Ivabradine Improves Cardiac Function and Increases Exercise Capacity in Patients with Chronic Heart Failure

Case report: Acne vulgaris treatment with 5-Aminolaevulinic acid photodynamic therapy and adalimumab: a novel approach

Acne vulgaris is a common skin condition that affects a large proportion of teenagers and young adults. Despite the availability of various treatment options, many patients experience inadequate relief or intolerable side effects. Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is a growing interest in the treatment of acne vulgaris, with 5-Aminolaevulinic acid (ALA) being one of the most commonly used photosensitizers. Adalimumab is a biologic medication used to treat inflammatory skin conditions such as Psoriasis and Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), which targets TNF-α. Combining different therapies, such as ALA-PDT and adalimumab, can often provide more effective and longer-lasting results. This report presents the case of a patient with severe and refractory acne vulgaris who was treated with a combination of ALA-PDT and adalimumab, resulting in significant improvement in the condition. The literature review highlights the significant comorbidity associated with acne, emphasizing the need for potential of TNF-α inhibitors for its effective treatments that address physical symptoms and ALA-PDT is known to treat scar hyperplasia, and to prevent or minimize the formation of post-acne hypertrophic scars. The combination of TNF inhibitors and ALA-PDT or adalimumab has shown promising results in treating inflammatory skin conditions, including severe and refractory acne vulgaris, as per recent studies.

Ivabradine added to usual care in patients with heart failure: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of adding ivabradine to usual care in participants with heart failure.

DESIGN

A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing ivabradine and usual care with usual care (with or without) placebo in participants with heart failure.

INFORMATION SOURCES

Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, LILACS, CNKI, VIP and other databases and trial registries up until 31 May 2021.

DATA EXTRACTION

Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events and quality of life. Secondary outcomes were cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction and non-serious adverse events. We performed meta-analysis of all outcomes. We used trial sequential analysis to control risks of random errors, the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess the risks of systematic errors and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence.

RESULTS

We included 109 randomised clinical trials with 26 567 participants. Two trials were at low risk of bias, although both trials were sponsored by the company that developed ivabradine. All other trials were at high risk of bias. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses showed that we could reject that ivabradine versus control reduced all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR)=0.94; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.01; p=0.09; high certainty of evidence). Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis showed that ivabradine seemed to reduce the risk of serious adverse events (RR=0.90; 95% CI 0.87 to 0.94; p<0.00001; number needed to treat (NNT)=26.2; low certainty of evidence). This was primarily due to a decrease in the risk of 'cardiac failure' (RR=0.83; 95% CI 0.71 to 0.97; p=0.02; NNT=43.9), 'hospitalisations' (RR=0.89; 95% CI 0.85 to 0.94; p<0.0001; NNT=36.4) and 'ventricular tachycardia' (RR=0.59; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.82; p=0.001; NNT=212.8). However, the trials did not describe how these outcomes were defined and assessed during follow-up. Meta-analyses showed that ivabradine increased the risk of atrial fibrillation (RR=1.19; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.35; p=0.008; number needed to harm (NNH)=116.3) and bradycardia (RR=3.95; 95% CI 1.88 to 8.29; p=0.0003; NNH=303). Ivabradine seemed to increase quality of life on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) (mean difference (MD)=2.92; 95% CI 1.34 to 4.50; p=0.0003; low certainty of evidence), but the effect size was small and possibly without relevance to patients, and on the Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLWHFQ) (MD=-5.28; 95% CI -6.60 to -3.96; p<0.00001; very low certainty of evidence), but the effects were uncertain. Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between ivabradine and control when assessing cardiovascular mortality and myocardial infarction. Ivabradine seemed to increase the risk of non-serious adverse events.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

High certainty evidence shows that ivabradine does not seem to affect the risks of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. The effects on quality of life were small and possibly without relevance to patients on the KCCQ and were very uncertain for the MLWHFQ. The effects on serious adverse events, myocardial infarction and hospitalisation are uncertain. Ivabradine seems to increase the risk of atrial fibrillation, bradycardia and non-serious adverse events.PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018112082.

Comparison of Efficacy of Ivabradine With Traditional Therapy in Patients With Left Ventricular Dysfunction

Background: Heart failure patients usually present with disease exacerbation that overburdens the hospitals and also increases the risk of mortality with increased heart rate being the main issue. Consideration is being given to drugs for sole heart rate control in addition to conventional therapy.

Objective: To compare the outcomes of ivabradine to traditional treatment in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction.

Methodology: This randomized controlled trial was conducted in the Department of Cardiology, Khyber Teaching Hospital, Peshawar from November 1, 2020, to May 31, 2021. Patients aged 30-65 years of age and of either gender with heart failure were enrolled in the study. Patients were screened for New York Heart Association (NYHA) class and were enrolled into one of the two groups. In group 1, patients were started on traditional treatment, while group 2 patients were given ivabradine as an add-on therapy. Follow-up was made at the end of the second month for evaluation of the outcomes.

Results: Each group had 119 patients, with a mean age of 58.05±4.98 years. Group 1, consisted of 61.3% of the patients in NYHA 3, while 38.65% were in NYHA 4. In group 2, NYHA 3 and NYHA 4 patients were 59.6% and 40.3%, respectively. Upon follow-up, there were greater improvements in group 2 as compared to group 1 based on NYHA classifications, with NYHA 2 [47.05% (group 2) vs. 13.44% (group 1)], NYHA 3 [42.85% (group 2) vs. 61.34% (group 1)] and NYHA 4 [10.08% (group 2) vs. 25.21% (group 1)], p < 0.05.

Conclusions: Obtaining a more optimal heart rate with ivabradine in patients with congestive heart failure is reflected in an improvement in NYHA classification.

The Effect of Ivabradine on Hospitalization of Heart Failure Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background

Ivabradine is recommended in heart failure (HF) patients to reduce cardiovascular death and hospitalization due to worsening of HF symptoms.

Aims and Objectives

To study the effect of Ivabradine in addition to guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) in a group of HF patients with HR more than 70 bpm, HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF ≤ 40%), and New York Heart Association class II-IV.

Methods

The study was conducted at Heart Hospital, Hamad Medical Corporation, Qatar. HF patients with age > 18 years, LVEF ≤40%, on GDMT, and HR of ≥70 bpm were included. The study population was divided into two groups: ivabradine group and non-ivabradine group. The primary outcomes were risk, number and length of hospitalizations due to worsening HF, and cardiovascular mortality. The secondary outcome was all-cause mortality. Baseline characteristics were collected at enrollment. Study outcomes were compared in the two groups by applying Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests. Logistic regression model was applied to assess both hospitalizations and cardiovascular mortality.

Results

A total of 111 patients were studied, 37 (33.94%) ivabradine group and 74 (66.67%) non-ivabradine group. Risk of hospitalization was lower in Ivabradine group compared to non-Ivabradine group (odds ratio: 0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.16-1.015, P = 0.094). Average length of hospitalization in ivabradine and non-ivabradine groups was 12.54 and 8.91 days, respectively (incidence rate ratio [IRR]: 1.63, 95% CI: 0.79-3.38, P = 0.187). Compared to non-ivabradine, ivabradine patients had lower number of hospitalizations (IRR: 1.13, 95% CI: 0.61-2.11, P = 0.694). Death rate in both ivabradine and non-ivabradine groups was 3.

Conclusions

Ivabradine along with GDMT reduces the risk of hospitalization due to worsening HF symptoms. Ivabradine had no significant effect on cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality. HFrEF non-Arabs patients have lower risk, number and length of hospitalization, and mortality compared to Arabs.

Simultaneous Optimization of Oral and Transdermal Nanovesicles for Bioavailability Enhancement of Ivabradine Hydrochloride

PURPOSE

Ivabradine hydrochloride is selective pacemaker current (If) ion channel inhibitor used in case of chronic heart failure (CHF) with superior efficacy and lower side effects than most β-blockers. However, the drug suffers from low bioavailability (≈40%) due to extensive first-pass metabolism. Hence, this work aims to formulate nanovesicular platforms to enhance their bioavailability both orally and transdermally.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A central composite face-centered design was employed to formulate the nanovesicles, both phosphatidylcholine: drug ratio and percentage of pluronic F68 were used as independent variables. The nine developed formulae were characterized in terms of vesicle size (nm), polydispersity index, zeta potential (mV), entrapment efficiency (%). Decreasing vesicle size, increasing negative value of the zeta potential, and increasing entrapment efficiency were the chosen constraints to optimize the engineered nanovesicles. The candidate formula was subjected to further investigation including lyophilization, loading into carbopol gel, in vitro release, imaging with a transmission electron microscope, histopathological examination, in vitro cytotoxicity study and in vivo pharmacokinetics.

RESULTS

The optimized nanovesicular formula was composed of lipid: drug ratio of 3.91:1 and 100% pluronic as a stabilizer. It has particle size, zeta potential and entrapment efficiency of 337.6 nm, -40.5 mV and 30.5, respectively. It was then lyophilized in the presence of 5% trehalose as a cryoprotectant, dispersed in 0.5% carbopol to develop the transdermal gel. The two different forms of the candidate formula (lyophilized and gel form) displayed sustained drug release in comparison to drug solution. The histopathological and cytotoxicity studies showed that the optimized formula was safe and highly biocompatible. The pharmacokinetics parameters measured declared a higher Cmax and half-life of both formulae in comparison to market product (Procoralan®) with a 2.54- and 1.85-folds increase in bioavailability, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Hence, the developed nanovesicles can be reported as the first nanoplatforms to be used for simultaneous ivabradine delivery by both oral and topical routes with enhanced oral and transdermal drug delivery. The developed nanoplatforms hence can be further used to formulate other drugs that suffer from low bioavailability due to extensive first-pass metabolism.

Effect of miR-195-5p on cardiomyocyte apoptosis in rats with heart failure by regulating TGF-β1/Smad3 signaling pathway

Purpose: The present study set out to investigate the effect of miR-195-5p on cardiomyocyte apoptosis in rats with heart failure (HF) and its mechanism.

Methods: HF rat model and hypoxia/reoxygenation (H/R) cardiomyocyte model were established. miR-195-5p expression and transforming growth factor-β1 (TGF-β1)/signal transduction protein (Smad)3 signaling pathway in HF rats and H/R cardiomyocytes were interfered. miR-195-5p expression was tested by Rt-PCR, TGF-β1/Smad3 signaling pathway related proteins were detected by Western Blot, apoptosis of HF rat cardiomyocytes was tested by TUNEL, and apoptosis of cardiomyocytes induced by H/R was checked by flow cytometry.

Results: miR-195-5p was lowly expressed in myocardium of HF rats, while TGF-β1 and Smad3 proteins were high-expressed. Up-regulating miR-195-5p expression could obviously inhibit cardiomyocyte apoptosis of HF rats, improve their cardiac function, and inhibit activation of TGF-β1/Smad3 signaling pathway. Up-regulation of miR-195-5p expression or inhibition of TGF-β1/Smad3 signaling pathway could obviously inhibit H/R-induced cardiomyocyte apoptosis. Dual-luciferase reporter enzyme verified the targeted relationship between miR-195-5p and Smad3.

Conclusion: miR-195-5p can inhibit cardiomyocyte apoptosis and improve cardiac function in HF rats by regulating TGF-β1/Smad3 signaling pathway, which may be a potential target for HF therapy.

Sleep Rate Mode of Pacemaker-Dependent Patients with Sick Sinus Syndrome Increases Dipper Blood Pressure and Dipper Heart Rate Patterns

Cardiovascular event rates of patients with a dipper blood pressure (BP) and dipper heart rate (HR) pattern are lower than those of patients with nondipper BP and HR patterns. However, how the pacemaker mode affects the diurnal BP and HR patterns remains unclear.We enrolled nine patients (average age 74.4 ± 6.6 years, 4 males and 5 females) with sick sinus syndrome who required atrial pacing. We investigated sequential 6-month pacing regimens (DDD mode at 60 bpm and sleep rate mode). We set the lower rate of sleep rate mode as follows: 60 bpm during the daytime and 50 bpm during the nighttime. The order of pacing mode was randomized, with crossover design. Ambulatory BP monitoring was performed at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months, BP category was classified into four groups (extreme dipper, dipper, nondipper, and riser pattern), and HR was classified into dipper and nondipper patterns.Nighttime HR during the sleep rate mode was significantly lower than that at DDD (57.1 ± 6.2 versus 63.5 ± 3.8 bpm, P = 0.001). The dipper HR pattern was increased in the sleep rate mode compared with those at baseline or DDD mode (versus baseline: 89% versus 44%, P = 0.035; versus DDD: 89% versus 22%, P = 0.004). The dipper BP pattern significantly increased in the sleep rate mode compared with the baseline (56% versus 11%, P = 0.035), but the difference between the sleep rate mode and DDD mode was statistically marginal (56% versus 22%, P = 0.081).The pacemaker settings in the sleep rate mode increased the dipper HR and BP patterns in pacemaker-dependent patients with sick sinus syndrome.

Impact of ivabradine on the cardiac function of chronic heart failure reduced ejection fraction: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Elevated resting heart rate in chronic heart failure (HF) patients has been associated with higher mortality and poor prognosis. Ivabradine is a new pure bradycardic agent that has been used to treat angina or heart failure reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) with sinus heart rate above 70 beats per minute. However, the effect of ivabradine for chronic HF patients on rehospitalization and cardiac function is still inconsistent. Thus, this meta‐analysis aimed to elucidate the effect of Ivabradine in chronic HFrEF patients. We systematically searched PubMed, Medline, Clinical Trials.gov, and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ivabradine with search terms Ivabradine (MeSH Terms), chronic heart failure and beta‐blocker. The primary endpoints of the study include the impact of Ivabradine on heart rate, left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular remodeling, exercise capacity, and quality of life (QoL) in patients with chronic HFrEF. Secondary endpoints were safety analysis of Ivabradine including cardiovascular mortality, worsening HF readmission, visual disturbances, and asymptomatic bradycardia. The analysis was done by Review Manager 5.4 Analyzer, to analyze the mean differences (MD) for continuous data and risks ratio (RR) for dichotomous data. A total of six RCTs and one subgroup analysis showed add of Ivabradine to standard HF therapy was associated with greater resting heart rate reduction (MD = −9.57; 95% CI ‐11.15, −8.00), improved LVEF (MD = 3.89; 95% CI 2.61, 5.17), left ventricular reverse remodeling improvement (MD = −3.73; 95% CI ‐4.25, −3.21, LVESV; MD = −17.00, 95%CI ‐29.65, −4.35, LVEDD; MD = −1.43, 95%CI ‐2.78, −0.08, LVEDV; MD = −14.75, 95%CI ‐34.36, 4.87), increased exercise capacity (exercise duration; MD = 8.52; 95%CI 0.09, 16.94), and significant reduction on rehospitalization due to worsening HF (RR = 0.76, 95%CI 0.69, 0.84). However, Ivabradine has no significant effect on the quality of life (MD = 0.65; 95%CI ‐10.52, 11.82), and cardiovascular mortality (RR = 0.92; 95%CI 0.82, 1.03). Moreover, there were some events of visual disturbances and asymptomatic bradycardia observed in the Ivabradine group compared to the placebo group (RR = 4.76; 95%CI 3.03, 7.48; RR = 3.78; 95%CI 2.77, 5.15, respectively). Addition of Ivabradine to standard HF therapy is associated with cardiac function improvement, reduction on worsening HF readmission, greater HR reduction, and better exercise capacity in chronic HFrEF patients, although it cannot reduce cardiovascular mortality or improve the quality of life.

Ivabradine in Cardiovascular Disease Management Revisited: a Review

Ivabradine is a unique agent that is distinct from beta-blockers and calcium channel blockers as it reduces heart rate without affecting myocardial contractility or vascular tone. Ivabradine is a use-dependent inhibitor targeting the sinoatrial node. It is approved for use in the United States as an adjunct therapy for heart rate reduction in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. In this scenario, ivabradine has demonstrated improved clinical outcomes due to reduction in heart failure readmissions. However, there has been conflicting evidence from prospective studies and randomized controlled trials for its use in stable ischemic heart disease regarding efficacy in symptom reduction and mortality benefit. Ivabradine may also play a role in the treatment of patients with inappropriate sinus tachycardia, who often cannot tolerate beta-blockers and/or calcium channel blockers. In this review, we highlight the evidence for the nuances of using ivabradine in heart failure, stable ischemic heart disease, and inappropriate sinus tachycardia to raise awareness for its vital role in the treatment of select populations.

Ivabradine as adjuvant treatment for chronic heart failure

BACKGROUND

Chronic heart failure is one of the most common medical conditions, affecting more than 23 million people worldwide. Despite established guideline-based, multidrug pharmacotherapy, chronic heart failure is still the cause of frequent hospitalisation, and about 50% die within five years of diagnosis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of ivabradine in individuals with chronic heart failure.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CPCI-S Web of Science in March 2020. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP. We checked reference lists of included studies. We did not apply any time or language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials in which adult participants diagnosed with chronic heart failure were randomly assigned to receive either ivabradine or placebo/usual care/no treatment. We distinguished between type of heart failure (heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction or heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction) as well as between duration of ivabradine treatment (short term (< 6 months) or long term (≥ 6 months)).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data, and checked data for accuracy. We calculated risk ratios (RR) using a random-effects model. We completed a comprehensive 'Risk of bias' assessment for all studies. We contacted authors for missing data. Our primary endpoints were: mortality from cardiovascular causes; quality of life; time to first hospitalisation for heart failure during follow-up; and number of days spent in hospital due to heart failure during follow-up. Our secondary endpoints were: rate of serious adverse events; exercise capacity; and economic costs (narrative report). We assessed the certainty of the evidence applying the GRADE methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 19 studies (76 reports) involving a total of 19,628 participants (mean age 60.76 years, 69% male). However, few studies contributed data to meta-analyses due to inconsistency in trial design (type of heart failure) and outcome reporting and measurement. In general, risk of bias varied from low to high across the included studies, with insufficient detail provided to inform judgement in several cases. We were able to perform two meta-analyses focusing on participants with heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and long-term ivabradine treatment. There was evidence of no difference between ivabradine and placebo/usual care/no treatment for mortality from cardiovascular causes (RR 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 1.11; 3 studies; 17,676 participants; I2 = 33%; moderate-certainty evidence). Furthermore, we found evidence of no difference in rate of serious adverse events amongst HFrEF participants randomised to receive long-term ivabradine compared with those randomised to placebo, usual care, or no treatment (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.00; 2 studies; 17,399 participants; I2 = 12%; moderate-certainty evidence). We were not able to perform meta-analysis for all other outcomes, and have low confidence in the findings based on the individual studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found evidence of no difference in cardiovascular mortality and serious adverse events between long-term treatment with ivabradine and placebo/usual care/no treatment in participants with heart failure with HFrEF. Nevertheless, due to indirectness (male predominance), the certainty of the available evidence is rated as moderate.

Recently Approved and Under Investigation Drugs for Treating Patients with Heart Failure

Heart Failure (HF) represents a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Despite the recent advances in the treatment of this condition, patients´ prognosis remains unfavorable in most cases. Sacubitril/valsartan and ivabradine have been recently approved to improve clinical outcomes in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction. Drugs under investigation for treating patients with HF encompass many novel mechanisms including vasoactive peptides, blocking inflammatory- mediators, natriuretic peptides, selective non-steroidal mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonists, myocardial β3 adrenoreceptor agonists, inhibiting the cytochrome C/cardiolipin peroxidase complex, neuregulin-1/ErbB signaling and inhibiting late inward sodium current. The aim of this manuscript is to review the main drugs under investigation for the treatment of patients with HF and give perspectives for their implementation into clinical practice.

Ivabradine-Induced Torsade de Pointes in Patients with Heart Failure Reduced Ejection Fraction

Ivabradine is a selective inhibitor of the sinoatrial node "funny" current, prolonging the slow diastolic depolarization. As it has the ability to block the heart rate selectively, it is more effective at a faster heart rate. It is recommended for the treatment of heart failure reduced ejection fraction in the presence of beta-blocker therapy for the further reduction of the heart rate. However, previous reports have shown the association of Torsade de pointes (TdP) with concurrent use of ivabradine and drugs resulting in QT prolongation or blockage of the metabolic breakdown of ivabradine. In this article, we report two cases of patients with heart failure reduced ejection fraction who developed TdP after ivabradine use. Our report highlights the need to exercise caution with the administration of ivabradine in the presence of a reduced repolarization reserve, such as QT prolongation or metabolic insufficiency.