Effect of β-blockers on the risk of COPD exacerbations according to indication of use: the Rotterdam Study

Safety and efficacy of early beta-blocker initiation in acute heart failure and cardiogenic shock: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The beta-blocker (BB) initiation in acute heart failure (AHF) patients is still controversial. Some show the benefit of BB employment in decreasing the mortality outcome. This study aims to assess the safety and efficacy of in-hospital and long-term outcomes of BB initiation in AHF hospitalized patients. We searched multiple databases examining the outcome of AHF patients who had administered BB as the therapy initiation. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, composite endpoint after BB initiation when hospitalized, and post-discharge all-cause mortality. The secondary outcomes were adverse events after in-hospital BB initiation, including hypotension and symptomatic bradycardia after BB initiation when hospitalization and rehospitalization.

RESULTS

Eight cohort studies with 16,639 patients suffering from AHF and cardiogenic shock, with 9923 participants allocated to the early BB group and 6,713 patients in the control group. The follow-up durations ranged from 2 to 24 months. Early BB administration significantly reduced in-hospital composite endpoints (RR: 0.42; 95% CI (0.30-0.58); p < 0.001), in-hospital all-cause mortality (RR: 0.43; 95% CI (0.31-0.61); p < 0.001), discharge mortality (RR: 0.51; 95% CI (0.41-0.63); p < 0.001), and rehospitalization (RR: 0.57; 95% CI (0.44-0.74); p < 0.001). There were no discernible differences in in-hospital BB-related adverse events between the two groups (p = 0.13). Subgroup analyses conducted on AHF patients presenting with cardiogenic shock revealed no significant differences in in-hospital composite endpoint and in-hospital mortality, and similar results were shown in the naive BB population.

CONCLUSIONS

The BB initiation in AHF patients shows advantages in efficacy and safety outcome.

An overview of the efficacy and safety of β2-adrenoceptor antagonists for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

INTRODUCTION

The safety of β2-AR antagonists in the treatment of patients with COPD continues to be a topic of research and discussion within the medical community. Emerging evidence suggests potentially benefits in the management of this complex respiratory condition. However, antagonists that display a preference for β2-AR over β1-AR present a complex therapeutic challenge in COPD management, necessitating an understanding of differences in their pharmacological profiles and clinical implications.

AREAS COVERED

An overview of the mechanisms of action of β2-AR antagonists and their potential impact on respiratory function, their pharmacological interactions, clinical implications, and future perspectives in COPD.

EXPERT OPINION

β-Blockers have the potential to become a versatile class of therapeutic agents with benefits beyond their original cardiovascular use. However, the one-size-fits-all approach of prescribing β-blockers regardless of their receptor selectivity to COPD patients with concomitant heart disease may not be appropriate. Instead, it is advisable to develop an individualized treatment strategy based on a thorough assessment of the patient's overall health. The use of non selective β2-AR antagonists, functioning as inverse agonists at β2-ARs, has garnered interest and debate, but further research efforts should focus on elucidating the optimal use of β-AR antagonists in COPD, balancing cardiovascular benefits with potential respiratory risks to enhance outcomes and quality of life for individuals living with this debilitating respiratory condition.

Beta-blockers reduce severe exacerbation in patients with mild chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with atrial fibrillation: a population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Beta-blockers (BBs) decrease mortality and acute exacerbation (AE) rates in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and cardiovascular disease; however, information on their effects in patients with COPD and atrial fibrillation (AF) is limited. We aimed to assess the AE risk in patients with different severities of COPD and AF receiving BBs compared with that in patients receiving calcium channel blockers (CCBs).

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used data from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Database from 2009 to 2018. Outcomes included AE-related emergency room visits and hospitalisation. HRs and 95% CIs were estimated using the Cox proportional hazards model. COPD severity was classified as mild or severe based on exacerbation history. Sensitivity analyses included treatment and subgroup analyses, and competing risk adjustment.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, 4486 pairs of BB and CCB users from 13 462 eligible patients were included. The exacerbation risk for BB users was lower (HR 0.80; 95% CI 0.72 to 0.89) than that of CCB users. After stratification, BB benefits persisted in the mild COPD group (HR 0.75; 95% CI 0.66 to 0.85), unlike the severe COPD group (HR 0.95; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.20). The results of the subgroup analysis showed consistent protective effects even in patients without heart failure or myocardial infarction (adjusted HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.71 to 0.94).

CONCLUSION

We found that BB use in patients with mild COPD and AF was associated with a lower exacerbation risk than CCB use, and that close monitoring of BB use in patients with severe COPD and AF is warranted.