Tolerability and dose-related effects of nebivolol in elderly patients with heart failure: data from the Study of the Effects of Nebivolol Intervention on Outcomes and Rehospitalisation in Seniors with Heart Failure (SENIORS) trial

Optimization of GDMT for patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: can physiological and biological barriers explain the gaps in adherence to heart failure guidelines?

Heart failure is a growing epidemic with high mortality rates and recurrent hospital admissions that creates a burden on affected individuals, their caregivers and the whole healthcare system. Throughout the years, many randomized trials have established the effectiveness of several pharmacological therapies and electrophysiological devices to reduce hospitalizations and improve quality of life and survival, mostly for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). These studies led to the publication of national societies' recommendations to guide clinicians in the management of HFrEF. Yet, many reports have shown significant care gaps in adherence to these recommendations in clinical practice, highlighting suboptimal use and/or dosing of evidence-based therapies. Adherence to guidelines has been shown to be associated with the best prognosis in HFrEF, with patients presenting with intolerances or contraindications having the highest risk of events; however, it remains unclear whether this association is causal or merely a marker of more advanced disease. Furthermore, individual characteristics may limit the possibility of reaching the targeted dosage of specific agents. Herein, we provide a comprehensive overview of clinicians' adherence to heart failure guidelines in a specialized real-life setting, particularly regarding use and optimization of guideline-derived medical therapies, as well as the implementation of more recent agents such as sacubitril/valsartan and SGLT2 inhibitors. We seek potential explanations for suboptimal treatment and its impact on patient outcomes.

Optimization of pharmacotherapies for ambulatory patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction is associated with improved outcomes

BACKGROUND

In heart failure, specific target doses for each drug are recommended, but some patients receive suboptimal dosing, others are undertreated or remain chronically in a titration phase, despite having no apparent contraindication or intolerance. We assessed the association of different levels of adherence to guidelines with outcomes in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

METHODS

Medical records of patients with HFrEF followed at our heart failure (HF) clinic for at least 6 months (n = 511) were reviewed and patients categorized as: 1) optimized (25.4%); 2) in-titration (29.0%); 3) undertreated (32.7%); and 4) intolerant/contraindicated (12.9%). Risk of mortality or HF events (hospitalization, emergency visit or ambulatory administration of intravenous diuretics) within one year was assessed using Cox regression models and Kaplan-Meier curves.

RESULTS

Compared to optimized patients, those intolerant (HR: 4.60 [95%CI: 2.23-9.48]; p < 0.0001) had the highest risk of outcomes, followed by those undertreated (3.45 [1.78-6.67]; p = 0.0002) and in-titration (1.99 [0.97-4.06]; p = 0.0588). Overall predictors of outcomes included loop diuretics' use (4.54 [2.39-8.60]), undertreatment (2.38 [1.22-4.67]), intolerance/ contraindication to triple therapy (3.08 [1.47-6.42]), peripheral vascular disease (2.13 [1.29-3.50]) and NYHA class III-IV (1.89 [1.25-2.85]); all p < 0.05.

CONCLUSION

Level of adherence to guidelines is associated with outcomes, with intolerant/contraindicated patients having the worst prognosis and those undertreated and in-titration at intermediate risk compared to those optimized. Up-titration of therapy should be attempted whenever possible, considering patients' limitations, to potentially improve outcomes.

Medical Treatment of Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction in the Elderly

The aging population, higher burden of predisposing conditions and comorbidities along with improvements in therapy all contribute to the growing prevalence of heart failure (HF). Although the majority of trials have not demonstrated age-dependent heterogeneity in the efficacy or safety of medical treatment for HF, the latest trials demonstrate that older participants are less likely to receive established drug therapies for HF with reduced ejection fraction. There remains reluctance in real-world clinical practice to prescribe and up-titrate these medications in older people, possibly because of (mis)understanding about lower tolerance and greater propensity for developing adverse drug reactions. This is compounded by difficulties in the management of multiple medications, patient preferences and other non-medical considerations. Future research should provide a more granular analysis on how to approach medical and device therapies in elderly patients, with consideration of biological differences, difficulties in care delivery and issues relevant to patients’ values and perspectives. A variety of approaches are needed, with the central principle being to ‘add years to life – and life to years’. These include broader representation of elderly HF patients in clinical trials, improved education of healthcare professionals, wider provision of specialised centres for multidisciplinary HF management and stronger implementation of HF medical treatment in vulnerable patient groups.

Perceived risk profile and treatment optimization in heart failure: an analysis from BIOlogy Study to TAilored Treatment in chronic heart failure

Background

Achieving target doses of angiotensin‐converting‐enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin‐receptor blockers (ACEi/ARB) and beta‐blockers in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is often underperformed. In BIOlogy Study to TAilored Treatment in chronic heart failure (BIOSTAT‐CHF) study, many patients were not up‐titrated for which no clear reason was reported. Therefore, we hypothesized that perceived‐risk profile might influence treatment optimization.

Methods

We studied 2100 patients with HFrEF (LVEF≤40%) to compare the clinical characteristics and adverse events associated with treatment up‐titration (after a 3‐month titration protocol) between; a) patients not reaching target doses for unclear reason; b) patients not reaching target doses due to symptoms and/or side effects; c) patients reaching target doses.

Results

For ACEi/ARB, (a), (b) and (c) was observed in 51.3%, 25.9% and 22.7% of patients, respectively. For beta‐blockers, (a), (b) and (c) was observed in 67.5%, 20.2% and 12.3% of patients, respectively. By multinomial logistic regression analysis for ACEi/ARB, patients in group (a) and (b) had lower blood pressure and poorer renal function, and patients in group (a) were older and had lower ejection fraction. For beta‐blockers, patients in group (a) and (b) had more severe congestion and lower heart rate. At 9 months, adverse events (i.e., hypotension, bradycardia, renal impairment, and hyperkalemia) occurred similarly among the three groups.

Conclusions

Patients in whom clinicians did not give a reason why up‐titration was missed were older and had more co‐morbidities. Patients in whom up‐titration was achieved did not have excess adverse events. However, from these observational findings, the pattern of subsequent adverse events among patients in whom up‐titration was missed cannot be determined.

Reappraisal on pharmacological and mechanical treatments of heart failure

Heart failure (HF) is a highly frequent disorder with considerable morbidity, hospitalization, and mortality; thus, it invariably places pressure on clinical and public health systems in the modern world. There have been notable advances in the definition, diagnosis, and treatment of HF, and newly developed agents and devices have been widely adopted in clinical practice. Here, this review first summarizes the current emerging therapeutic agents, including pharmacotherapy, device-based therapy, and the treatment of some common comorbidities, to improve the prognosis of HF patients. Then, we discuss and point out the commonalities and areas for improvement in current clinical studies of HF. Finally, we highlight the gaps in HF research. We are looking forward to a bright future with reduced morbidity and mortality from HF.

Heart failure treatment up-titration and outcome and age: an analysis of BIOSTAT-CHF

AIMS

Several studies have shown that older patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are undertreated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association of up-titration of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) and beta-blockers on outcome across the age spectrum in HFrEF patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We analysed HFrEF patients on sub-optimal doses of ACEI/ARB and/or beta-blockers from the BIOSTAT-CHF study stratified by age. Patients underwent a 3-month up-titration period. We used inverse probability weighting to adjust for the likelihood of successful up-titration to determine the association of achieved dose with mortality and/or heart failure hospitalisation, testing for an interaction with age. Over a median follow-up of 21 months in 1720 HFrEF patients (76.5% male, mean age 67 years), the primary outcome occurred in 558 patients. Increased percentage of target dose of ACEI/ARB and beta-blocker achieved at 3 months were both significantly associated with reduced incidence of the primary outcome, [ACEI-ARB: hazard ratio (HR) per 12.5% increase in dose: 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91-0.94, P < 0.001; beta-blocker: HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.95-1.00, P = 0.046], with a significant interaction with age seen for beta-blockers but not ACEI/ARB (P = 0.034 and P = 0.22, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Achieving higher doses of ACEI/ARB was associated with improved outcome regardless of age. However, achieving higher doses of beta-blockers was only associated with improved outcome in younger, but not in older patients.

Perioperative management of patients with coronary artery disease undergoing non-cardiac surgery: Summary from the French Society of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine 2017 convention

This review summarises the specific stakes of preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative periods of patients with coronary artery disease undergoing non-cardiac surgery. All practitioners involved in the perioperative management of such high cardiac risk patients should be aware of the modern concepts expected to decrease major adverse cardiac events and improve short- and long-term outcomes. A multidisciplinary approach via a functional heart team including anaesthesiologists, cardiologists and surgeons must be encouraged. Rational and algorithm-guided management of those patients should be known and implemented from preoperative to postoperative period.

Protective effects of Nebivolol against interleukin-1β (IL-1β)-induced type II collagen destruction mediated by matrix metalloproteinase-13 (MMP-13)

The pathological progression of osteoarthritis (OA) involves degradation of articular cartilage matrix. Type II collagen is the main component of cartilage matrix, which is degraded by pro-inflammatory cytokines such as IL-1β mediated by MMP-13. Nebivolol, a licensed drug used for the treatment of hypertension in clinics, displays its anti-inflammatory capacity in various conditions. However, whether Nebivolol has a protective effect on cartilage matrix degradation has not been reported before. In this study, we investigated the effects of Nebivolol on regulating the expression of MMP-13 and degradation of type II collagen. Our results indicate that Nebivolol alleviated the increase in gene expression, protein expression, and activity of MMP-13 induced by IL-1β. Importantly, IL-1β strikingly reduced the levels of type II collagen in cell culture supernatants, which was reversed by treatment with Nebivolol in a dose-dependent manner. Mechanistically, Nebivolol was found to alleviate the increased levels of phosphorylated IκBα and reduced levels of total IκBα induced by IL-1β, which subsequently mitigated p65 nuclear translocation and the transcriptional activity of NF-κB. Furthermore, our results indicated that IL-1β treatment resulted in a significant increase in expression of the transcriptional factor interferon regulatory factor-1 (IRF-1) at both the mRNA and protein levels, which was significantly ameliorated by treatment with Nebivolol. The combination of these findings suggests that Nebivolol can potentially be applied in human OA treatment.

Heart Rate and Rhythm and the Benefit of Beta-Blockers in Patients With Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

The relationship between mortality and heart rate remains unclear for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in either sinus rhythm or atrial fibrillation (AF).

OBJECTIVES

This analysis explored the prognostic importance of heart rate in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in randomized controlled trials comparing beta-blockers and placebo.

METHODS

The Beta-Blockers in Heart Failure Collaborative Group performed a meta-analysis of harmonized individual patient data from 11 double-blind randomized controlled trials. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, analyzed with Cox proportional hazard ratios (HR) modeling heart rate measured at baseline and approximately 6 months post-randomization.

RESULTS

A higher heart rate at baseline was associated with greater all-cause mortality for patients in sinus rhythm (n = 14,166; adjusted HR: 1.11 per 10 beats/min; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.07 to 1.15; p < 0.0001) but not in AF (n = 3,034; HR: 1.03 per 10 beats/min; 95% CI: 0.97 to 1.08; p = 0.38). Beta-blockers reduced ventricular rate by 12 beats/min in both sinus rhythm and AF. Mortality was lower for patients in sinus rhythm randomized to beta-blockers (HR: 0.73 vs. placebo; 95% CI: 0.67 to 0.79; p < 0.001), regardless of baseline heart rate (interaction p = 0.35). Beta-blockers had no effect on mortality in patients with AF (HR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.81 to 1.12; p = 0.58) at any heart rate (interaction p = 0.48). A lower achieved resting heart rate, irrespective of treatment, was associated with better prognosis only for patients in sinus rhythm (HR: 1.16 per 10 beats/min increase, 95% CI: 1.11 to 1.22; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Regardless of pre-treatment heart rate, beta-blockers reduce mortality in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in sinus rhythm. Achieving a lower heart rate is associated with better prognosis, but only for those in sinus rhythm.

Beta blocker dose and markers of sympathetic activation in heart failure patients: interrelationships and prognostic significance

Aims

Extent of cardiac sympathetic activation can be estimated from physiological parameters, blood biomarkers, and imaging findings. This study examined the prognostic value of three markers of sympathetic activity and their relationship to beta blocker dose in heart failure patients.

Methods and results

A post hoc analysis of 858 heart failure subjects in the ADMIRE‐HF trial was performed. Variables related to sympathetic activity were plasma norepinephrine, baseline heart rate, the heart to mediastinum (H/M) ratio of ¹²³I‐mIBG uptake, and beta blocker dose. Univariate and multivariate analyses for occurrence of mortality (all‐cause and cardiac) and arrhythmic events were performed. Beta blocker dose was significantly related to age, heart rate, b‐type natriuretic peptide (negatively), body mass index, body weight and plasma norepinephrine. Univariate predictors of all‐cause and cardiac mortality were baseline heart rate (χ² = 4.5, P = 0.029 and χ² = 5 .2, P = 0.022, respectively), plasma norepinephrine level (χ² = 8.9, P = 0.0006 and χ² = 8.6, P = 0.003, respectively), and H/M (χ = 22.4, P < 0.0001 and χ² = 17.8, P < 0.0001, respectively). In multivariate analyses, carvedilol‐equivalent dose (P = 0.017), plasma norepinephrine (P = 0.002), and H/M (P = 0.0001) were significant predictors of all‐cause mortality. In separate analyses using multiple measurements of heart rate, mean heart rate >67 b.p.m. was associated with significantly higher cardiac mortality.

Conclusions

Higher beta blocker dose was associated with lower mortality, but of the variables associated with sympathetic activity examined, cardiac ¹²³I‐mIBG uptake was the most powerful prognostic marker in heart failure patients. Elevated heart rate was associated with greater risk for cardiac death.

Optimized management of heart failure patients aged 80 years or more improves outcomes versus usual care: The HF80 randomized trial

BACKGROUND

The prevalence and incidence of heart failure (HF) in elderly patients are increasing worldwide. Management of HF with reduced ejection fraction (HF-REF) in patients aged 80 years or more follows international guidelines, despite the lack of a dedicated study in this frail population.

AIMS

To determine whether optimized management of HF-REF in patients aged 80 years or more can improve quality of life at 6 months.

METHODS

Patients aged 80 years or more hospitalized for acute HF-REF were randomized prospectively into an optimized group or a control group (usual care). All patients benefitted from the same in-hospital management. Optimized group patients were also managed at 3, 6 and 9 weeks, and 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after initial hospitalization, to optimize HF-REF treatment. The primary endpoint was quality of life at 6 months.

RESULTS

The trial was stopped prematurely, according to prespecified rules and an independent data monitoring board, after 34 patients were included (n=17 in each group). There was no difference in quality of life at baseline and at 6 months between the two groups (P=0.14 and 0.64, respectively), although a significant improvement was observed between baseline and 6 months in the optimized group compared with the control group: -20.2±25.2 (P=0.01) versus -9.9±19.0 (P=0.19). Mortality at 12 months was lower in the optimized group (17.7% vs 47.1%; P=0.03). There was no increase in acute renal failure, hyperkalaemia or falls in the optimized group (P=0.49, 1 and 1, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Optimizing the management of HF-REF in patients aged 80 years or more, according to the modalities of the HF80 study, seems to be both effective and safe.

A Review of the External Validity of Clinical Trials with Beta-Blockers in Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

Beta-blockers (BBs) are the mainstay prognostic medication for all stages of chronic heart failure (CHF). There are many classes of BBs, each of which has varying levels of evidence to support its efficacy in CHF. However, most CHF patients have one or more comorbid conditions such as diabetes, renal impairment, and/or atrial fibrillation. Patient enrollment to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) often excludes those with certain comorbidities, particularly if the symptoms are severe. Consequently, the extent to which evidence drawn from RCTs is generalizable to CHF patients has not been well described. Clinical guidelines also underrepresent this point by providing generic advice for all patients. The aim of this review is to examine the evidence to support the use of BBs in CHF patients with common comorbid conditions.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, and the reference lists of reviews for RCTs, post hoc analyses, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses that report on use of BBs in CHF along with patient demographics and comorbidities.

RESULTS

In total, 38 studies from 28 RCTs were identified, which provided data on six BBs against placebo or head to head with another BB agent in ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathies. Several studies explored BBs in older patients. Female patients and non-Caucasian race were underrepresented in trials. End points were cardiovascular hospitalization and mortality. Comorbid diabetes, renal impairment, or atrial fibrillation was detailed; however, no reference to disease spectrum or management goals as a focus could be seen in any of the studies. In this sense, enrollment may have limited more severe grades of these comorbidities.

CONCLUSIONS

RCTs provide authoritative information for a spectrum of CHF presentations that support guidelines. RCTs may provide inadequate information for more heterogeneous CHF patient cohorts. Greater Phase IV research may be needed to fill this gap and inform guidelines for a more global patient population.

Effect of Beta-Blocker Dose on Survival After Acute Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND

Beta-blocker therapy after acute myocardial infarction (MI) improves survival. Beta-blocker doses used in clinical practice are often substantially lower than those used in the randomized trials establishing their efficacy.

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated the association of beta-blocker dose with survival after acute MI, hypothesizing that higher dose beta-blocker therapy will be associated with increased survival.

METHODS

A multicenter registry enrolled 7,057 consecutive patients with acute MI. Discharge beta-blocker dose was indexed to the target beta-blocker doses used in randomized clinical trials, grouped as >0% to 12.5%, >12.5% to 25%, >25% to 50%, and >50% of target dose. Follow-up vital status was assessed, with the primary endpoint of time-to-death right-censored at 2 years. Multivariable and propensity score analyses were used to account for group differences.

RESULTS

Of 6,682 patients with follow-up (median 2.1 years), 91.5% were discharged on a beta-blocker (mean dose 38.1% of the target dose). Lower mortality was observed with all beta-blocker doses (p < 0.0002) versus no beta-blocker therapy. After multivariable adjustment, hazard ratios for 2-year mortality compared with the >50% dose were 0.862 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.677 to 1.098), 0.799 (95% CI: 0.635 to 1.005), and 0.963 (95% CI: 0.765 to 1.213) for the >0% to 12.5%, >12.5% to 25%, and >25% to 50% of target dose groups, respectively. Multivariable analysis with an extended set of covariates and propensity score analysis also demonstrated that higher doses were not associated with better outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

These data do not demonstrate increased survival in patients treated with beta-blocker doses approximating those used in previous randomized clinical trials compared with lower doses. These findings provide the rationale to re-engage in research to establish appropriate beta-blocker dosing after MI to derive optimal benefit from this therapy. (The PACE-MI Registry Study-Outcomes of Beta-blocker Therapy After Myocardial Infarction [OBTAIN]: NCT00430612).

Tolerability and Feasibility of Beta-Blocker Titration in HFpEF Versus HFrEF: Insights From the CIBIS-ELD Trial

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated the tolerability and feasibility of titration of 2 distinctly acting beta-blockers (BB) in elderly heart failure patients with preserved (HFpEF) and reduced (HFrEF) left ventricular ejection fraction.

BACKGROUND

Broad evidence supports the use of BB in HFrEF, whereas the evidence for beta blockade in HFpEF is uncertain.

METHODS

In the CIBIS-ELD (Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol Study in Elderly) trial, patients >65 years of age with HFrEF (n = 626) or HFpEF (n = 250) were randomized to bisoprolol or carvedilol. Both BB were up-titrated to the target or maximum tolerated dose. Follow-up was performed after 12 weeks. HFrEF and HFpEF patients were compared regarding tolerability and clinical effects (heart rate, blood pressure, systolic and diastolic functions, New York Heart Association functional class, 6-minute-walk distance, quality of life, and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide).

RESULTS

For both of the BBs, tolerability and daily dose at 12 weeks were similar. HFpEF patients demonstrated higher rates of dose escalation delays and treatment-related side effects. Similar HR reductions were observed in both groups (HFpEF: 6.6 beats/min; HFrEF: 6.9 beats/min, p = NS), whereas greater improvement in NYHA functional class was observed in HFrEF (HFpEF: 23% vs. HFrEF: 34%, p < 0.001). Mean E/e' and left atrial volume index did not change in either group, although E/A increased in HFpEF.

CONCLUSIONS

BB tolerability was comparable between HFrEF and HFpEF. Relevant reductions of HR and blood pressure occurred in both groups. However, only HFrEF patients experienced considerable improvements in clinical parameters and left ventricular function. Interestingly, beta-blockade had no effect on established and prognostic markers of diastolic function in either group. Long-term studies using modern diagnostic criteria for HFpEF are urgently needed to establish whether BB therapy exerts significant clinical benefit in HFpEF. (Comparison of Bisoprolol and Carvedilol in Elderly Heart Failure [HF]

PATIENTS

A Randomised, Double-Blind Multicentre Study [CIBIS-ELD]; ISRCTN34827306).

A Review of Nebivolol Pharmacology and Clinical Evidence

Nebivolol is a highly selective β1-adrenergic receptor antagonist with a pharmacologic profile that differs from those of other drugs in its class. In addition to cardioselectivity mediated via β1 receptor blockade, nebivolol induces nitric oxide-mediated vasodilation by stimulating endothelial nitric oxide synthase via β3 agonism. This vasodilatory mechanism is distinct from those of other vasodilatory β-blockers (carvedilol, labetalol), which are mediated via α-adrenergic receptor blockade. Nebivolol is approved for the treatment of hypertension in the US, and for hypertension and heart failure in Europe. While β-blockers are not recommended within the current US guidelines as first-line therapy for treatment of essential hypertension, nebivolol has shown comparable efficacy to currently recommended therapies in lowering peripheral blood pressure in adults with hypertension with a very low rate of side effects. Nebivolol also has beneficial effects on central blood pressure compared with other β-blockers. Clinical data also suggest that nebivolol may be useful in patients who have experienced erectile dysfunction while on other β-blockers. Here we review the pharmacological profile of nebivolol, the clinical evidence supporting its use in hypertension as monotherapy, add-on, and combination therapy, and the data demonstrating its positive effects on heart failure and endothelial dysfunction.

Effect on mode of death of heart failure treatment started with bisoprolol followed by Enalapril, compared to the opposite order: results of the randomized CIBIS III trial

BACKGROUND

Mode of death in chronic heart failure (CHF) may be of relevance to choice of therapy for this condition. Sudden death is particularly common in patients with early and/or mild/moderate CHF. β-Blockade may provide better protection against sudden death than ACE inhibition (ACEI) in this setting.

METHODS

We randomized 1010 patients with mild or moderate, stable CHF and left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%, without ACEI, β-blocker or angiotensin-receptor-blocker therapy, to either bisoprolol (n = 505) or enalapril (n = 505) for 6 months, followed by their combination for 6-24 months. The two strategies were blindly compared regarding adjudicated mode of death, including sudden death and progressive pump failure death.

RESULTS

During the monotherapy phase, 8 of 23 deaths in the bisoprolol-first group were sudden, compared to 16 of 32 in the enalapril-first group: hazard ratio (HR) for sudden death 0.50; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21-1.16; P= 0.107. At 1 year, 16 of 42 versus 29 of 60 deaths were sudden: HR 0.54; 95% CI 0.29-1.00; P= 0.049. At study end, 29 of 65 versus 34 of 73 deaths were sudden: HR 0.84; 95% CI 0.51-1.38; P= 0.487. Comparable figures for pump failure death were: monotherapy, 7 of 23 deaths versus 2 of 32: HR 3.43; 95% CI 0.71-16.53; P= 0.124, at 1 year, 13 of 42 versus 5 of 60: HR 2.57; 95% CI 0.92-7.20; P= 0.073, at study end, 17 of 65 versus 7 of 73: HR 2.39; 95% CI 0.99-5.75; P= 0.053. There were no significant between-group differences in any other fatal events.

CONCLUSION

Initiating therapy with bisoprolol compared to enalapril decreased the risk of sudden death during the first year in this mild systolic CHF cohort. This was somewhat offset by an increase in pump failure deaths in the bisoprolol-first cohort.

Outpatient management of chronic heart failure

INTRODUCTION

Heart failure (HF) treatment attracts a share of intensive research because of its poor HF prognosis. In the past decades, the prognosis of HF has improved considerably, mainly as a consequence of the progress that has been made in the pharmacological management of HF.

AREAS COVERED

This article reviews the outpatient pharmacological management of chronic HF due to left ventricular systolic dysfunction and offers recommendations on the use of various drugs. In addition, the present article attempts to provide practical therapeutic algorithms based on current clinical strategies.

EXPERT OPINION

Continued research directed toward identifying factors associated with high pharmacotherapy guideline adherence and understanding of variants that influence response to drugs will hopefully halt or reverse the major pathophysiological mechanisms involved in this syndrome.

Nebivolol protects against myocardial infarction injury via stimulation of beta 3-adrenergic receptors and nitric oxide signaling

Nebivolol, third-generation β-blocker, may activate β3-adrenergic receptor (AR), which has been emerged as a novel and potential therapeutic targets for cardiovascular diseases. However, it is not known whether nebivolol administration plays a cardioprotective effect against myocardial infarction (MI) injury. Therefore, the present study was designed to clarify the effects of nebivolol on MI injury and to elucidate the underlying mechanism. MI model was constructed by left anterior descending (LAD) artery ligation. Nebivolol, β3-AR antagonist (SR59230A), Nitro-L-arginine methylester (L-NAME) or vehicle was administered for 4 weeks after MI operation. Cardiac function was monitored by echocardiography. Moreover, the fibrosis and the apoptosis of myocardium were assessed by Masson's trichrome stain and TUNEL assay respectively 4 weeks after MI. Nebivolol administration reduced scar area by 68% compared with MI group (p<0.05). Meanwhile, nebivolol also decreased the myocardial apoptosis and improved the heart function after MI (p<0.05 vs. MI). These effects were associated with increased β3-AR expression. Moreover, nebivolol treatment significantly increased the phosphorylation of endothelial NOS (eNOS) and the expression of neuronal NOS (nNOS). Conversely, the cardiac protective effects of nebivolol were abolished by SR and L-NAME. These results indicate that nebivolol protects against MI injury. Furthermore, the cardioprotective effects of nebivolol may be mediated by β3-AR-eNOS/nNOS pathway.

Heart rate: a prognostic factor and therapeutic target in chronic heart failure. The distinct roles of drugs with heart rate-lowering properties

Heart rate not only predicts outcome but may also be a therapeutic target in patients with chronic heart failure. Several classes of pharmacological agents can be used to modulate heart rate, including beta-blockers, ivabradine, digoxin, amiodarone, and verapamil. Choice of agent will depend on heart rhythm, co-morbidities, and disease phenotype. Beneficial and harmful interactions may also exist. The aim of this paper is to summarize the current body of knowledge regarding the relevance of heart rate as a prognostic factor (risk marker) and particularly as a therapeutic target (risk factor) in patients with chronic heart failure, with a special focus on ivabradine, a novel agent that is currently the only available purely bradycardic agent.

Individual patient data meta-analysis of beta-blockers in heart failure: rationale and design

The Beta-Blockers in Heart Failure Collaborative Group (BB-HF) was formed to obtain and analyze individual patient data from the major randomized controlled trials of beta-blockers in heart failure. Even though beta-blockers are an established treatment for heart failure, uptake is still sub-optimal. Further, the balance of efficacy and safety remains uncertain for common groups including older persons, women, those with impaired renal function and diabetes. Our aim is to provide clinicians with a thorough and definitive evidence-based assessment of these agents. We have identified 11 large randomized trials of beta-blockers versus placebo in heart failure and plan to meta-analyze the data on an individual patient level. In total, these trials have enrolled 18,630 patients. Uniquely, the BB-HF group has secured access to the individual data for all of these trials, with the participation of key investigators and pharmaceutical companies.Our principal objectives include deriving an overall estimate of efficacy for all-cause mortality and cardiovascular hospitalization. Importantly, we propose a statistically-robust sub-group assessment according to age, gender, diabetes and other key factors; analyses which are only achievable using an individual patient data meta-analysis. Further, we aim to provide an assessment of economic benefit and develop a risk model for the prognosis of patients with chronic heart failure.This paper outlines inclusion criteria, search strategies, outcome measures and planned statistical analyses.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION

http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00832442.

Safety and tolerability of once-daily controlled-release carvedilol 10-80 mg in Japanese patients with chronic heart failure

BACKGROUND

The aim of the present study was to assess the safety and tolerability of the controlled-release (CR) formulation of the β-blocker carvedilol in Japanese patients with chronic heart failure (HF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

In this multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase I/II dose-escalation study, 41 patients receiving standard therapy for chronic HF were randomized in a ratio of 1:1 to carvedilol CR or immediate-release (IR) carvedilol. The primary objective was to evaluate the tolerability and safety of escalating doses of carvedilol CR (10-40 mg/day), with a reference arm of 5-20 mg/day of carvedilol IR. In addition, the tolerability and safety of titration to a carvedilol CR dose up to 80 mg/day were examined, as were plasma concentrations of carvedilol and changes in vital signs. The proportions of patients who completed 40-mg/day carvedilol CR and 20-mg/day carvedilol IR were 42% (8/19) and 50% (11/22), respectively. In the CR group, 7/19 (37%) attained a dose of 80 mg. During the primary evaluation period, 7/19 (37%) and 4/22 (18%) patients experienced drug-related adverse events in the CR and IR groups, respectively, the characteristics of which were similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

No new safety issues emerged in Japanese chronic HF patients treated with carvedilol CR in contrast to those known in carvedilol IR.

Nebivolol for the treatment of heart failure

PURPOSE. The pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, safety, and place in therapy of nebivolol are reviewed. SUMMARY. Nebivolol, a third-generation, highly β(1)-specific β-blocker, is labeled for the treatment of hypertension in the United States. In addition to its β-blocking effects, nebivolol has been shown to increase endothelin-dependent nitric oxide, giving it a unique peripheral vasodilatory action. Nebivolol is extensively metabolized by cytochrome P-450 isoenzyme 2D6. In patients with heart failure, certain β-blockers antagonize excessive adrenergic stimulation and can slow the progression of the disease. Clinical trials have compared nebivolol at target dosages of 5 and 10 mg once daily with placebo and, in small trials, with carvedilol in the treatment of adults with chronic heart failure. Nebivolol appears to have beneficial effects in patients with heart failure, including improvements in left ventricular ejection fraction, left ventricular volumes, and exercise capacity. In addition, the Study of the Effects of Nebivolol Intervention on Outcomes and Rehospitalisation in Seniors with Heart Failure showed a reduction in morbidity and mortality after treatment with nebivolol when compared with placebo, though this effect appeared to be less than that of other β-blockers currently recommended for the treatment of heart failure. Nebivolol was well tolerated in all clinical trials, with the most frequently reported adverse events including bradycardia, hypotension, and dizziness. To date, no large clinical trials have compared nebivolol with currently recommended β-blockers in patients with heart failure. CONCLUSION. Nebivolol has beneficial effects in heart failure but cannot be considered equivalent to other currently accepted therapies.

Influence of order and type of drug (bisoprolol vs. enalapril) on outcome and adverse events in patients with chronic heart failure: a post hoc analysis of the CIBIS-III trial

AIMS

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-Is) and beta-blockers are associated with improved outcome in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). In this post hoc analysis of the CIBIS III trial, we examined the influence of the order of drug administration on clinical events and achieved dose. We also assessed the relations between dose levels and baseline variables or adverse events.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In the CIBIS III trial, 1010 patients (mean age: 72.4 years; mean ejection fraction: 28.8%; male: 68.2%) with stable CHF were randomized to up-titration of monotherapy with either bisoprolol (target dose 10 mg o.d.) or enalapril (target dose 10 mg b.i.d.) for 6 months, followed by their combination for 6-24 months. Endpoints were mortality or all-cause hospitalization, mortality alone and mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization. The study drug (ACE-I or beta-blocker) was last prescribed at ≥50% of target dose to significantly more patients for the first initiated drug in both treatment groups (both P< 0.001). Sixty per cent of endpoints were reached during the monotherapy phase and randomized treatment during monotherapy was not a predictor of the three assessed outcomes. Monotherapy phase was the strongest independent predictor of outcome (P< 0.0001 for all endpoints). Older age, NYHA class III, impaired renal function, lower body weight and blood pressure at baseline, and hypotension, bradycardia and heart failure during treatment were associated with the inability to reach high dose of both study drugs.

CONCLUSION

The order of drug administration plays an important role in whether CHF patients reach target doses of bisoprolol and enalapril. For both study drugs, the dose level reached was associated with baseline characteristics and adverse events. In CHF patients not treated with an ACE-I or a beta-blocker, the duration of monotherapy with either type of drug should be shorter than 6 months.

Titration to target dose of bisoprolol vs. carvedilol in elderly patients with heart failure: the CIBIS-ELD trial

Aims

Various beta-blockers with distinct pharmacological profiles are approved in heart failure, yet they remain underused and underdosed. Although potentially of major public health importance, whether one agent is superior in terms of tolerability and optimal dosing has not been investigated. The aim of this study was therefore to compare the tolerability and clinical effects of two proven beta-blockers in elderly patients with heart failure.

Methods and results

We performed a double-blind superiority trial of bisoprolol vs. carvedilol in 883 elderly heart failure patients with reduced or preserved left ventricular ejection fraction in 41 European centres. The primary endpoint was tolerability, defined as reaching and maintaining guideline-recommended target doses after 12 weeks treatment. Adverse events and clinical parameters of patient status were secondary endpoints. None of the beta-blockers was superior with regards to tolerability: 24% [95% confidence interval (CI) 20–28] of patients in the bisoprolol arm and 25% (95% CI 21–29) of patients in the carvedilol arm achieved the primary endpoint (P= 0.64). The use of bisoprolol resulted in greater reduction of heart rate (adjusted mean difference 2.1 b.p.m., 95% CI 0.5–3.6, P= 0.008) and more, dose-limiting, bradycardic adverse events (16 vs. 11%; P= 0.02). The use of carvedilol led to a reduction of forced expiratory volume (adjusted mean difference 50 mL, 95% CI 4–95, P= 0.03) and more, non-dose-limiting, pulmonary adverse events (10 vs. 4%; P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Overall tolerability to target doses was comparable. The pattern of intolerance, however, was different: bradycardia occurred more often in the bisoprolol group, whereas pulmonary adverse events occurred more often in the carvedilol group.

This study is registered with controlled-trials.com, number ISRCTN34827306.

Beta-blockers in hypertension

Beta blockers have been used in the treatment of cardiovascular conditions for decades. Despite a long history and status as a guideline-recommended treatment option for hypertension, recent meta-analyses have brought into question whether β blockers are still an appropriate therapy given outcomes data from other antihypertensive drug classes. However, β blockers are a heterogenous class of agents with diverse pharmacologic and physiologic properties. Much of the unfavorable data revealed in the recent meta-analyses were gleaned from studies involving nonvasodilating, traditional β blockers, such as atenolol. However, findings with traditional β blockers may not be extrapolated to other members of the class, particularly those agents with vasodilatory activity. Vasodilatory β blockers (i.e., carvedilol and nebivolol) reduce blood pressure in large part through reducing systemic vascular resistance rather than by decreasing cardiac output, as is observed with traditional β blockers. Vasodilating ability may also ameliorate some of the concerns associated with traditional β blockade, such as the adverse effects on metabolic and lipid parameters, including an increased risk for new-onset diabetes. Furthermore, vasodilating ability is physiologically relevant and important in treating a condition with common co-morbidities involving metabolic and lipid abnormalities such as hypertension. In patients with hypertension and diabetes or coronary artery disease, vasodilating β blockers provide effective blood pressure control with neutral or beneficial effects on important parameters for the co-morbid disease. In conclusion, it is time for a reexamination of the clinical evidence for the use of β blockers in hypertension, recognizing that there are patients for whom β blockers, particularly those with vasodilatory actions, are an appropriate treatment option.

Clinical and economic aspects of the use of nebivolol in the treatment of elderly patients with heart failure

Heart failure is a common and disabling condition with morbidity and mortality that increase dramatically with advancing age. Large observational studies, retrospective subgroup analyses and meta-analyses of clinical trials in systolic heart failure, and recently published randomized studies have provided data supporting the use of beta-blockers as a baseline therapy in heart failure in the elderly. Despite the available evidence about beta-blockers, this therapy is still less frequently used in elderly compared to younger patients. Nebivolol is a third-generation cardioselective beta-blocker with L-arginine/nitric oxide-induced vasodilatory properties, approved in Europe and several other countries for the treatment of essential hypertension, and in Europe for the treatment of stable, mild, or moderate chronic heart failure, in addition to standard therapies in elderly patients aged 70 years old or older. The effects of nebivolol on left ventricular function in elderly patients with chronic heart failure (ENECA) and the study of effects of nebivolol intervention on outcomes and rehospitalization in seniors with heart failure (SENIORS) have been specifically aimed to assess the efficacy of beta-blockade in elderly heart failure patients. The results of these two trials demonstrate that nebivolol is well tolerated and effective in reducing mortality and morbidity in older patients, and that the beneficial clinical effect is present also in patients with mildly reduced ejection fraction. Moreover, nebivolol appears to be significantly cost-effective when prescribed in these patients. However, further targeted studies are needed to better define the efficacy as well as safety profile in frail and older patients with comorbid diseases.

Treatment of systolic heart failure in the elderly: an evidence-based review

OBJECTIVE

To review relevant literature supporting the use of β-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), diuretics, digoxin, aldosterone antagonists, and vasodilators in the management of heart failure in an elderly patient population aged ≥65 years.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, EMBASE, and MEDLINE searches (January 1960-April 2010) were utilized to identify primary literature using the key terms heart failure, treatment, and elderly. Additionally, reference citations from publications identified were utilized, as well as the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Chronic Heart Failure in the Adult.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Primary and tertiary literature, including subgroup analyses, published in English and relating to the use of pharmacotherapy in the treatment of systolic heart failure in the elderly was reviewed.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The aging of the US population is creating a higher prevalence of systolic heart failure in the elderly. Most clinical trials have established the mortality and morbidity benefit of pharmacotherapy in heart failure in nonelderly patients; however, the current ACC/AHA guidelines do not clearly delineate this benefit in persons ≥65 years of age.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical trial data, based on limited numbers of individuals aged ≥65 years, suggest that use of β-blockers, ACE inhibitors, ARBs, aldosterone antagonists, and vasodilators (hydralazine/nitrates) have similar mortality benefit to that observed in younger patients. As supported in the ACC/AHA guidelines, these agents should be prescribed with clinical judgment to all elderly patients, with close monitoring for adverse events. Future clinical trials with greater inclusion of patients ≥65 years will help to elucidate the magnitude of benefits of optimal pharmacotherapy on mortality and morbidity rates in this population.

beta-Blocker use following myocardial infarction: low prevalence of evidence-based dosing

BACKGROUND

Quality improvement programs have shown increased use of beta-blockers post-myocardial infarction (MI), but there are no data on whether appropriate doses are administered.

METHODS

In a prospective registry that enrolled consecutive patients with MI, we evaluated beta-blocker dosing at discharge after MI and 3 weeks later and assessed clinical predictors for treatment with very low doses. We studied 1,971 patients (70.8% male) with a mean age of 63.9 +/- 13.7 years, of whom 48.2% had an ST-elevation MI.

RESULTS

beta-Blocker utilization rates following MI were 93.2% at discharge: 20.1% received <25% of target dose, 36.5% received 25% of target dose, 26.4% received 26% to 50% of target dose, and 17.0% received >50% of target dose. Between discharge and 3 weeks, 76.4% had no change in beta-blocker dose, with 11.9% and 11.6% having their dose reduced and increased, respectively. Absence of hypertension, acute percutaneous coronary intervention, older age, and no angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor therapy were consistent predictors of treatment with very low beta-blocker doses.

CONCLUSIONS

Underdosing of beta-blockers is highly prevalent among patients post-MI. This represents an important opportunity in quality improvement for the care of patients who have suffered an MI.

Influence of diabetes mellitus and hyperglycemia on prognosis in patients > or =70 years old with heart failure and effects of nebivolol (data from the Study of Effects of Nebivolol Intervention on Outcomes and Rehospitalization in Seniors with heart failure [SENIORS])

The beneficial effects of beta blockers in younger patients with heart failure (HF) due to systolic dysfunction are well established. However, data from patients > or =70 years old with diabetes mellitus and HF are lacking. The Study of Effects of Nebivolol Intervention on Outcomes and Rehospitalization in Seniors with heart failure [SENIORS] tested the efficacy of the vasodilator beta blocker nebivolol in patients > or =70 years old with HF and impaired or preserved left ventricular ejection fraction. In the present analysis, we evaluated the association between diabetes mellitus and baseline glucose levels on the primary outcome (all-cause mortality and cardiovascular hospitalization) and secondary end points, including all-cause mortality, cardiovascular hospitalizations, and cardiovascular mortality. Of 2,128 patients, 555 (26.1%) had diabetes mellitus. Of the 555 patients with diabetes mellitus, 223 (40.2%) experienced the primary end point compared to 484 (30.8%) of the 1,573 nondiabetic patients (p <0.001). For the nondiabetic patients, the rate of the primary outcome for placebo compared to nebivolol was 33.7% for the placebo group and 27.8% for the nebivolol group (hazard ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.65 to 0.93; p = 0.006). In the diabetic subset, the rate was 40.3% for the placebo group and 40.1% for the nebivolol group (hazard ratio 1.04, 95% confidence interval 0.80 to 1.35, p = 0.773). The subgroup interaction p value was 0.073. The baseline glucose levels in the nondiabetic patients did not significantly affect the outcomes. The effect of diabetes mellitus on outcome was independent of the left ventricular ejection fraction and was most pronounced in those with HF due to a nonischemic etiology. In conclusion, in patients > or =70 years old with HF, diabetes mellitus was associated with a worse prognosis. Nebivolol was less effective in the patients with diabetes and HF than in those with HF but without diabetes who were > or =70 years old.

Nebivolol in chronic heart failure: current evidence and future perspectives

IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD

Chronic activation of the sympathetic nervous system leads to deterioration of cardiovascular function in heart failure patients. In systolic heart failure, beta-blockers were proven to be effective in decreasing the number of deaths and improving morbidity. However, beta-blockers are a heterogeneous drug group, consisting of agents with different selectivity for adrenergic receptors and/or additional effects in heart or peripheral circulation.

AREAS COVERED IN THE REVIEW

We describe the role of the sympathetic nervous system, beta-blockers and specifically nebivolol in chronic heart failure.

WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN

Nebivolol is a third-generation beta-blocker, with high beta(1)/beta(2) selectivity. Moreover, it has important vasodilating properties, by stimulating the production of nitric oxide. Smaller studies have already shown beneficial effects of nebivolol treatment on surrogate end points in heart failure patients. The recently published SENIORS (Phase III) study in an elderly heart failure population demonstrated a decreased number of clinical events in patients treated with nebivolol. Importantly, this effect was observed in patients with both impaired and preserved left ventricular systolic function.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE

Specific beta-blockers may have distinct effects in various subgroups of heart failure patients. So far, nebivolol is the only beta-blocker to have been shown effective in elderly heart failure patients, regardless of their left ventricular ejection fraction.

Current treatment of chronic heart failure in primary care; still room for improvement

RATIONAL AND AIMS: In recent years, guidelines for treatment of patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) have been updated. Insight in current pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment of CHF in primary care, which was non-optimal in earlier studies, is limited. We aim to describe current pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment of CHF in primary care.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional observational study, we included a representative sample of 357 patients diagnosed with CHF from 42 primary care practices in the Netherlands. We combined medical record data with data from patient and doctor questionnaires.

RESULTS

Mean age of patients was 75.7 years (SD 10.2), 53% were male, and 73% of patients had mild heart failure (New York Heart Association class I or II). 76.5% of patients received diuretics. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors were prescribed in 40.6% and angiotensin-II receptor blockers in 20.7%; beta-blockers were prescribed to 54.6%, while 24.9% received spironolactone. Patients with more severe heart failure had a lower probability of being treated according to guideline recommendations. Relevant lifestyle advice was given to 40-60% of the patients, depending on the specific lifestyle advice.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of evidence-based pharmacotherapy for heart failure in primary care has improved since clinical guidelines have been updated; especially with respect to prescription of beta-blockers. However, there still seems ample room for improvement, as in the case for providing lifestyle advice.

[Advantages of vasodilating beta-blockers in congestive heart failure]

Beta-blockers play a pivotal role in the treatment of chronic systolic heart failure. However, the pharmacological family of beta-blockers is inhomogeneous regarding their pharmacological properties and their clinical effects can differ substantially according to different pharmacological properties. Because of vasodilator effects, the third generation of beta-blockers has additional potential across the cardiovascular diseases, from hypertension to heart failure. Nebivololol has both high selectivity for beta1-adrenergic receptors, no intrinsic sympathetic activity and ability to stimulate endothelial nitric oxide production. Such properties result in specific hemodynamic effects compared with others beta-blockers. Such properties also result in both high tolerability and positive metabolic effects which are crucial in high-risk groups. In the SENIORS trial, nebivolol demonstrated its efficacy and high tolerability in elderly patients with chronic heart failure irrespective of the left ventricular ejection fraction. More clinical trials would be useful to exhibit specific benefits of nebivolol in other high-risk groups of patients.

Efficacy and safety of nebivolol in elderly heart failure patients with impaired renal function: insights from the SENIORS trial

AIM

To determine the safety and efficacy of nebivolol in elderly heart failure (HF) patients with renal dysfunction.

METHODS AND RESULTS

SENIORS recruited patients aged 70 years or older with symptomatic HF, irrespective of ejection fraction, and randomized them to nebivolol or placebo. Patients (n = 2112) were divided by tertile of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Mean age of patients was 76.1 years, 35% of patients had an ejection fraction of >35%, and 37% were women resulting in a unique cohort, far more representative of clinical practice than previous trials. eGFR was strongly associated with outcomes and nebivolol was similarly efficacious across eGFR tertiles. The primary outcome rate (all-cause mortality or cardiovascular hospital admission) and adjusted hazard ratio for nebivolol use in those with low eGFR was 40% and 0.84 (95% CI 0.67-1.07), 31% and 0.79 (0.60-1.04) in the middle tertile, and 29% and 0.86 (0.65-1.14) in the highest eGFR tertile. There was no interaction noted between renal function and the treatment effect (P = 0.442). Nebivolol use in patients with moderate renal impairment (eGFR <60) was not associated with major safety concerns, apart from higher rates of drug-discontinuation due to bradycardia.

CONCLUSION

Nebivolol is safe and has a similar effect in elderly HF patients with mild or moderate renal impairment.

Beta-blockade with nebivolol in elderly heart failure patients with impaired and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction: Data From SENIORS (Study of Effects of Nebivolol Intervention on Outcomes and Rehospitalization in Seniors With Heart Failure)

OBJECTIVES

In this pre-specified subanalysis of the SENIORS (Study of Effects of Nebivolol Intervention on Outcomes and Rehospitalization in Seniors With Heart Failure) trial, which examined the effects of nebivolol in elderly heart failure (HF) patients, we explored the effects of left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) on outcomes, including the subgroups impaired EF (< or =35%) and preserved EF (>35%).

BACKGROUND

Beta-blockers are established drugs in patients with HF and impaired EF, but their value in preserved EF is unclear.

METHODS

We studied 2,111 patients; 1,359 (64%) had impaired (< or =35%) EF (mean 28.7%) and 752 (36%) had preserved (>35%) EF (mean 49.2%). The effect of nebivolol was investigated in these 2 groups, and it was compared to explore the interaction of EF with outcome. Follow-up was 21 months; the primary end point was all-cause mortality or cardiovascular hospitalizations.

RESULTS

Patients with preserved EF were more often women (49.9% vs. 29.8%) and had less advanced HF, more hypertension, and fewer prior myocardial infarctions (all p < 0.001). During follow-up, the primary end point occurred in 465 patients (34.2%) with impaired EF and in 235 patients (31.2%) with preserved EF. The effect of nebivolol on the primary end point (hazard ratio [HR] of nebivolol vs. placebo) was 0.86 (95% confidence interval: 0.72 to 1.04) in patients with impaired EF and 0.81 (95% confidence interval: 0.63 to 1.04) in preserved EF (p = 0.720 for subgroup interaction). Effects on all secondary end points were similar between groups (HR for all-cause mortality 0.84 and 0.91, respectively), and no p value for interaction was <0.48.

CONCLUSIONS

The effect of beta-blockade with nebivolol in elderly patients with HF in this study was similar in those with preserved and impaired EF.

Nebivolol: a third-generation beta-blocker for hypertension

BACKGROUND

Nebivolol is a third-generation beta(1)-selective beta-blocker that is approved for the treatment of hypertension.

OBJECTIVE

This article reviews the clinical pharmacology of nebivolol and its efficacy and safety profile in clinical studies of hypertension (the US Food and Drug Administration-approved indication) and heart failure (off-label use).

METHODS

Pertinent articles were identified through searches of MEDLINE and Current Contents from 1966 through December 15, 2008, using the terms nebivolol, drug interaction, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacology. The reference lists of the identified publications were reviewed for additional references. Abstracts presented at meetings of the American Heart Association and the American Society of Hypertension from 2006 through 2008 were also reviewed. All human clinical trials were included, regardless of design.

RESULTS

Twelve published clinical trials were identified that evaluated the use of nebivolol in the management of hypertension; 1 was placebo controlled, 1 was placebo and active controlled, and 10 involved direct comparisons with other antihypertensive agents. Nebivolol was reported to be as effective in lowering blood pressure (BP) as other beta-blockers (atenolol and bisoprolol), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (lisinopril and enalapril), the angiotensin-receptor blocker telmisartan, and calcium channel blockers (nifedipine and amlodipine). No published studies were identified that evaluated the effect of nebivolol on long-term cardiovascular outcomes. In data from a study in heart failure, nebivolol was associated with a 14% reduction in all-cause mortality and cardiovascular hospitalization at 12 months (P < 0.05). In comparative clinical studies, nebivolol appeared to be well tolerated relative to the other antihypertensive agents studied. The most commonly reported adverse events with nebivolol were fatigue (4%-79%), headache (2%-24%), paresthesia (7%-13%), bradycardia (6%-11%), rhinitis (1%-7%), and dizziness (2%-5%). Because of differences in its pharmacologic properties, nebivolol may have potential advantages in patients who are unable to tolerate traditional beta-blockers (eg, patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or men who experience erectile dysfunction while taking antihypertensive therapy).

CONCLUSIONS

Nebivolol is a cardioselective beta-blocker that has been reported to be efficacious and well tolerated for achieving BP control in patients with hypertension. Preliminary evidence suggests a potential for reduced mortality in patients with heart failure.

Influence of gender of physicians and patients on guideline-recommended treatment of chronic heart failure in a cross-sectional study

AIMS

Clinical outcomes of patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) have improved, but evidence-based treatment appears to be imbalanced depending on patients' and physicians' gender. We aimed to determine the interactions of gender with medical treatment of CHF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Consecutive patients with CHF (n = 1857) were evaluated regarding co-morbidities, New York Heart Association classification, current medical treatment, and dosage of angiotensin-converting enzyme-inhibitors (ACE-Is) and beta-blockers. Gender of patients and treating physicians was recorded. Baseline characteristics of patients and physicians were comparable for males and females. Female patients were less frequently treated with ACE-Is, angiotensin-receptor blockers, or beta-blockers. Achieved doses were lower in female compared with male patients. Guideline-recommended drug use and achieved target doses tended to be higher in patients treated by female physicians. There was no different treatment for male or female patients by female physicians, whereas male physicians used significantly less medication and lower doses in female patients. In multivariable analysis, female gender of physicians was an independent predictor of use of beta-blockers.

CONCLUSION

Treatment of CHF is influenced by patients', but also physicians' gender with regard to evidenced-based drugs and their dosage. Physicians should be aware of this problem in order to avoid gender-related treatment imbalances.

Treatment of hypertension in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: role of the kidney

Heart failure can present clinically as primarily diastolic or systolic dysfunction or both. There is an increasing awareness that heart failure can occur in the presence of a normal left ventricular ejection fraction. Heart failure with normal left ventricular ejection fraction is frequently referred to as diastolic heart failure because of the presence of diastolic left ventricular dysfunction evident from impaired left ventricular relaxation. This article focuses on the treatment of hypertension and the role the kidney plays in selecting appropriate agents.