 2 interventions.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Oral nadolol was noninferior to oral propranolol, indicating it may be an efficacious and safe alternative in cases of propranolol unresponsiveness or adverse events, or when faster involution is required.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02505971.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Double-Blind Method; Equivalence Trials as Topic; Female; Hemangioma, Capillary; Humans; Infant; Male; Nadolol; Neoplastic Syndromes, Hereditary; Ontario; Propranolol; Prospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34747977
DOI: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2021.4565 -
JAMA Cardiology May 2022Patients with catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (CPVT) may experience life-threatening arrhythmic events (LTAEs) despite β-blocker treatment....
IMPORTANCE
Patients with catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (CPVT) may experience life-threatening arrhythmic events (LTAEs) despite β-blocker treatment. Further complicating management, the role of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) in CPVT is debated.
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the long-term outcomes of patients with RYR2 CPVT treated with β-blockers only and the cost to benefit ratio of ICD.
DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS
This prospective cohort study conducted from January 1988 to October 2020 with a mean (SD) follow-up of 9.4 (7.5) years included patients who were referred to the Molecular Cardiology Clinics of ICS Maugeri Hospital, Pavia, Italy. Participants included consecutive patients with CPVT who were carriers of a pathogenic or likely pathogenic RYR2 variant with long-term clinical follow-up.
EXPOSURES
Treatment with selective and nonselective β-blocker only and ICD implant when indicated.
MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES
The main outcome was the occurrence of the first LTAE while taking a β-blocker. LTAE was defined as a composite of 3 hard end points: sudden cardiac death, aborted cardiac arrest, and hemodynamically nontolerated ventricular tachycardia.
RESULTS
The cohort included 216 patients with RYR2 CPVT (121 of 216 female [55%], median [IQR] age 14, [9-30] years). During a mean (SD) follow-up of 9.4 (7.5) years taking β-blockers only, 28 of 216 patients (13%) experienced an LTAE (annual rate, 1.9%; 95% CI, 1.3-2.7). In multivariable analysis, experiencing either an LTAE (hazard ratio [HR], 3.3; 95% CI, 1.2-8.9; P = .02) or syncope before diagnosis (HR, 4.5; 95% CI, 1.8-11.1; P = .001) and carrying a C-terminal domain variant (HR, 18.1; 95% CI, 4.1-80.8; P < .001) were associated with an increased LTAE risk during β-blocker therapy only. The risk of LTAE among those taking selective β-blockers vs nadolol was increased 6-fold (HR, 5.8; 95% CI, 2.1-16.3; P = .001). Conversely, no significant difference was present between propranolol and nadolol (HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.4-7.3; P = .44). An ICD was implanted in 79 of 216 patients (37%) who were followed up for a mean (SD) of 8.6 (6.3) years. At the occurrence of LTAE, ICD carriers were more likely to survive (18 of 18 [100%]) than non-ICD carriers (6 of 10 [60%]; P = .01).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this cohort study, selective β-blockers were associated with a higher risk of LTAE as compared with nadolol. Independently from treatment, LTAE and syncope before diagnosis and C-terminal domain variants identified patients at higher risk of β-blocker failure, and the ICD was associated with reduced mortality in high-risk patients with CPVT.
Topics: Adolescent; Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Adult; Child; Cohort Studies; Electrocardiography; Female; Humans; Male; Nadolol; Prospective Studies; Ryanodine Receptor Calcium Release Channel; Syncope; Tachycardia, Ventricular; Young Adult
PubMed: 35353122
DOI: 10.1001/jamacardio.2022.0219 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2018Non-selective beta-blockers are recommended for the prevention of bleeding in people with cirrhosis, portal hypertension and gastroesophageal varices. Carvedilol is a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Non-selective beta-blockers are recommended for the prevention of bleeding in people with cirrhosis, portal hypertension and gastroesophageal varices. Carvedilol is a non-selective beta-blocker with additional intrinsic alpha-blocking effects, which may be superior to traditional, non-selective beta-blockers in reducing portal pressure and, therefore, in reducing the risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of carvedilol compared with traditional, non-selective beta-blockers for adults with cirrhosis and gastroesophageal varices.
SEARCH METHODS
We combined searches in the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary's Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and Science Citation Index with manual searches. The last search update was 08 May 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised clinical trials comparing carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers, irrespective of publication status, blinding, or language. We included trials evaluating both primary and secondary prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in adults with cirrhosis and verified gastroesophageal varices.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors (AZ, RJ and LH), independently extracted data. The primary outcome measures were mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding and serious adverse events. We undertook meta-analyses and presented results using risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and I values as a marker of heterogeneity. We assessed bias control using the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary domains and the quality of the evidence with GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
Eleven trials fulfilled our inclusion criteria. One trial did not report clinical outcomes. We included the remaining 10 randomised clinical trials, involving 810 participants with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices, in our analyses. The intervention comparisons were carvedilol versus propranolol (nine trials), or nadolol (one trial). Six trials were of short duration (mean 6 (range 1 to 12) weeks), while four were of longer duration (13.5 (6 to 30) months). Three trials evaluated primary prevention; three evaluated secondary prevention; while four evaluated both primary and secondary prevention. We classified all trials as at 'high risk of bias'. We gathered mortality data from seven trials involving 507 participants; no events occurred in four of these. Sixteen of 254 participants receiving carvedilol and 19 of 253 participants receiving propranolol or nadolol died (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.53; I = 0%, low-quality evidence). There appeared to be no differences between carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers and the risks of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.37; 810 participants; 10 trials; I = 45%, very low-quality evidence) and serious adverse events (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.42; 810 participants; 10 trials; I = 14%, low-quality evidence). Significantly more deaths, episodes of upper gastrointestinal bleeding and serious adverse events occurred in the long-term trials but there was not enough information to determine whether there were differences between carvedilol and traditional, non-selective beta-blockers, by trial duration. There was also insufficient information to detect differences in the effects of these interventions in trials evaluating primary or secondary prevention. There appeared to be no differences in the risk of non-serious adverse events between carvedilol versus its comparators (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.29; 596 participants; 6 trials; I = 88%; very low-quality evidence). Use of carvedilol was associated with a greater reduction in hepatic venous pressure gradient than traditional, non-selective beta-blockers both in absolute (MD -1.75 mmHg, 95% CI -2.60 to -0.89; 368 participants; 6 trials; I = 0%; low-quality evidence) and percentage terms (MD -8.02%, 95% CI -11.49% to -4.55%; 368 participants; 6 trials; I = 0%; low-quality evidence). However, we did not observe a concomitant reduction in the number of participants who failed to achieve a sufficient haemodynamic response (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.02; 368 participants; 6 trials; I = 42%; very low-quality evidence) or in clinical outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found no clear beneficial or harmful effects of carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers on mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding, serious or non-serious adverse events despite the fact that carvedilol was more effective at reducing the hepatic venous pressure gradient. However, the evidence was of low or very low quality, and hence the findings are uncertain. Additional evidence is required from adequately powered, long-term, double-blind, randomised clinical trials, which evaluate both clinical and haemodynamic outcomes.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Adult; Carvedilol; Esophageal and Gastric Varices; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Humans; Liver Cirrhosis; Nadolol; Primary Prevention; Propranolol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Secondary Prevention
PubMed: 30372514
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011510.pub2 -
The New England Journal of Medicine Jun 2010Patients with cirrhosis in Child-Pugh class C or those in class B who have persistent bleeding at endoscopy are at high risk for treatment failure and a poor prognosis,... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
Patients with cirrhosis in Child-Pugh class C or those in class B who have persistent bleeding at endoscopy are at high risk for treatment failure and a poor prognosis, even if they have undergone rescue treatment with a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS). This study evaluated the earlier use of TIPS in such patients.
METHODS
We randomly assigned, within 24 hours after admission, a total of 63 patients with cirrhosis and acute variceal bleeding who had been treated with vasoactive drugs plus endoscopic therapy to treatment with a polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stent within 72 hours after randomization (early-TIPS group, 32 patients) or continuation of vasoactive-drug therapy, followed after 3 to 5 days by treatment with propranolol or nadolol and long-term endoscopic band ligation (EBL), with insertion of a TIPS if needed as rescue therapy (pharmacotherapy-EBL group, 31 patients).
RESULTS
During a median follow-up of 16 months, rebleeding or failure to control bleeding occurred in 14 patients in the pharmacotherapy-EBL group as compared with 1 patient in the early-TIPS group (P=0.001). The 1-year actuarial probability of remaining free of this composite end point was 50% in the pharmacotherapy-EBL group versus 97% in the early-TIPS group (P<0.001). Sixteen patients died (12 in the pharmacotherapy-EBL group and 4 in the early-TIPS group, P=0.01). The 1-year actuarial survival was 61% in the pharmacotherapy-EBL group versus 86% in the early-TIPS group (P<0.001). Seven patients in the pharmacotherapy-EBL group received TIPS as rescue therapy, but four died. The number of days in the intensive care unit and the percentage of time in the hospital during follow-up were significantly higher in the pharmacotherapy-EBL group than in the early-TIPS group. No significant differences were observed between the two treatment groups with respect to serious adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS
In these patients with cirrhosis who were hospitalized for acute variceal bleeding and at high risk for treatment failure, the early use of TIPS was associated with significant reductions in treatment failure and in mortality. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN58150114.)
Topics: Acute Disease; Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Adult; Esophageal and Gastric Varices; Female; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Hepatic Encephalopathy; Humans; Hypertension, Portal; Liver Cirrhosis; Male; Middle Aged; Polytetrafluoroethylene; Portasystemic Shunt, Transjugular Intrahepatic; Survival Rate; Treatment Outcome; Vasoconstrictor Agents
PubMed: 20573925
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0910102