Effect of timolol on cardiopulmonary exercise performance in men after myocardial infarction

Beta-blockers in patients without heart failure after myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease is the number one cause of death globally. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), 7.4 million people died from ischaemic heart disease in 2012, constituting 15% of all deaths. Beta-blockers are recommended and are often used in patients with heart failure after acute myocardial infarction. However, it is currently unclear whether beta-blockers should be used in patients without heart failure after acute myocardial infarction. Previous meta-analyses on the topic have shown conflicting results. No previous systematic review using Cochrane methods has assessed the effects of beta-blockers in patients without heart failure after acute myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of beta-blockers compared with placebo or no treatment in patients without heart failure and with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) greater than 40% in the non-acute phase after myocardial infarction.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index - Expanded, BIOSIS Citation Index, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, European Medicines Agency, Food and Drug Administration, Turning Research Into Practice, Google Scholar, and SciSearch from their inception to February 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials assessing effects of beta-blockers versus control (placebo or no treatment) in patients without heart failure after myocardial infarction, irrespective of publication type and status, date, and language. We excluded trials randomising participants with diagnosed heart failure at the time of randomisation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed our published protocol, with a few changes made, and methodological recommendations provided by Cochrane and Jakobsen and colleagues. Two review authors independently extracted data. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and major cardiovascular events (composite of cardiovascular mortality and non-fatal myocardial reinfarction). Our secondary outcomes were quality of life, angina, cardiovascular mortality, and myocardial infarction during follow-up. We assessed all outcomes at maximum follow-up. We systematically assessed risks of bias using seven bias domains and we assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 25 trials randomising a total of 22,423 participants (mean age 56.9 years). All trials and outcomes were at high risk of bias. In all, 24 of 25 trials included a mixed group of participants with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST myocardial infarction, and no trials provided separate results for each type of infarction. One trial included participants with only ST-elevation myocardial infarction. All trials except one included participants younger than 75 years of age. Methods used to exclude heart failure were various and were likely insufficient. A total of 21 trials used placebo, and four trials used no intervention, as the comparator. All patients received usual care; 24 of 25 trials were from the pre-reperfusion era (published from 1974 to 1999), and only one trial was from the reperfusion era (published in 2018). The certainty of evidence was moderate to low for all outcomes. Our meta-analyses show that beta-blockers compared with placebo or no intervention probably reduce the risks of all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 97.5% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 0.90; I² = 15%; 22,085 participants, 21 trials; moderate-certainty evidence) and myocardial reinfarction (RR 0.76, 98% CI 0.69 to 0.88; I² = 0%; 19,606 participants, 19 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). Our meta-analyses show that beta-blockers compared with placebo or no intervention may reduce the risks of major cardiovascular events (RR 0.72, 97.5% CI 0.69 to 0.84; 14,994 participants, 15 trials; low-certainty evidence) and cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.73, 98% CI 0.68 to 0.85; I² = 47%; 21,763 participants, 19 trials; low-certainty evidence). Hence, evidence seems to suggest that beta-blockers versus placebo or no treatment may result in a minimum reduction of 10% in RR for risks of all-cause mortality, major cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality, and myocardial infarction. However, beta-blockers compared with placebo or no intervention may not affect the risk of angina (RR 1.04, 98% CI 0.93 to 1.13; I² = 0%; 7115 participants, 5 trials; low-certainty evidence). No trials provided data on serious adverse events according to good clinical practice from the International Committee for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH-GCP), nor on quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Beta-blockers probably reduce the risks of all-cause mortality and myocardial reinfarction in patients younger than 75 years of age without heart failure following acute myocardial infarction. Beta-blockers may further reduce the risks of major cardiovascular events and cardiovascular mortality compared with placebo or no intervention in patients younger than 75 years of age without heart failure following acute myocardial infarction. These effects could, however, be driven by patients with unrecognised heart failure. The effects of beta-blockers on serious adverse events, angina, and quality of life are unclear due to sparse data or no data at all. All trials and outcomes were at high risk of bias, and incomplete outcome data bias alone could account for the effect seen when major cardiovascular events, angina, and myocardial infarction are assessed. The evidence in this review is of moderate to low certainty, and the true result may depart substantially from the results presented here. Future trials should particularly focus on patients 75 years of age and older, and on assessment of serious adverse events according to ICH-GCP and quality of life. Newer randomised clinical trials at low risk of bias and at low risk of random errors are needed if the benefits and harms of beta-blockers in contemporary patients without heart failure following acute myocardial infarction are to be assessed properly. Such trials ought to be designed according to the SPIRIT statement and reported according to the CONSORT statement.

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.

Comparison of aqueous and gellan ophthalmic timolol with placebo on the 24-hour heart rate response in patients on treatment for glaucoma

PURPOSE

Topical beta-blocker treatment is routine therapy in the management of patients with glaucoma. Therapy results in systemic absorption, however, the degree of reduction of resting and peak heart rate has not been quantified.

DESIGN

This trial evaluated the effect of placebo, 0.5% aqueous timolol (timolol solution) and a 0.5% timolol suspension that forms a gel on application to the conjunctiva (timolol gellan) on the 24-hour heart rate in patients currently being treated for glaucoma to quantify the reduction in mean heart rate.

METHODS

Forty-three Caucasian patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension with a mean (+/-SD) age of 63 (+/-8) years were randomized and crossed over in a double-masked manner to 14 days of treatment with placebo (morning and evening in both eyes), timolol solution (morning and evening in both eyes), or timolol gellan (morning in both eyes with placebo in the evening). On the 13th day of each period, heart rate was recorded continuously during a typical, ambulant 24-hour period.

RESULTS

Both timolol solution and timolol gellan reduced the mean 24-hour heart rate compared with placebo (P < or = .001), and this reduction was most pronounced during the daytime (-7.5% change in mean heart rate, -5.7 beats/min). Timolol gellan showed a numerically but not significantly smaller reduction in 24-hour heart rate, compared with timolol solution. During the night, the mean 12-hour heart rate on placebo and timolol gellan were both significantly less than on timolol solution; the difference between solution and gellan treatments was statistically significant (P = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Both timolol solution and timolol gellan decrease the mean 24-hour heart rate compared with placebo. This response was most pronounced during the active daytime period. These data quantify the modest bradycardia associated with ophthalmic beta-blocker therapy in a typical patient population on therapy for glaucoma. Although exercise performance was not assessed in this trial, reductions of this magnitude should not have substantial clinical consequences.

Submaximal oxygen pulse divided by body weight during incremental exercise test

The purpose of this study was to examine whether submaximal oxygen pulse divided by body weight (O2 pulse/BW) during an incremental exercise test discriminated between trained and untrained men, correlated to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at rest in post-myocardial infarction patients, and was sensitive and specific in detecting ventricular dysfunction and mild ventricular dysfunction with myocardial ischemia during exercise. Forty-three trained men, 44 untrained men, and 21 post-myocardial infarction patients pedaled a cycle ergometer, with O2 consumption, heart rate, and myocardial ischemia monitored during the exercise test. Work rate started at 10 W and increased 10 W/min stepwise; the O2 pulse and O2 pulse/BW at 10 through 120 W were calculated. The LVEF of the patients was measured at rest using radionuclide ventriculography three weeks after myocardial infarction. The results revealed that O2 pulse/BW was significantly different between trained and untrained men at 80, 90, 100, 110, and 120 W, whereas O2 pulse was significantly different only at 110 and 120 W. Oxygen pulse/BW at 10 W, as well as 30 through 120 W, significantly correlated to LVEF in the patients. The three patients with ventricular dysfunction (LVEF, < 40%) plus the two patients with mild ventricular dysfunction (LVEF between 40 and 50%) and ST segment depression during exercise all had submaximal O2 pulse/BW significantly lower than untrained men (sensitivity, 100%). Among the 11 patients with normal ventricular function (LVEF, > 50%) plus the 5 patients with mild ventricular dysfunction but no ST segment depression, 13 patients did not have submaximal O2 pulse/BW significantly lower than untrained men (specificity, 81%).

Effect of beta-blocking agents with and without intrinsic sympathomimetic activity on work efficiency in healthy men

In order to evaluate the effect of beta-blocking agents with and without intrinsic sympathomimetic activity (ISA) on work efficiency in healthy subjects, we studied the haemodynamic and gas exchange parameters, as well as blood lactate concentrations, during a graded maximal bicycle exercise test performed after perorally given propranolol (PRO) and pindolol (PIN) in seven healthy men. The medications (PRO: 80 mg x 2/day, PIN: 10 mg x 2/day, for seven days) were given in a placebo (PLA) controlled, double-blind, randomized, cross-over fashion. Both the drugs reduced heart rate and blood pressure during exercise equally compared with the placebo. The oxygen uptake at submaximal work loads, as well as at the maximum, was constantly and equally reduced by PRO and PIN compared with PLA. The anaerobic threshold was reached at a slightly lower oxygen uptake for both the drugs compared with the placebo (P < 0.05). No significant difference was, however, observed in the work levels at which the ventilatory anaerobic threshold was reached. Moreover, the gross efficiency, i.e. the amount of work performed at a certain energy consumption level (aerobic + anaerobic), was increased by both PRO (26.7 +/- 0.5%, P < 0.02 vs PLA: 24.7 +/- 0.5%) and PIN (26.5 +/- 0.5%, P < 0.05 vs PLA) at a submaximal work load of 240 W. The results indicate that beta-blocking agents propranolol and pindolol slightly and equally reduce maximal work performance, but increase the efficiency of submaximal work in a way that a certain amount of external work can be done with smaller consumption of oxygen. These findings may contribute to the benefit of beta-blocking agents in patients with coronary heart disease.

Comparison of the effects of aqueous and gellan ophthalmic timolol on peak exercise performance in middle-aged men

PURPOSE

To compare the effects of 0.5% aqueous timolol and 0.5% timolol gellan on exercise performance in middle-aged men.

METHODS

We evaluated the effects of 0.5% aqueous timolol (timolol solution, administered twice daily, and a 0.5% timolol gellan suspension that forms a gel on application to the conjunctiva (timolol gellan), administered once daily, on exercise performance in 42 healthy men with a mean age of 58 years (range, 55 to 65 years). Serum concentrations of timolol were assayed. Subjects exercised maximally on an upright cycle ergometer four times with ten-day intervals. After baseline testing, subjects were randomly assigned and crossed over in a double-masked manner to two and a half days of treatment with placebo, 0.5% timolol solution, and 0.5% timolol gellan.

RESULTS

The serum timolol concentrations immediately after testing were 0.91 +/- 0.51 ng/ml for timolol solution compared to 0.71 +/- 0.46 ng/ml for timolol gellan (P < .05). The change from baseline in resting heart rate was -1.8 +/- 9.3 beats/min (P = .23) for placebo, -11.0 +/- 9.6 beats/min (P < .001) for timolol gellan. The change from baseline in peak heart rate was -0.1 +/- 7.3 beats/min (P = .92) for placebo, -15.6 +/- 5.6 beats/min (P < .001) for timolol solution, and -11.9 +/- 8.0 beats/min (P < .001) for timolol solution, and -8.5 +/- 7. 5 beats/min (P<.001) for timolol gellan. Pair-wise comparison demonstrated significantly less reduction in both resting (P < .05) and peak heart rate (P < .01) for timolol gellan vs timolol solution.

CONCLUSIONS

Although both treatments caused reductions in testing and peak heart rate, timolol gellan was associated with significantly less reductions. The significant difference in serum concentrations of timolol between the two treatments is strong evidence that the difference in heart rate response was caused by reduced systemic absorption with timolol gellan.

The effect of limited handrail support on total treadmill time and the prediction of VO2 max

Holding onto the front handrail during treadmill testing significantly increases total treadmill time (TT) and predicted VO2max when compared with tests without front handrail support. By limiting the amount of handrail support to the tips of two fingers of one hand, the difference in TT can be substantially reduced. In the present study, the difference in TT between tests with and without handrail support for healthy men was not significantly different. However, this was not true for healthy women and for male patients with coronary artery disease and myocardial infarction.