Other clinical findings and tolerability

Beta-blockers for suspected or diagnosed acute myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease is the number one cause of death globally. According to the World Health Organization, 7.4 million people died from ischaemic heart diseases in 2012, constituting 15% of all deaths. Acute myocardial infarction is caused by blockage of the blood supplied to the heart muscle. Beta-blockers are often used in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Previous meta-analyses on the topic have shown conflicting results ranging from harms, neutral effects, to benefits. No previous systematic review using Cochrane methodology has assessed the effects of beta-blockers for acute myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of beta-blockers compared with placebo or no intervention in people with suspected or diagnosed acute myocardial infarction.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded and BIOSIS Citation Index in June 2019. We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, Turning Research into Practice, Google Scholar, SciSearch, and the reference lists of included trials and previous reviews in August 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials assessing the effects of beta-blockers versus placebo or no intervention in people with suspected or diagnosed acute myocardial infarction. Trials were included irrespective of trial design, setting, blinding, publication status, publication year, language, and reporting of our outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed the Cochrane methodological recommendations. Four review authors independently extracted data. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events according to the International Conference on Harmonization - Good Clinical Practice (ICH-GCP), and major adverse cardiovascular events (composite of cardiovascular mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction during follow-up). Our secondary outcomes were quality of life, angina, cardiovascular mortality, and myocardial infarction during follow-up. Our primary time point of interest was less than three months after randomisation. We also assessed the outcomes at maximum follow-up beyond three months. Due to risk of multiplicity, we calculated a 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the primary outcomes and a 98% CI for the secondary outcomes. We assessed the risks of systematic errors through seven bias domains in accordance to the instructions given in the Cochrane Handbook. The quality of the body of evidence was assessed by GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 63 trials randomising a total of 85,550 participants (mean age 57.4 years). Only one trial was at low risk of bias. The remaining trials were at high risk of bias. The quality of the evidence according to GRADE ranged from very low to high. Fifty-six trials commenced beta-blockers during the acute phase of acute myocardial infarction and seven trials during the subacute phase. At our primary time point 'less than three months follow-up', meta-analysis showed that beta-blockers versus placebo or no intervention probably reduce the risk of a reinfarction during follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 98% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 0.91; 67,562 participants; 18 trials; moderate-quality evidence) with an absolute risk reduction of 0.5% and a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 196 participants. However, we found little or no effect of beta-blockers when assessing all-cause mortality (RR 0.94, 97.5% CI 0.90 to 1.00; 80,452 participants; 46 trials/47 comparisons; high-quality evidence) with an absolute risk reduction of 0.4% and cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.08; 45,852 participants; 1 trial; moderate-quality evidence) with an absolute risk reduction of 0.4%. Regarding angina, it is uncertain whether beta-blockers have a beneficial or harmful effect (RR 0.70, 98% CI 0.25 to 1.84; 98 participants; 3 trials; very low-quality evidence) with an absolute risk reduction of 7.1%. None of the trials specifically assessed nor reported serious adverse events according to ICH-GCP. Only two trials specifically assessed major adverse cardiovascular events, however, no major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in either trial. At maximum follow-up beyond three months, meta-analyses showed that beta-blockers versus placebo or no intervention probably reduce the risk of all-cause mortality (RR 0.93, 97.5% CI 0.86 to 0.99; 25,210 participants; 21 trials/22 comparisons; moderate-quality evidence) with an absolute risk reduction of 1.1% and a NNTB of 91 participants, and cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.90, 98% CI 0.83 to 0.98; 22,457 participants; 14 trials/15 comparisons; moderate-quality evidence) with an absolute risk reduction of 1.2% and a NNTB of 83 participants. However, it is uncertain whether beta-blockers have a beneficial or harmful effect when assessing major adverse cardiovascular events (RR 0.81, 97.5% CI 0.40 to 1.66; 475 participants; 4 trials; very low-quality evidence) with an absolute risk reduction of 1.7%; reinfarction (RR 0.89, 98% CI 0.75 to 1.08; 6825 participants; 14 trials; low-quality evidence) with an absolute risk reduction of 0.9%; and angina (RR 0.64, 98% CI 0.18 to 2.0; 844 participants; 2 trials; very low-quality evidence). None of the trials specifically assessed nor reported serious adverse events according to ICH-GCP. None of the trials assessed quality of life. We identified two ongoing randomised clinical trials investigating the effect of early administration of beta-blockers after percutaneous coronary intervention or thrombolysis to patients with an acute myocardial infarction and one ongoing trial investigating the effect of long-term beta-blocker therapy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our present review indicates that beta-blockers for suspected or diagnosed acute myocardial infarction probably reduce the short-term risk of a reinfarction and the long-term risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. Nevertheless, it is most likely that beta-blockers have little or no effect on the short-term risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. Regarding all remaining outcomes (serious adverse events according to ICH-GCP, major adverse cardiovascular events (composite of cardiovascular mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction during follow-up), the long-term risk of a reinfarction during follow-up, quality of life, and angina), further information is needed to confirm or reject the clinical effects of beta-blockers on these outcomes for people with or suspected of acute myocardial infarction.

Inhibition of metoprolol metabolism and potentiation of its effects by paroxetine in routinely treated patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI)

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the influence of paroxetine on metoprolol concentrations and its effect in patients treated for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) who are routinely given paroxetine as a co-treatment of depression.

METHODS

We recruited 17 depressed AMI patients who received metoprolol as a routine part of their therapy (mean dose 75 +/- 39 mg/day). Patients were genotyped for CYP2D6 3, 4 and gene duplication. Metoprolol and alpha-hydroxy-metoprolol were analyzed in plasma 0, 2, 6 and 12 h post-dose. Heart rates (HR) at rest were registered after each sampling. Paroxetine 20 mg daily was then administered, and all measurements were repeated on day 8.

RESULTS

All patients were genotypically extensive metabolizers (EMs) (nine with 1/1 and eight with 1/3 or 4). Following the administration of paroxetine, mean metoprolol areas under the concentration-time curve (AUC) increased (1064 +/- 1213 to 4476 +/- 2821 nM x h/mg per kg, P = 0.0001), while metabolite AUCs decreased (1492 +/- 872 to 348 +/- 279 n M x h/mg per kg, P < 0.0001), with an increase of metabolic ratios (MR) (0.9 +/- 1.3 to 26 +/- 29; P < 0.0001). Mean HRs were significantly lower after the study week at each time point. Mean area under the HR versus time curve (AUEC) decreased (835 +/- 88 to 728 +/- 84 beats x h/min; P = 0.0007). Metoprolol AUCs correlated with patients' AUECs at the baseline (Spearman r = -0.64, P < 0.01), but not on the eighth day of the study. A reduction of metoprolol dose was required in two patients due to excessive bradycardia and severe orthostatic hypotension. No other adverse effects of the drugs were identified.

CONCLUSION

A pronounced inhibition of metoprolol metabolism by paroxetine was observed in AMI patients, but without serious adverse effects. We suggest, however, that the metoprolol dose is controlled upon initiation and withdrawal of paroxetine.

Cardioselective beta-blockers for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Beta-blocker therapy has a proven mortality benefit in patients with hypertension, heart failure and coronary artery disease, as well as during the perioperative period. These drugs have traditionally been considered contraindicated in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of cardioselective beta-blockers on respiratory function of patients with COPD.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A comprehensive search of EMBASE, MEDLINE and CINAHL was performed using the Cochrane Airways Group registry to identify randomised blinded controlled trials from 1966 to May 2001. The search was completed using the terms: asthma*, bronchial hyperreactivity*, respiratory sounds*, wheez*, obstructive lung disease* or obstructive airway disease*, and adrenergic antagonist*, sympatholytic* or adrenergic receptor block*. We did not exclude trials on the basis of language.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, blinded, controlled trials of single dose or longer duration that studied the effects of cardioselective beta-blockers on the forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) or symptoms in patients with COPD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent reviewers extracted data from the selected articles, reconciling differences by consensus. Two interventions studied were the administration of beta-blocker, given either as a single dose or for longer duration, and the use of beta2-agonist given after the study drug.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven studies of single-dose treatment and 8 of treatment for longer duration, ranging from 2 days to 12 weeks, met selection criteria. Cardioselective beta-blockers produced no statistically significant change in FEV1 or respiratory symptoms compared to placebo, given as a single dose (Weighted Mean Difference -2.05% [95% Confidence interval, -6.05 to 1.96%]) or for longer duration (WMD -2.55% [95% CI, -5.94 to 0.84]), and did not significantly affect the FEV1 treatment response to beta2-agonists. Exacerbations and hospitalizations were recorded in all trials, but none occurred during the periods of study, in either group. A subgroup analysis revealed no significant change in results for those participants with severe chronic airways obstruction or for those with a reversible obstructive component.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence suggests that cardioselective beta-blockers, given to patients with COPD do not produce a significant short-term reduction in airway function or in the incidence of COPD exacerbations. However, the trials were small and of short duration. Given their demonstrated benefit in conditions such as heart failure, coronary artery disease and hypertension, cardioselective beta-blockers should be considered for patients with COPD, but administered with careful monitoring since data concerning long term administration and their effects during exacerbations are not available.

Effectiveness of beta-blocker therapy after acute myocardial infarction in elderly patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated the use and effectiveness of beta-blocker therapy after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) for elderly patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or asthma.

BACKGROUND

Because patients with COPD and asthma have largely been excluded from clinical trials of beta-blocker therapy for AMI, the extent to which these patients would benefit from beta-blocker therapy after AMI is not well defined.

METHODS

Using data from the Cooperative Cardiovascular Project, we examined the relationship between discharge use of beta-blockers and one-year mortality in patients with COPD or asthma who were not using beta-agonists, patients with COPD or asthma who were concurrently using beta-agonists and patients with evidence of severe disease (use of prednisone or previous hospitalization for COPD or asthma) compared with patients without COPD or asthma.

RESULTS

Of 54,962 patients without contraindications to beta-blockers, patients with COPD or asthma (20%) were significantly less likely to be prescribed beta-blockers at discharge after AMI. After adjusting for demographic and clinical factors, we found that beta-blockers were associated with lower one-year mortality in patients with COPD or asthma who were not on beta-agonist therapy (relative risk [RR] = 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73 to 1.00), similar to patients without COPD or asthma (RR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.92). A survival benefit for beta-blockers was not found among patients concurrently using beta-agonists or with severe COPD or asthma.

CONCLUSIONS

Beta-blocker therapy after AMI may be beneficial for COPD or asthma patients with mild disease. A survival benefit was not found for elderly AMI patients with more severe pulmonary disease.