beta-blockers. Drug interactions of clinical significance

The Use of β-Blockers in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction

Treatment with β-blockers is the main strategy for managing patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction because of their ability to reverse the neurohumoral effects of the sympathetic nervous system, with consequent prognostic and symptomatic benefits. However, to date, they are underused, mainly because of the misconception that hypotension and bradycardia may worsen the haemodynamic status of patients with HFrEF and because of the presence of comorbidities falsely believed to be absolute contraindications to their use. To promote proper use of β-blockers in this article, we review the clinical pharmacology of β-blockers, the evidence of the beneficial effects of these drugs in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and the current guidelines for their use in clinical practice and in the presence of comorbidities (e.g., pulmonary disease, diabetes, atrial fibrillation, peripheral arterial disease, etc.). It is hoped that the practical approach discussed in this review will allow for a proper diffusion of knowledge about the correct use of β-blockers and the drug-disease interactions to achieve their increased use and titration, as well as for the selection of a specific agent with a view to a properly tailored approach for HFrEF patients.

Do Patients need Lifelong β-Blockers after an Uncomplicated Myocardial Infarction?

The lifelong use of β-adrenoceptor antagonists (β-blockers) after a myocardial infarction (MI) has been the standard of care based on trials performed before the era of revascularization, when heart failure was common. Large randomized trials in the mid-1980s demonstrated that β-blockers played a major role in improving the in-hospital and long-term survival of patients admitted for MI. However, the implementation of rapid myocardial reperfusion led to a substantial survival benefit and a reduction of heart failure because of reduced infarct size. Modern large longitudinal registries did not provide sufficient evidence to support long-term β-blocker therapy in patients with uncomplicated acute MI. The long-term prescription of this therapy has become a matter of debate given the lack of contemporary evidence, frequent side effects, and treatment adherence issues. Furthermore, this shift into the reperfusion era led to a downgraded recommendation for the use of β-blockers in post-MI patients (class IIa B recommendation) in the 2017 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) recommendations for the treatment of ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI). Three large ongoing multicenter randomized trials (AβYSS, REDUCE-SWEDEHEART, and REBOOT-CNIC) are evaluating early discontinuation of β-blockers after an uncomplicated acute MI. The tested hypothesis is that β-blocker withdrawal is safe versus major adverse cardiovascular events and improves quality of life by reducing side effects. Thus, the present review summarizes the exhaustive evidence-based data for long-term β-blocker use after uncomplicated MI and the ongoing trials.

Clinically Important Drug-Drug Interactions Between Antiarrhythmic Drugs and Anticoagulants

Until the last decade, vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) were the only agents available for oral anticoagulation. Although effective and accessible, their use was complicated by a narrow therapeutic window, the need for regular monitoring of the international normalized ratio, and an associated susceptibility to interactions with both food and numerous medications. Furthermore, the onset of action was delayed, often requiring bridging with intravenous agents. In more recent years, we have enjoyed the development of nonvitamin-K-dependent, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), which either directly inhibit the activity of factor IIa (eg, dabigatran) or factor Xa (eg, rivaroxaban, apixaban, edoxaban). These medications boast a more rapid onset of action, predictable pharmacokinetics, wider therapeutic window, and equal or superior safety profiles. Although these medications appear to have fewer drug–drug interactions than VKAs, their interactions remain of clinical importance, particularly in one of the largest populations requiring anticoagulation: patients with atrial fibrillation. These patients are rarely on single medications, with the majority of them requiring some form of rate or rhythm control due to their arrhythmia. Unfortunately, data on interactions between DOACs and antiarrhythmic medications, despite their common coadministration, remain limited. Here, we summarize the interactions between antiarrhythmics and VKAs and review existing knowledge regarding their interactions with DOACs.

Oral Adverse Drug Reactions to Cardiovascular Drugs

A great many cardiovascular drugs (CVDs) have the potential to induce adverse reactions in the mouth. The prevalence of such reactions is not known, however, since many are asymptomatic and therefore are believed to go unreported. As more drugs are marketed and the population includes an increasing number of elderly, the number of drug prescriptions is also expected to increase. Accordingly, it can be predicted that the occurrence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs), including the oral ones (ODRs), will continue to increase. ODRs affect the oral mucous membrane, saliva production, and taste. The pathogenesis of these reactions, especially the mucosal ones, is largely unknown and appears to involve complex interactions among the drug in question, other medications, the patient’s underlying disease, genetics, and life-style factors. Along this line, there is a growing interest in the association between pharmacogenetic polymorphism and ADRs. Research focusing on polymorphism of the cytochrome P450 system (CYPs) has become increasingly important and has highlighted the intra- and inter-individual responses to drug exposure. This system has recently been suggested to be an underlying candidate regarding the pathogenesis of ADRs in the oral mucous membrane. This review focuses on those CVDs reported to induce ODRs. In addition, it will provide data on specific drugs or drug classes, and outline and discuss recent research on possible mechanisms linking ADRs to drug metabolism patterns. Abbreviations used will be as follows: ACEI, ACE inhibitor; ADR, adverse drug reaction; ANA, antinuclear antigen; ARB, angiotensin II receptor blocker; BAB, beta-adrenergic blocker; CCB, calcium-channel blocker; CDR, cutaneous drug reaction; CVD, cardiovascular drug; CYP, cytochrome P450 enzyme; EM, erythema multiforme; FDE, fixed drug eruption; I, inhibitor of CYP isoform activity; HMG-CoA, hydroxymethyl-glutaryl coenzyme A; NAT, N-acetyltransferase; ODR, oral drug reaction; RDM, reactive drug metabolite; S, substrate for CYP isoform; SJS, Stevens-Johnson syndrome; SLE, systemic lupus erythematosus; and TEN, toxic epidermal necrolysis.

Chart documentation by general physicians of the glaucoma medications taken by their patients

PURPOSE

To estimate the frequency of documentation of glaucoma medications by primary care physicians.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional, observational study.

METHODS

The general medical records of 100 patients of one glaucoma specialist were reviewed. We recorded whether the mention of eyedrops appeared in the medical record.

RESULTS

The median number of glaucoma medications used was 2.5 (range 1 to 5). Fifty-five (55%, 95% confidence interval: 45%-65%) of the medical records of the primary physicians mentioned eyedrops. Alpha-agonists were statistically less frequently documented (13%) in the general medical record than beta-adrenergic blockers (47%) and prostaglandins (44%).

CONCLUSION

Almost half of the charts of these primary physicians had no documentation of any eyedrop use by their patients with glaucoma. An important step in reducing drug-induced side effects and interactions with other medications would be better recognition by primary physicians of the ophthalmic drugs used by their patients.

Potentially significant drug interactions of class III antiarrhythmic drugs

Class III antiarrhythmic drugs, especially amiodarone (a broad-spectrum antiarrhythmic agent), have gained popularity for use in clinical practice in recent years. Other class III antiarrhythmic drugs include bretylium, dofetilide, ibutilide and sotalol. These agents are effective for the management of various types of cardiac arrhythmias both atrial and ventricular in origin. Class III antiarrhythmic drugs may interact with other drugs by two major processes: pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic interactions. The pharmacodynamic interaction occurs when the pharmacological effects of the object drug are stimulated or inhibited by the precipitant drug. Pharmacokinetic interactions can result from the interference of drug absorption, metabolism and/or elimination of the object drug by the precipitant drug. Among the class III antiarrhythmic drugs, amiodarone has been reported to be involved in a significant number of drug interactions. It is mainly metabolised by cytochrome P450 (CYP)3A4 and it is a potent inhibitor of CYP1A2, 2C9, 2D6 and 3A4. In addition, amiodarone may interact with other drugs (such as digoxin) via the inhibition of the P-glycoprotein membrane transporter system, a recently described pharmacokinetic mechanism of drug interactions. Bretylium is not metabolised; it is excreted unchanged in the urine. Therefore the interactions between bretylium and other drugs (including other antiarrhythmic drugs) is primarily through the pharmacodynamic mechanism. Dofetilide is metabolised by CYP3A4 and excreted by the renal cation transport system. Drugs that inhibit CYP3A4 (such as erythromycin) and/or the renal transport system (such as triamterene) may interact with dofetilide. It appears that the potential for pharmacokinetic interactions between ibutilide and other drugs is low. This is because ibutilide is not metabolised by CYP3A4 or CYP2D6. However, ibutilide may significantly interact with other drugs by a pharmacodynamic mechanism. Sotalol is primarily excreted unchanged in the urine. The potential for drug interactions due to hepatic enzyme induction or inhibition appears to be less likely. However, a number of drugs (such as digoxin) have been reported to interact with sotalol pharmacodynamically. If concurrent use of a class III antiarrhythmic agent and another drug cannot be avoided or no published studies for that particular drug interaction are available, caution should be exercised and close monitoring of the patient should be performed in order to avoid or minimise the risks associated with a possible adverse drug interaction.