Beta-blockade in heart failure: selective versus nonselective agents

Clinical Efficacy of Beta-1 Selective Beta-Blockers Versus Propranolol in Patients With Thyroid Storm: A Retrospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVES

Thyroid storm is the most severe manifestation of thyrotoxicosis. Beta-blockers are among the standard treatment regimens for this condition, with propranolol being the historically preferred option. However, 2016 guidelines issued by the Japan Thyroid Association and the Japan Endocrine Society recommend the use of beta-1 selective beta-blockers over nonselective beta-blockers, such as propranolol. Nevertheless, evidence supporting this recommendation is limited. Herein, we aimed to investigate the in-hospital mortality of patients with thyroid storms based on the choice of beta-blockers.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

The Diagnosis Procedure Combination database, a national inpatient database in Japan.

PATIENTS

Patients hospitalized with thyroid storm between April 2010 and March 2022.

INTERVENTIONS

Propensity-score overlap weighting was performed to compare in-hospital mortality between patients who received beta-1 selective beta-blockers and those who received propranolol. Subgroup analysis was also conducted, considering the presence or absence of acute heart failure.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Among the 2462 eligible patients, 1452 received beta-1 selective beta-blockers and 1010 received propranolol. The crude in-hospital mortality rates were 9.3% for the beta-1 selective beta-blocker group and 6.2% for the propranolol group. After adjusting for baseline variables, the use of beta-1 selective beta-blockers was not associated with lower in-hospital mortality (6.3% vs. 7.4%; odds ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.57-1.26). Furthermore, no significant difference in in-hospital mortality was observed in patients with acute heart failure.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with thyroid storm, the choice between beta-1 selective beta-blockers and propranolol did not affect in-hospital mortality, regardless of the presence of acute heart failure. Therefore, both beta-1 selective beta-blockers and propranolol can be regarded as viable treatment options for beta-blocker therapy in cases of thyroid storm, contingent upon the clinical context.

From "contraindicated" to "first line" - Current mechanistic insights beyond canonical β-receptor signaling

β-blockers are a solid pillar in the treatment of cardiovascular diseases. However, they are highly discussed regarding effectiveness for certain indications and side-effects. Even though there are up to 20 licensed compounds, only four are used for heart failure (HF) therapy. On the receptor level several key characteristics seem to influence the clinical outcome: subtype selectivity, antagonistic vs (inverse/biased) agonistic properties and -in particular- ancillary capacities. On a molecular level, divergent and novel signaling patterns are being identified and extra-cardiac effects on e.g. inflammation, metabolism and oxidative stress are highlighted. This review discusses different well-known and newly discovered characteristics that need to be considered for HF therapy and in the context of co-morbidities.

Model-based meta-analysis of changes in circulatory system physiology in patients with chronic heart failure

To characterize and compare various medicines for chronic heart failure (CHF), changes in circulatory physiological parameter during pharmacotherapy were investigated by a model-based meta-analysis (MBMA) of circulatory physiology. The clinical data from 61 studies mostly in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), reporting changes in heart rate, blood pressure, or ventricular volumes after treatment with carvedilol, metoprolol, bisoprolol, bucindolol, enalapril, aliskiren, or felodipine, were analyzed. Seven cardiac and vasculature function indices were estimated without invasive measurements using models based on appropriate assumptions, and their correlations with the mortality were assessed. Estimated myocardial oxygen consumption, a cardiac load index, correlated excellently with the mortality at 3, 6, and 12 months after treatment initiation, and it explained differences in mortality across the different medications. The analysis based on the present models were reasonably consistent with the hypothesis that the treatment of HFrEF with various medications is due to effectively reducing the cardiac load. Assessment of circulatory physiological parameters by using MBMA would be insightful for quantitative understanding of CHF treatment.

Efficacy and safety of ivabradine in patients with chronic systolic heart failure according to blood pressure level in SHIFT

AIMS

Low systolic blood pressure (SBP) is associated with poor outcomes in heart failure and complicates management. In a post hoc analysis, we investigated the efficacy and safety of ivabradine in the SHIFT population divided by tertiles of baseline SBP.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The analysis comprised 2110 patients with SBP <115 mmHg, 1968 with 115≤ SBP <130 mmHg, and 2427 with SBP ≥130 mmHg. Patients with low SBP were younger, had lower ejection fraction, and were less likely to be at target beta-blocker dose than patients in the other SBP groups. Ivabradine was associated with a similar relative risk reduction of the composite outcome in the three SBP groups [SBP <115 mmHg, hazard ratio (HR) = 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72-0.98; 115≤ SBP <130 mmHg, HR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.03; SBP ≥130 mmHg, HR = 0.77, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.92; P interaction = 0.68]. Similar results were found for cardiovascular mortality (P interaction = 0.91), hospitalization because of heart failure (P interaction = 0.79), all-cause mortality (P interaction = 0.90), and heart failure mortality (P interaction = 0.18). There was no evidence for a difference in safety profile according to SBP group.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy and safety of ivabradine is independent of SBP. This may have implications for the management of HF patients with low SBP and elevated heart rate.

Determinants of change in quality of life in the Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol Study in Elderly (CIBIS-ELD)

OBJECTIVE

Little is known about parameters that lead to improvement in QoL in individual patients. We analysed the data of the Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol Study in Elderly (CIBIS-ELD) in order to answer the question of how and to what extent change in health-related QoL during up-titration with bisoprolol vs. carvedilol is influenced by clinical and psychosocial factors in elderly patients with heart failure.

METHODS

This is a QoL analysis of CIBIS-ELD, an investigator-initiated multi-center randomised phase III trial in elderly patients (65 years or older) with moderate to severe heart failure. Clinical parameters such as New York Heart Association functional class, heart rate, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), 6-min walk distance, as well as the physical and psychosocial component scores on the short-form QoL health survey (SF36) and depression were recorded at baseline and at the final study visit.

RESULTS

Full baseline and follow-up QoL data were available for 589 patients (292 in the bisoprolol and 297 in the carvedilol group). Mean physical and psychosocial QoL improved significantly during treatment. In regression analyses, changes in both SF36 component scores from baseline to follow-up were mainly predicted by baseline QoL and depression as well as change in depression over time. Changes in cardiac severity markers were significantly weaker predictors.

CONCLUSION

Mean QoL increased during up-titration of bisoprolol and carvedilol. Both baseline depression and improvement in depression over time are associated with greater improvement in QoL more strongly than changes in cardiac severity measures.

Switching from carvedilol to bisoprolol ameliorates adverse effects in heart failure patients with dizziness or hypotension

BACKGROUND

Treatment with carvedilol is an established primary therapy for patients with heart failure (HF). However, its most common adverse effects, dizziness and hypotension, often discourage continuation or dosage increase. The aim of this study was to examine whether switching to bisoprolol from carvedilol would help to avoid adverse symptoms and signs related to carvedilol administration.

METHODS AND SUBJECTS

Data were retrospectively collected from 23 patients with HF [age 57±18 years, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 33±15%] who could not increase the dosage of carvedilol because of dizziness or hypotension, defined as systolic blood pressure<90 mmHg. Before and immediately after, and 6 months after switching to bisoprolol, we examined symptoms, vital signs, laboratory data, and New York Heart Association functional class. Furthermore, left ventricular (LV) dimension and ejection fraction (EF) were evaluated in 19 patients using echocardiography.

RESULTS

All 13 patients with dizziness (100%) and 9 of 16 with hypotension (56%) were relieved of adverse symptoms or signs. The mean dose of carvedilol before switching was 5.60±3.43 mg. Immediately after the switch, the mean dose of bisoprolol was 1.84±1.08 mg and then increased to 3.13±1.74 mg after 6 months (p<0.01). At 6-month follow-up examinations, LV function determined by LVEF was significantly improved, which was accompanied by increased exercise tolerance.

CONCLUSION

Switching from carvedilol to bisoprolol may help with continuation of β-blocker treatment as well as dosage increase in HF patients with adverse symptoms or signs, allowing them to reach the target dose.

Titration to target dose of bisoprolol vs. carvedilol in elderly patients with heart failure: the CIBIS-ELD trial

Aims

Various beta-blockers with distinct pharmacological profiles are approved in heart failure, yet they remain underused and underdosed. Although potentially of major public health importance, whether one agent is superior in terms of tolerability and optimal dosing has not been investigated. The aim of this study was therefore to compare the tolerability and clinical effects of two proven beta-blockers in elderly patients with heart failure.

Methods and results

We performed a double-blind superiority trial of bisoprolol vs. carvedilol in 883 elderly heart failure patients with reduced or preserved left ventricular ejection fraction in 41 European centres. The primary endpoint was tolerability, defined as reaching and maintaining guideline-recommended target doses after 12 weeks treatment. Adverse events and clinical parameters of patient status were secondary endpoints. None of the beta-blockers was superior with regards to tolerability: 24% [95% confidence interval (CI) 20–28] of patients in the bisoprolol arm and 25% (95% CI 21–29) of patients in the carvedilol arm achieved the primary endpoint (P= 0.64). The use of bisoprolol resulted in greater reduction of heart rate (adjusted mean difference 2.1 b.p.m., 95% CI 0.5–3.6, P= 0.008) and more, dose-limiting, bradycardic adverse events (16 vs. 11%; P= 0.02). The use of carvedilol led to a reduction of forced expiratory volume (adjusted mean difference 50 mL, 95% CI 4–95, P= 0.03) and more, non-dose-limiting, pulmonary adverse events (10 vs. 4%; P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Overall tolerability to target doses was comparable. The pattern of intolerance, however, was different: bradycardia occurred more often in the bisoprolol group, whereas pulmonary adverse events occurred more often in the carvedilol group.

This study is registered with controlled-trials.com, number ISRCTN34827306.

Beta-blockers in heart failure: are pharmacological differences clinically important?

Beta-blockers are not an homogeneous group of agents. Only three beta-blockers, carvedilol, bisoprolol and metoprolol succinate, have had favorable effects on prognosis in controlled clinical trials in the patients with chronic heart failure. However, pharmacological differences exist between them. Metoprolol and bisoprolol are selective for beta(1)-adrenergic receptors while carvedilol blocks also beta(2)-, and alpha(1)- adrenergic receptors, and has associated antioxidant, anti-endothelin and antiproliferative properties. In COMET carvedilol was associated with a significant reduction in mortality compared to metoprolol tartrate further showing that different beta-blockers may have different effects on the outcome. These differences may be related to the ancillary properties of carvedilol or to its broader antiadrenergic profile. However, also more effective and prolonged blockade of beta1 adrenergic receptors may occur with carvedilol compared to metoprolol.

N-coumaroyldopamine and N-caffeoyldopamine increase cAMP via beta 2-adrenoceptors in myelocytic U937 cells

N-caffeoyldopamine is a phytochemical found in various plants, including cocoa (Theobroma cacao L.). N-caffeoyldopamine and its natural analogs (N-cinnamoyldopamine, N-coumaroyldopamine, N-feruloyldopamine, and N-sinapoyldopamine) were synthesized and investigated to determine their potency as beta-adrenoceptor agonists, because they have chemical structural moieties found in beta-adrenoceptor agonists. Among the compounds tested in this study, N-coumaroyldopamine and N-caffeoyldopamine were the two most potent compounds, able to increase cAMP at the concentrations < 0.05 microM in U937 cells. The decreasing order of potency was N-coumaroyldopamine > N-caffeoyldopamine > N-feruloyldopamine > N-sinapoyldopamine > N-cinnamoyldopamine. Using beta2-specific antagonists (butoxamine and ICI 118551), N-coumaroyldopamine and N-caffeoyldopamine were found to increase cAMP via beta2-adrenoceptors in U937 cells. In producing cAMP in U937 cells, N-coumaroyldopamine and N-caffeoyldopamine were as potent as several well-known beta2-adrenoceptor agonists (salbutamol, procaterol, and fenoterol). These results indicate that N-coumaroyldopamine and N-caffeoyldopamine are potent compounds able to increase cAMP via beta2-adrenoceptors in U937 cells, and may have potential effects on human health.

Long-term oral carvedilol in chronic heart failure

The long-term beta-blockade strategy with carvedilol, metoprolol succinate or bisoprolol is now strongly recommended to reduce the rates of mortality and morbidity in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). Although the benefits observed with such drugs are viewed as a class effect, theoretically, carvedilol might be superior to the other two agents, considering its unique pharmacological profile, which includes a more comprehensive antiadrenergic activity and potentially relevant ancillary properties. So far, carvedilol has been proven to be effective and safe in a broader range of CHF patients than metoprolol and bisoprolol. Moreover, a recent large clinical trial has shown a significantly greater survival benefit with carvedilol as directly compared with metoprolol tartrate. Therefore, carvedilol may be the preferred beta-blocking agent to treat patients with CHF.