Cardiovascular therapeutics: A new potential for anxiety treatment?

Besides the well‐recognized risk factors, novel conditions increasing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality are emerging. Undesirable emotions and behavior such as anxiety and depression, appear to participate in worsening cardiovascular pathologies. On the other hand, deteriorating conditions of the heart and vasculature result in disturbed mental and emotional health. The pathophysiological background of this bidirectional interplay could reside in an inappropriate activation of vegetative neurohormonal and other humoral systems in both cardiovascular and psychological disturbances. This results in circulus vitiosus potentiating mental and circulatory disorders. Thus, it appears to be of utmost importance to examine the alteration of emotions, cognition, and behavior in cardiovascular patients. In terms of this consideration, recognizing the potential of principal cardiovascular drugs to interact with the mental state in patients with heart or vasculature disturbances is unavoidable, to optimize their therapeutic benefit. In general, beta‐blockers, central sympatholytics, ACE inhibitors, ARBs, aldosterone receptor blockers, sacubitril/valsartan, and fibrates are considered to exert anxiolytic effect in animal experiments and clinical settings. Statins and some beta‐blockers appear to have an equivocal impact on mood and anxiety and ivabradine expressed neutral psychological impact. It seems reasonable to suppose that the knowledge of a patient's mood, cognition, and behavior, along with applying careful consideration of the choice of the particular cardiovascular drug and respecting its potential psychological benefit or harm might improve the individualized approach to the treatment of cardiovascular disorders.

Efficacy of psychological interventions on psychological outcomes in coronary artery disease: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The benefits of cognitive-behavioral treatment (CBT) and positive psychology therapy (PPT) in patients with cardiovascular disease are still not well defined. We assessed the efficacy of CBT and PPT on psychological outcomes in coronary artery disease (CAD) patients.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials evaluating CBT or PPT in CAD patients published until May 2018 were systematically analyzed. Primary outcomes were depression, stress, anxiety, anger, happiness, and vital satisfaction. Random effects meta-analyses using the inverse variance method were performed. Effects were expressed as standardized mean difference (SMD) or mean differences (MD) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs); risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane tool.

RESULTS

Nineteen trials were included (n = 1956); sixteen evaluated CBT (n = 1732), and three PPT (n = 224). Compared with control groups, depressive symptoms (13 trials; SMD -0.80; 95% CI -1.33 to -0.26), and anxiety (11 trials; SMD -1.26; 95% CI -2.11 to -0.41) improved after the PI, and depression (6 trials; SMD -2.08; 95% CI -3.22 to -0.94), anxiety (5 trials; SMD -1.33; 95% CI -2.38 to -0.29), and stress (3 trials; SMD -3.72; 95% CI -5.91 to -1.52) improved at the end of follow-up. Vital satisfaction was significantly increased at follow-up (MD 1.30, 0.27, 2.33). Non-significant effects on secondary outcomes were found. Subgroup analyses were consistent with overall analyses.

CONCLUSION

CBT and PPT improve several psychological outcomes in CAD patients. Depression and anxiety improved immediately after the intervention while stress and vital satisfaction improve in the mid-term. Future research should assess the individual role of CBT and PPT in CAD populations.

Heart Failure: A Palliative Medicine Review of Disease, Therapies, and Medications With a Focus on Symptoms, Function, and Quality of Life

Despite significant advances in heart failure (HF) treatment, HF remains a progressive, extremely symptomatic, and terminal disease with a median survival of 2.1 years after diagnosis. HF often leads to a constellation of symptoms, including dyspnea, fatigue, depression, anxiety, insomnia, pain, and worsened cognitive function. Palliative care is an approach that improves the quality of life of patients and their caregivers facing the problems associated with life-threatening illness and therefore is well suited to support these patients. However, historically, palliative care has often focused on supporting patients with malignant disease, rather than a progressive chronic disease such as HF. Predicting mortality in patients with HF is challenging. The lack of obvious transition points in disease progression also raises challenges to primary care providers and specialists to know at what point to integrate palliative care during a patient's disease trajectory. Although therapies for HF often result in functional and symptomatic improvements including health-related quality of life (HRQL), some patients with HF do not demonstrate these benefits, including those patients with a preserved ejection fraction. Provision of palliative care for patients with HF requires an understanding of HF pathogenesis and common medications used for these patients, as well as an approach to balancing life-prolonging and HRQL care strategies. This review describes HF and current targeted therapies and their effects on symptoms, hospital admission rates, exercise performance, HRQL, and survival. Pharmacological interactions with and precautions related to commonly used palliative care medications are reviewed. The goal of this review is to equip palliative care clinicians with information to make evidence-based decisions while managing the balance between optimal disease management and patient quality of life.

Beneficial effects of ivabradine in patients with heart failure, low ejection fraction, and heart rate above 77 b.p.m

AIMS

Ivabradine has been approved in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and elevated heart rate despite guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) to reduce cardiovascular (CV) death and hospitalization for worsening HF. The median value of 77 b.p.m. is the lower bound selected for the regulatory approval in Canada, South Africa, and Australia. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) including symptoms, quality of life, and global assessment are considered of major interest in the global plan of care of patients with HF. However, the specific impact of GDMT, and specifically ivabradine, on PRO remains poorly studied. In the subgroup of patients from the Systolic Heart failure treatment with the If inhibitor ivabradine Trial (SHIFT) who had heart rate above the median of 77 b.p.m. (pre-specified analysis) and for whom the potential for improvement was expected to be larger, we aimed (i) to evaluate the effects of ivabradine on PRO (symptoms, quality of life, and global assessment); (ii) to consolidate the effects of ivabradine on the primary composite endpoint of CV death and hospitalization for HF; and (iii) to reassess the effects of ivabradine on left ventricular (LV) remodelling.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Comparisons were made according to therapy, and proportional hazards models (adjusted for baseline beta-blocker therapy) were used to estimate the association between ivabradine and various outcomes. In SHIFT, n = 3357 (51.6%) patients had a baseline heart rate > 77 b.p.m. After a median follow-up of 22.9 months (inter-quartile range 18-28 months), ivabradine on top of GDMT improved symptoms (28% vs. 23% improvement in New York Heart Association functional class, P = 0.0003), quality of life (5.3 vs. 2.2 improvement in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary score, P = 0.005), and global assessment [from both patient (improved in 72.3%) and physician (improved in 61.0%) perspectives] significantly more than did placebo (both P < 0.0001). Ivabradine induced a 25% reduction in the combined endpoint of CV death and hospitalization for HF (hazard ratio 0.75; P < 0.0001), which translates into a number of patients needed to be treated for 1 year of 17. Patients under ivabradine treatment demonstrated a significant reduction in LV dimensions when reassessed at 8 months (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with chronic HFrEF, sinus rhythm, and a heart rate > 77 b.p.m. while on GDMT, the present analysis brings novel insights into the role of ivabradine in improving the management of HFrEF, particularly with regard to PRO (ISRCTN70429960).

Heart rate reduction with ivabradine in patients with acute decompensated systolic heart failure

INTRODUCTION

In patients with acute decompensated systolic heart failure (ADSHF) high resting heart rate (HR) could be either a compensatory mechanism or contribute to worsening heart failure. The aim of this study was to evaluate, in patients with ADSHF and resting HR >70 bpm, the early (within 24 h) and late (at discharge) effects of oral administration of ivabradine on HR reduction.

METHODS

Ten consecutive patients with ADSHF, left ventricular ejection fraction <40 % and HR >70 bpm, without other acute conditions or inotropic therapy, began open-label treatment with oral ivabradine according to a pre-established Heart Failure Unit protocol. We obtained clinical and laboratory data at four periods: admission (T0), immediately before initiation of ivabradine (T2), 24 h after initiation of ivabradine (T3), and at discharge (T4).

RESULTS

Ivabradine was administered in 60 % of the patients before the second day. HR decreased 10.7 ± 7.2 bpm at T3 (p < 0.001) and 16.3 ± 8.2 bpm at T4 (p = 0.002). The systolic blood pressure decreased at T3 (p = 0.012), returning to baseline values at T4. There was no change in diastolic and mean blood pressure. New York Heart Association (NYHA) class improvement by two levels was associated with lower HR at T4 (p = 0.033). HR and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (Nt-ProBNP) at baseline correlated significantly [Spearman correlation coefficient (rs) = 0.789, p = 0.013]. Total Nt-ProBNP reduction correlated with the HR before (r = 0.762, p = 0.028) and after (T3: r = 0.647, p = 0.083; T4: r = 0.738, p = 0.037) ivabradine addition.

CONCLUSION

In the present cohort of patients with ADSHF and HR >70 bpm, the selective reduction of HR with oral ivabradine was safe and efficient.

The efficacy and safety of ivabradine hydrochloride versus atenolol in Chinese patients with chronic stable angina pectoris

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of ivabradine (Iva) noninferiority to atenolol (Aten) in Chinese patients with chronic stable angina pectoris.

METHODS

In this double-blind, double-dummy trial, patients with symptomatic angina pectoris and positive exercise tolerance test were randomized into the Iva [5 or 7.5 mg bis in die (BID)] or Aten group (12.5 or 25 mg BID) according to computer-generated random numbers for 12 weeks.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty-eight patients were randomized to the Iva group and 166 to the Aten group. In a full analysis set, increases in the total exercise duration (TED) were 54.3 ± 120.1 seconds with Iva 5 mg and 58.8 ± 114.7 seconds with Aten 12.5 mg at the fourth week, and at the 12th week, TED improved by 84.1 ± 130.5 seconds with Iva and 77.8 ± 126.6 seconds with Aten (95%CI: -21.4-34.1 seconds, p = 0.0011 for noninferiority). The analysis of per protocol set yielded similar results (95%CI: -31.4-33.0 seconds, p = 0.0131 for noninferiority). Heart rate was reduced in both groups at rest and during peak exercise. There were small, nonsignificant differences in the number of adverse events between the two groups (66 in Iva and 73 in Aten, p > 0.05). Nine patients (5.42%) were reported to develop phosphenes/luminous phenomena and blurred vision in the Iva group (p = 0.0035).

CONCLUSIONS

Iva is effective in reducing heart rates and improving exercise capacity and noninferior to Aten in Chinese patients with chronic stable angina pectoris. Iva is well tolerated and safe.

Ivabradine improves quality of life in subjects with chronic heart failure compared to treatment with β-blockers: results of a multicentric observational APULIA study

OBJECTIVES

Ivabradine (IVA), a selective If current inhibitor decreasing the heart rate (HR) in patients with sinus rhythm, has been added to the most recent European Guidelines on heart failure. This selective treatment reduces HR exclusively while fully preserving myocardial contractility and relaxation, atrioventricular conduction, and ventricular repolarization, as well as blood pressure. The aim of this study was to evaluate the improvement of quality of life (QOL) in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) treated with IVA versus two β-blockers (bisoprolol and carvedilol).

METHODS

We evaluated if a 1-month treatment with IVA (5 mg b.i.d.) or β-blockers (carvedilol 6.25 mg b.i.d. or bisoprolol 1.25 mg b.i.d.) improves the QOL (assessed by SF-36 questionnaire) in patients with CHF with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (<50%). SF-36 was tested in 221 CHF patients (mean age 64 ± 6 years) randomized into two groups (IVA group - 110 patients; β-blockers group - 111 patients). Data of QOL questionnaire and HR were collected by an interview during a clinical visit both at prescription time (basal) and after 1 month of therapy with IVA or β-blockers. QOL life and HR results after 1-month of therapy (T1) with IVA were compared with basal values (T0).

RESULTS

The IVA versus β-blockers treatment was associated with a significant improvement of physical functioning (p < 0.001 vs. p < 0.01), physical role functioning (p < 0.001 vs. p < 0.01), emotional role functioning (p < 0.01 vs. p < 0.85), and mental health scales (p < 0.001 vs. p < 0.01). HR in the IVA group was significantly lower compared to the group of patients treated with β-blockers (63 vs. 67 bpm; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

IVA treatment significantly improves the QOL in patients with CHF without any deleterious impact on hemodynamics, and may be beneficial in these patients without other adverse effects associated with β-blockers.

Ivabradine: an intelligent drug for the treatment of ischemic heart disease

Heart rate (HR) is a precisely regulated variable, which plays a critical role in health and disease. Elevated resting HR is a significant predictor of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in the general population and patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD). β-blocking drugs exert negative effects on regional myocardial blood flow and function when HR reduction is eliminated by atrial pacing; calcium channel antagonists (CCAs) functionally antagonize coronary vasoconstriction mediated through α-adreno-receptors and are thus devoid of this undesired effect, but the compounds are nevertheless negative inotropes. From these observations derives the necessity to find alternative, more selective drugs to reduce HR through inhibition of specific electrical current (I(f)). Ivabradine (IVA) is a novel specific HR-lowering agent that acts in sinus atrial node (SAN) cells by selectively inhibiting the pacemaker I(f) current in a dose-dependent manner by slowing the diastolic depolarization slope of SAN cells, and by reducing HR at rest during exercise in humans. Coronary artery diseases (CAD) represent the most common cause of death in middle-aged and older adults in European Countries. Most ischemic episodes are triggered by an increase in HR, that induces an imbalance between myocardial oxygen delivery and consumption. IVA, a selective and specific inhibitor of the I(f) current which reduced HR without adverse hemodynamic effects, has clearly and unequivocally demonstrated its efficacy in the treatment of chronic stable angina pectoris (CSAP) and myocardial ischemia with optimal tolerability profile due to selective interaction with I(f) channels. The aim of this review is to point out the usefulness of IVA in the treatment of ischemic heart disease.