Dose-related effects of metoprolol on heart rate and pharmacokinetics in heart failure

Reappraising the role of inflammation in heart failure

The observation that heart failure with reduced ejection fraction is associated with elevated circulating levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines opened a new area of research that has revealed a potentially important role for the immune system in the pathogenesis of heart failure. However, until the publication in 2019 of the CANTOS trial findings on heart failure outcomes, all attempts to target inflammation in the heart failure setting in phase III clinical trials resulted in neutral effects or worsening of clinical outcomes. This lack of positive results in turn prompted questions on whether inflammation is a cause or consequence of heart failure. This Review summarizes the latest developments in our understanding of the role of the innate and adaptive immune systems in the pathogenesis of heart failure, and highlights the results of phase III clinical trials of therapies targeting inflammatory processes in the heart failure setting, such as anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory strategies. The most recent of these studies, the CANTOS trial, raises the exciting possibility that, in the foreseeable future, we might be able to identify those patients with heart failure who have a cardio-inflammatory phenotype and will thus benefit from therapies targeting inflammation.

Evaluating the Clinical Impact of Formulation Variability: A Metoprolol Extended-Release Case Study

The objective of this research was to evaluate the impact of changes in the formulation of metoprolol extended-release (ER) tablets on dissolution, pharmacokinetic, and exercise-induced heart rate (EIHR) using a combined physiologically based absorption pharmacokinetic, and population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling and simulation approach. Using a previously developed physiologically based absorption pharmacokinetic model in DDDPlus and GastroPlus, we simulated the changes in drug release and exposure as the result of quantitative changes in the release-controlling excipient, hydroxylpropylmethylcellulose, for 50 and 200 mg. The similarity of dissolution profiles was assessed using the f₂ test, and bioequivalence was tested on the simulated pharmacokinetic profiles. We used the simulated concentration-time profiles following formulation changes as pharmacokinetic input into a population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model newly developed in NONMEM to determine if changes in pharmacokinetics lead to clinically significant changes in pharmacodynamics. Pharmacodynamic assessment was based on the percentage reduction in the EIHR from baseline. Therapeutic effect was considered similar when the model-predicted EIHR was within 50% to 85% of the average maximum EIHR of healthy 30-year-old subjects. A 40% or more increase in the release rate constant resulted in dissimilarity in dissolution profiles and bioINequivalence in pharmacokinetics for both 50 and 200 mg. Formulation-related differences in drug release of metoprolol ER tablets can lead to differences in pharmacokinetics. However, the evaluated pharmacokinetic differences do not lead to clinically meaningful differences in EIHR, suggesting that EIHR may not be sensitive enough to detect changes in pharmacokinetics of metoprolol ER products.

Pharmacodynamics ofβ-Blockers in Heart Failure: Lessons from the Carvedilol Or Metoprolol European Trial

Heart failure is a growing public health problem in the United States, and the approach to the treatment of heart failure has undergone a radical transformation in the past decade. The use of β-blocker therapy in heart failure patients is now widely recommended, based on evidence from large-scale clinical trials demonstrating that bisoprolol, carvedilol, and extended-release metoprolol succinate significantly reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with heart failure. Although these agents appear to provide similar benefits, the question remains whether pharmacologic differences among them could translate to differences in clinical outcomes. The Carvedilol Or Metoprolol European Trial (COMET) compared nonselective blockade of the β1-/β2-/α1-adrenergic receptors with carvedilol versus selective β1-blockade with immediate-release metoprolol tartrate in patients with chronic heart failure. The trial found that carvedilol significantly reduced all-cause mortality compared with immediate-release metoprolol tartrate, although there were no differences in hospitalizations. Herein we review the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of metoprolol and carvedilol. In doing so, several issues regarding the design of COMET are identified that could alter the interpretation of the results of this trial. These include the choice of dose and dosage regimen of immediate-release metoprolol tartrate, a dosage form that has never been shown to reduce mortality in patients with heart failure. Additional studies are needed to fully understand whether there are any advantages of selective versus nonselective adrenergic blockade and whether there are any clinically meaningful differences in effectiveness between β-blockers with proven benefit in the management of chronic heart failure. The results of COMET demonstrate that all β-blockers and dosage forms are not interchangeable when prescribed for heart failure. Clinicians should choose only those agents (and dosage forms) that have been proven to reduce mortality in this patient population.

Analysis of therapeutic effect and safety of target-dose metoprolol in the treatment of patients with diabetes mellitus with chronic heart failure

Objective: To explore the therapeutic effect and safety of target-dose metoprolol in treating chronic heart failure (CHF) patients complicated with diabetes mellitus (DM).

Methods: One hundred and fifty-four elderly patients were randomly divided into an observation group and a control group (n=77), which were treated with target-dose metoprolol and conventional therapy, and routinely treated respectively. The New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification, left ventricular end-systolic diameter (LVESD), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), 6-min walking distance and medication safety of the two groups were compared.

Results: Compared with the results before treatment, the NYHA classification, LVESD, LVEDD, LVEF and 6-minutes walking distance of both groups were significantly improved (P<0.05), with significantly better results in the observation group than those in the control group after treatment (P<0.05). In the 6 months of follow-up, the incidence of cardiac events in the observation group (3.90%) was significantly lower than that of the control group (14.29%) (P<0.05). The levels of average fasting blood sugar and glycosylated hemoglobin in the groups showed no significant differences (P>0.05).

Conclusion: Treating CHF patients complicated with DM with target-dose metoprolol can obviously boost the cardiac function and exercise tolerance, leading to satisfactory clinical therapeutic effect, high security and moderate tolerance.

Atenolol is inferior to metoprolol in improving left ventricular function and preventing ventricular remodeling in dogs with heart failure

OBJECTIVES

beta-Blockers are standard therapy for patients with heart failure (HF). This study compared the effects of chronic monotherapy with 2 different beta(1)-selective adrenoceptor blockers, namely atenolol and metoprolol succinate, on left ventricular (LV) function and remodeling in dogs with coronary microembolization-induced HF [LV ejection fraction (EF) 30-40%].

METHODS

Twenty HF dogs were randomized to 3 months of therapy with atenolol (50 mg once daily, n = 6), metoprolol succinate (100 mg, once daily, n = 7) or to no therapy (control, n = 7). LV EF and volumes were measured before initiating therapy and after 3 months of therapy. The change (Delta) in EF and volumes between measurements before and after therapy was calculated and compared among study groups.

RESULTS

In controls, EF decreased and end-systolic volume increased. Atenolol prevented the decrease in EF and the increase in ESV. In contrast, metoprolol succinate significantly increased EF and decreased end-systolic volume. DeltaEF was significantly higher and Deltaend-systolic volume significantly lower in metoprolol succinate-treated dogs compared to atenolol-treated dogs (EF: 6.0 +/- 0.86% vs. 0.8 +/- 0.85%, p < 0.05; end-systolic volume: -4.3 +/- 0.81 ml vs. -1 +/- 0.52 ml, p <0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In HF dogs, chronic therapy with atenolol does not elicit the same LV function and remodeling benefits as those achieved with metoprolol succinate.

Do metoprolol and carvedilol have equivalent effects on diurnal heart rate in patients with chronic heart failure?

BACKGROUND

Carvedilol exerted a greater reduction in mortality than metoprolol tartrate in the Carvedilol or Metoprolol European Trial (COMET). However, it is unclear if the degree and time course of beta1-blockade during a 24-h period was similar with each agent at the doses used. Therefore we analyzed 24-h ECG Holter recordings from a study which compared the long-term clinical efficacy of metoprolol tartrate to carvedilol in chronic heart failure patients using the same dosing regimen as in COMET.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Fifty-one patients with chronic heart failure with a mean LVEF 26+/-1.8% were randomized in a double-blind fashion to receive metoprolol tartrate 50 mg bid or carvedilol 25 mg bid. 24-h ECG monitoring (Holter) was performed at baseline, 12 weeks and 1 year. Adequate quality recordings for analysis were obtained from 43 subjects at baseline, 42 at 12 weeks and 29 subjects at 1 year. Both drugs produced a fall in average 24-h heart rate from baseline at 12 weeks and at 1 year: metoprolol 88+/-3 to 71+/-2 and 69+/-3 bpm; carvedilol 83+/-3 to 70+/-2 and 70+/-3 bpm respectively (all p<0.001). The pattern of suppression of heart rate during the 24-h period was similar for both drugs.

CONCLUSION

Metoprolol tartrate 50 mg bid and carvedilol 25 mg bid had similar effects on 24-h heart rate. This result suggests that the degree of beta1-blockade produced by these two drugs in these doses is comparable and the superior survival effect of carvedilol compared to metoprolol seen in COMET is likely to be due to actions of carvedilol other than beta1-blockade.

How should COMET influence heart failure practice?

Much clinical experience has led us to assume that the administration of a b-blocker, regardless of dose or frequency, would produce similar mortality benefits in patients with heart failure. The results from the recently published Carvedilol or Metoprolol European Trial (COMET), which found greater benefit of carvedilol than immediate-release metoprolol on mortality, clearly demonstrated this is not true. In heart failure, the COMET results strongly support the use of beta-blockers that have proven effective in large-scale clinical trials. The primary disagreement regarding COMET concerns the explanation of the efficacy difference between the two b-blockers tested. Pharmacodynamic considerations and hemodynamic data from the COMET trial itself suggest there were unequal degrees of b1-blockade between patients receiving carvedilol and immediate-release metoprolol. Failure to achieve a similar degree of b1-receptor blockade in the two groups prevents conclusions regarding the potential incremental benefits of selective versus nonselective adrenergic blockade. Further studies are needed to determine whether there are additional clinical benefits from the inhibition of adrenergic receptors beyond the proven benefits of b1-blockade.

Commentary on the Carvedilol or Metoprolol European Trial (COMET)

beta-Adrenergic blockade is commonly and successfully used to treat chronic heart failure. Until recently, few data were available on which to base selection of a particular beta-blocking agent. The Carvedilol or Metoprolol European Trial (COMET) provides evidence that beta-blockers are not interchangeable. The trial compared carvedilol, a nonselective beta-blocker with alpha-adrenergic blocking and numerous ancillary activities, with metoprolol tartrate. In comparison to metoprolol tartrate, significant reductions in all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality were observed with carvedilol. These data indicate that cardiovascular benefit may be obtained from switching patients from metoprolol tartrate to carvedilol.

Selective versus nonselective beta-blockade for heart failure therapy: are there lessons to be learned from the COMET trial?

The recently reported COMET trial found that the beta1/beta2/alpha1 receptor blocking agent carvedilol given in a relatively high beta1-receptor blocking dose regimen was superior in mortality reduction to immediate release metoprolol given in a relatively low beta1-receptor blocking dose schedule. We analyze the problems with the trial design of COMET from the standpoint of comparing 2 therapeutic agents at different positions on a common dose-response curve, and discuss the theoretical reasons why postjunctional adrenergic receptor blockade that is in addition to beta1-receptor antagonism will likely produce only minimal or no incremental benefit in chronic heart failure.

Do β-blockers prolong survival in heart failure only by inhibiting the β1-receptor? A perspective on the results of the COMET trial

Experimental and clinical studies indicate that carvedilol exerts multiple antiadrenergic effects in addition to beta(1)-receptor blockade, but the prognostic importance of these actions has long been debated. This controversy has now been substantially advanced by the results of the recently completed Carvedilol Or Metoprolol European Trial (COMET), which showed that carvedilol (25 mg twice daily) reduced mortality by 17% when compared with metoprolol (50 mg twice daily), P=.0017--a result that was consistent with the differences seen across earlier controlled trials with beta-blockers in survivors of an acute myocardial infarction and in patients with chronic heart failure. Questions have been raised about the interpretation of these findings in view of the fact that the trial did not use the dose or formulation of metoprolol that was shown to prolong life in a placebo-controlled trial (ie, Metoprolol CR/XL [Controlled Release] Randomized Intervention Trial in Heart Failure). Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analyses, however, indicate that the dosing regimen of metoprolol selected for use in the COMET trial produces a magnitude and time course of beta(1)-blockade during a 24-hour period that is similar to the dose of carvedilol targeted for use in the trial. These analyses suggest that the observed difference in the mortality effects of metoprolol and carvedilol is not related to a difference in the magnitude or time course of their beta(1)-blocking effects but instead reflect antiadrenergic effects of carvedilol in addition to beta(1)-blockade.

Extended-release metoprolol succinate in chronic heart failure

OBJECTIVE

To review the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and tolerability of extended-release (ER) metoprolol succinate and its role in the management of chronic heart failure.

DATA SOURCES

A MEDLINE search of English-language literature (1990-October 2002) was conducted using congestive heart failure and metoprolol CR/XL or metoprolol CR/ZOK as search terms to identify pertinent studies.

STUDY SELECTION/DATA EXTRACTION

All of the articles identified from the data sources were evaluated, with priority given to randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies.

DATA SYNTHESIS

ER metoprolol succinate is a controlled-release tablet designed to produce even and consistent beta(1)-blockade throughout the 24-hour dosing interval, with less fluctuation in metoprolol plasma concentrations compared with immediate-release metoprolol. Three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials have evaluated the efficacy of ER metoprolol succinate in the treatment of patients with chronic heart failure. The MERIT-HF (Metoprolol CR/XL Randomized Intervention Trial in Congestive Heart Failure) study, the largest of these trials and the largest randomized mortality trial with beta-blockers in heart failure to date, demonstrated that ER metoprolol succinate reduced the relative risk of all-cause mortality by 34% versus placebo. Furthermore, the relative risk of the combined endpoint of mortality plus all-cause hospitalizations was reduced by 19% and sudden death was reduced by 41%. The benefits of therapy were evident in various patient subgroups, including elderly patients and those with diabetes mellitus. ER metoprolol succinate was generally well tolerated, with a similar proportion of patients discontinuing therapy due to adverse events relative to placebo (9.8% and 11.7%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

ER metoprolol succinate therapy provides substantial mortality and morbidity benefits in patients with New York Heart Association class II and III heart failure who are stabilized on angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and diuretics. ER metoprolol succinate is administered once daily, is well tolerated, and provides consistent beta(1)-blockade over the 24-hour dosing interval.

Pharmacokinetic considerations of formulation: extended-release metoprolol succinate in the treatment of heart failure

Extended-release (ER) metoprolol succinate is a controlled-release formulation designed to deliver metoprolol succinate at a near constant rate for approximately 20 h, independent of food intake and gastrointestinal pH. Once-daily dosing of ER metoprolol succinate 12.5-200 mg produces even plasma concentrations over a 24-h period, without the marked peaks and troughs characteristically observed with the immediate-release (IR) formulation. This leads to consistent beta1-blockade over 24 h, while maintaining cardioselectivity at doses up to 200 mg daily. Pharmacokinetic studies have also been performed in heart failure patients and have demonstrated that ER metoprolol succinate is associated with a more pronounced and even beta1-blockade over a 24-h period than the IR formulation. The efficacy and good tolerability of ER metoprolol succinate in heart failure patients has now been demonstrated in a large-scale clinical trial.