The effect of carvedilol and propranolol on portal hypertension in patients with cirrhosis: a meta-analysis

A National Survey of Self-Prescription of Beta-Blockers and Their Relation to Undiscovered Anxiety Among Medical and Pharmacological Students in Saudi Arabia

BACKGROUND

The development of beta-blocker (BB) medications is considered one of the most critical milestones of drug research. Several trials showed possible anti-anxiety effects of BBs. Our primary goal is to investigate the prevalence of anxiety disorder and the use of BBs as anxiolytic without medical prescription among medical and pharmacological students in Saudi Arabia.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted at multiple universities in Saudi Arabia. Students were given a questionnaire containing 44 questions that included demographic data, school location, BB usage behavior, GPA status before and after using BBs, and a GAD-7 anxiety screening questionnaire.

RESULTS

A total of 3326 mainly female senior students participated in the study with a mean age of 21.9±1.7 years. According to the GAD-7 score, half of the sampled students did not meet criteria indicative of anxiety disorder, and one-third were considered to have mild anxiety with a significant positive correlation between the BB usage and the GAD-7 score. A total of 6.4% of the sample reported usage of BBs. Therapeutics and Internal Medicine were the most common subjects for which BBs were used. When compared to pharmacy students, medical students were more likely to be male, smokers, diagnosed with psychiatric illness, having a higher mean GAD-7 score, report BB usage, and correctly identified common and serious BB side effects.

CONCLUSION

The inappropriate use of BB drugs without medical advice might have short- and long-term effects, and those may be more vulnerable to have psychological issues in the future. Our findings shed light on the need to identify students who are taking BBs as being at high risk of underlying anxiety disorders.

CARVEDILOL AS PRIMARY PROPHYLAXIS FOR GASTRIC VARICEAL BLEEDING IN PORTAL HYPERTENSION MODEL IN RATS

Background:

Portal hypertension (PH) can be measured indirectly through a hepatic vein pressure gradient greater than 5 mmHg. Cirrhosis is the leading cause for PH and can present as complications ascites, hepatic dysfunction, renal dysfunction, and esophagogastric varices, characterizing gastropathy.

Aim:

To evaluate the use of carvedilol as primary prophylaxis in the development of collateral circulation in rats submitted to the partial portal vein ligament (PPVL) model.

Method:

This is a combined qualitative and quantitative experimental study in which 32 Wistar rats were divided into four groups (8 animals in each): group I - cirrhosis + carvedilol (PPVL + C); group II - cirrhosis + vehicle (PPVL); group III - control + carvedilol (SO-sham-operated + C); group IV - control + vehicle (SO-sham-operated). After seven days of the surgical procedure (PPVL or sham), carvedilol (10 mg/kg) or vehicle (1 mL normal saline) were administered to the respective groups daily for seven days.

Results:

The histological analysis showed no hepatic alteration in any group and a decrease in edema and vasodilatation in the PPVL + C group. The laboratory evaluation of liver function did not show a statistically significant change between the groups.

Conclusion:

Carvedilol was shown to have a positive effect on gastric varices without significant adverse effects.

Evidence for the effectiveness of anti-hypertensive medicines included on the Chinese National Reimbursement Drug List

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based decision on drug list or formulary has been applied worldwide. Although the importance of scientific evidence was emphasized, the decision-making procedures for including medicines into the national reimbursement drug list were often challenged by their process opacity and relying on subjective expert opinion. This study aimed to explore and assess the evidence for the effectiveness of anti-hypertensive medicines included on the Chinese National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL), and to provide recommendations for further improvement.

METHODS

Three international evidence-based guidelines were selected to serve as reference criteria. The antihypertensive medicines included in NRDL of Urban Employee Basic Medical Insurance (UEBMI) were compared with recommended drugs in three international guidelines. Medicines recommended by at least two guidelines were considered to have sound evidence support for the effectiveness. Otherwise, published literature with high evidence grade, namely systematic review, meta-analysis and randomized controlled trial (RCT), were searched for further assessment. Medicines reported as fairly good effectiveness by literature with high evidence grade can be also considered having sound evidence for the effectiveness. Methodological quality of systematic review or meta-analysis was evaluated by AMSTAR scale and PRISMA statement. Literature quality of RCTs was assessed by Jadad scale.

RESULTS

For the 97 antihypertensive medicines in NRDL, there were sound evidence supports for the effectiveness of 56 kinds of medicines. Specifically, twenty-six of them were supported by international evidence-based guidelines, twenty were supported by systematic review or meta-analysis and the other ten by RCT. However, for the rest 41 medicines, there is insufficient evidence for their effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

Some antihypertensive medicines in NRDL did not have sufficient evidence for their effectiveness. Further evaluation and revision were required. It is also recommended to standardize decision-making procedures for inclusion of medicines, set up high quality evidence database to timely provide sound evidence, and so on.

Carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers for adults with cirrhosis and gastroesophageal varices

BACKGROUND

Non-selective beta-blockers are recommended for the prevention of bleeding in people with cirrhosis, portal hypertension and gastroesophageal varices. Carvedilol is a non-selective beta-blocker with additional intrinsic alpha₁-blocking effects, which may be superior to traditional, non-selective beta-blockers in reducing portal pressure and, therefore, in reducing the risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of carvedilol compared with traditional, non-selective beta-blockers for adults with cirrhosis and gastroesophageal varices.

SEARCH METHODS

We combined searches in the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary's Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and Science Citation Index with manual searches. The last search update was 08 May 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials comparing carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers, irrespective of publication status, blinding, or language. We included trials evaluating both primary and secondary prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in adults with cirrhosis and verified gastroesophageal varices.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors (AZ, RJ and LH), independently extracted data. The primary outcome measures were mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding and serious adverse events. We undertook meta-analyses and presented results using risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and I² values as a marker of heterogeneity. We assessed bias control using the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary domains and the quality of the evidence with GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven trials fulfilled our inclusion criteria. One trial did not report clinical outcomes. We included the remaining 10 randomised clinical trials, involving 810 participants with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices, in our analyses. The intervention comparisons were carvedilol versus propranolol (nine trials), or nadolol (one trial). Six trials were of short duration (mean 6 (range 1 to 12) weeks), while four were of longer duration (13.5 (6 to 30) months). Three trials evaluated primary prevention; three evaluated secondary prevention; while four evaluated both primary and secondary prevention. We classified all trials as at 'high risk of bias'. We gathered mortality data from seven trials involving 507 participants; no events occurred in four of these. Sixteen of 254 participants receiving carvedilol and 19 of 253 participants receiving propranolol or nadolol died (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.53; I² = 0%, low-quality evidence). There appeared to be no differences between carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers and the risks of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.37; 810 participants; 10 trials; I² = 45%, very low-quality evidence) and serious adverse events (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.42; 810 participants; 10 trials; I² = 14%, low-quality evidence). Significantly more deaths, episodes of upper gastrointestinal bleeding and serious adverse events occurred in the long-term trials but there was not enough information to determine whether there were differences between carvedilol and traditional, non-selective beta-blockers, by trial duration. There was also insufficient information to detect differences in the effects of these interventions in trials evaluating primary or secondary prevention. There appeared to be no differences in the risk of non-serious adverse events between carvedilol versus its comparators (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.29; 596 participants; 6 trials; I² = 88%; very low-quality evidence). Use of carvedilol was associated with a greater reduction in hepatic venous pressure gradient than traditional, non-selective beta-blockers both in absolute (MD -1.75 mmHg, 95% CI -2.60 to -0.89; 368 participants; 6 trials; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence) and percentage terms (MD -8.02%, 95% CI -11.49% to -4.55%; 368 participants; 6 trials; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). However, we did not observe a concomitant reduction in the number of participants who failed to achieve a sufficient haemodynamic response (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.02; 368 participants; 6 trials; I² = 42%; very low-quality evidence) or in clinical outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no clear beneficial or harmful effects of carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers on mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding, serious or non-serious adverse events despite the fact that carvedilol was more effective at reducing the hepatic venous pressure gradient. However, the evidence was of low or very low quality, and hence the findings are uncertain. Additional evidence is required from adequately powered, long-term, double-blind, randomised clinical trials, which evaluate both clinical and haemodynamic outcomes.

Carvedilol for portal hypertension in cirrhosis: systematic review with meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical and haemodynamic effects of carvedilol for patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension.

DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

We searched PubMed, Cochrane library databases, EMBASE and the Science Citation Index Expanded through December 2015. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included.

OUTCOME MEASURE

We calculated clinical outcomes (all-cause mortality, bleeding-related mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding) as well as haemodynamic outcomes (hepatic venous pressure (HVPG) reduction, haemodynamic response rate, post-treatment arterial blood pressure (mean arterial pressure; MAP) and adverse events).

RESULTS

12 RCTs were included. In 7 trials that looked at haemodynamic outcomes compared carvedilol versus propranolol, showing that carvedilol was associated with a greater reduction (%) of HVPG within 6 months (mean difference -8.49, 95% CI -12.36 to -4.63) without a greater reduction in MAP than propranolol. In 3 trials investigating differences in clinical outcomes between carvedilol versus endoscopic variceal band ligation (EVL), no significant differences in mortality or variceal bleeding were demonstrated. 1 trial compared clinical outcomes between carvedilol versus nadolol plus isosorbide-5-mononitrate (ISMN), and showed that no significant difference in mortality or bleeding had been found. 1 trial comparing carvedilol versus nebivolol showed a greater reduction in HVPG after 14 days follow-up in the carvedilol group.

CONCLUSIONS

Carvedilol may be more effective in decreasing HVPG than propranolol or nebivolol and it may be as effective as EVL or nadolol plus ISMN in preventing variceal bleeding. However, the overall quality of evidence is low. Further large-scale randomised studies are required before we can make firm conclusions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42015020542.