Beta-Blockers after Myocardial Infarction and Preserved Ejection Fraction

BACKGROUND

Most trials that have shown a benefit of beta-blocker treatment after myocardial infarction included patients with large myocardial infarctions and were conducted in an era before modern biomarker-based diagnosis of myocardial infarction and treatment with percutaneous coronary intervention, antithrombotic agents, high-intensity statins, and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system antagonists.

METHODS

In a parallel-group, open-label trial performed at 45 centers in Sweden, Estonia, and New Zealand, we randomly assigned patients with an acute myocardial infarction who had undergone coronary angiography and had a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 50% to receive either long-term treatment with a beta-blocker (metoprolol or bisoprolol) or no beta-blocker treatment. The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause or new myocardial infarction.

RESULTS

From September 2017 through May 2023, a total of 5020 patients were enrolled (95.4% of whom were from Sweden). The median follow-up was 3.5 years (interquartile range, 2.2 to 4.7). A primary end-point event occurred in 199 of 2508 patients (7.9%) in the beta-blocker group and in 208 of 2512 patients (8.3%) in the no-beta-blocker group (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.79 to 1.16; P = 0.64). Beta-blocker treatment did not appear to lead to a lower cumulative incidence of the secondary end points (death from any cause, 3.9% in the beta-blocker group and 4.1% in the no-beta-blocker group; death from cardiovascular causes, 1.5% and 1.3%, respectively; myocardial infarction, 4.5% and 4.7%; hospitalization for atrial fibrillation, 1.1% and 1.4%; and hospitalization for heart failure, 0.8% and 0.9%). With regard to safety end points, hospitalization for bradycardia, second- or third-degree atrioventricular block, hypotension, syncope, or implantation of a pacemaker occurred in 3.4% of the patients in the beta-blocker group and in 3.2% of those in the no-beta-blocker group; hospitalization for asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in 0.6% and 0.6%, respectively; and hospitalization for stroke in 1.4% and 1.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with acute myocardial infarction who underwent early coronary angiography and had a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (≥50%), long-term beta-blocker treatment did not lead to a lower risk of the composite primary end point of death from any cause or new myocardial infarction than no beta-blocker use. (Funded by the Swedish Research Council and others; REDUCE-AMI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03278509.).

Safety and tolerability of β-blockers: importance of cardioselectivity

Cardioselective β-blockade is generally well tolerated in practice and contraindications to this therapy are uncommon. β-blockers are a diverse therapeutic class, and their individual tolerability profiles are influenced strongly by their pharmacodynamic effects across different adrenergic receptors. Bisoprolol, probably the β-blocker with the highest selectivity for blockade of β1- vs. β2-adrenoceptors, does not block β2-adrenoceptors to an appreciable extent at doses in therapeutic use. Side-effects often attributed to β-blockers, such as erectile dysfunction and adverse metabolic effects are uncommon with bisoprolol and other β-blockers used at doses which only block β1-adrenoceptors. Cautious use of a cardioselective β-blocker is not contraindicated in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma and the outcomes benefits of β-blockers in patients with coronary heart disease or heart failure are also apparent in patients with concurrent COPD. Starting with a low dose and titrating upwards carefully is important for optimising the tolerability of a β-blocker. Most people with hypertension will receive combination antihypertensive therapy in practice, and the low-dose combination therapy approach provides a useful strategy for optimising the efficacy and tolerability of a regimen that includes a β-blocker, compared with up-titrating an existing monotherapy.

Immediate Reaction to Propranolol: An Extremely Rare but Important Condition. A Case Report

INTRODUCTION

Beta-blockers involve a group of drugs widely used nowadays. Propranolol was the first beta-blocker available in the market. It is the most prescribed first-generation betablocker and is commonly used. Beta-blocker allergy is extremely unusual. Only an isolated case of an urticaria reaction to propranolol has been published in 1975.

CASE PRESENTATION

We present a 44-year-old man. In 2016, he was treated with a daily dose of 5 mg of propranolol prescribed for a diagnosis of essential tremor. On the third day of medical treatment, he experienced an episode of generalized urticaria directly related to the administration of propranolol. He continued with his habitual treatment and he had no other urticaria episodes. A drug provocation test was carried out with gradually increasing doses of the culprit drug. Thirty minutes after a total cumulative dose of 5 mg, the patient had several hives on the chest, abdominal region and arms. Two weeks later, a new drug provocation test was performed to bisoprolol as an alternative beta-blocker, with good tolerance.

CONCLUSION

We describe a new case of urticaria secondary to propranolol, presenting as an immediate hypersensitivity reaction. Bisoprolol has been succesfully proved to be a safe option. Bisoprolol is a second-generation beta-blocker, it is available and commercialized worldwide, which makes it a good alternative.

Efficacy and Safety of Bisoprolol in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose

To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of bisoprolol in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Research Methods

This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statements. The primary outcome measures analyzed included: Pulmonary function(FEV1, FEV1%, FVC), 6-minute walking distance (6MWD), adverse events and inflammatory cytokines(IL-6, IL-8, CRP).

Results

Thirty-five studies were included with a total of 3269 study participants, including 1650 in the bisoprolol group and 1619 in the control group. The effect of bisoprolol on lung function in patients with COPD, FEV1, MD (0.46 [95% CI, 0.27 to 0.65], P=0.000), FEV1%, MD (-0.64 [95% CI, 0.42 to 0.86], P=0.000), FVC, MD (0.20 [95% CI, 0.05 to 0.34], P=0.008), the results all showed a statistically significant result. The effect of bisoprolol on 6MWD in COPD patients, MD (1.37 [95% CI, 1.08 to 1.66], P=0.000), which showed a statistically significant result. The occurrence of adverse events in COPD patients treated with bisoprolol, RR (0.83 [95% CI, 0.54 to 1.26], P=0.382), resulted in no statistical significance. The effect of bisoprolol on inflammatory cytokines in COPD patients, IL-6, MD (-1.16 [95% CI, -1.67 to -0.65], P=0.000), IL-8, MD (-0.94 [95% CI, -1.32 to -0.56], P=0.000), CRP, MD (-1.74 [95% CI, -2.40 to -1.09], P=0.000), the results were statistically significant. We performed a subgroup analysis of each outcome indicator according to whether the patients had heart failure or not, and the results showed that the therapeutic effect of bisoprolol on COPD did not change with the presence or absence of heart failure.

Conclusion

Bisoprolol is safe and effective in the treatment of COPD, improving lung function and exercise performance in patients with COPD, and also reducing inflammatory markers in patients with COPD, and this effect is independent of the presence or absence of heart failure.

Bisoprolol versus celiprolol on dynamic hyperinflation, cardiopulmonary exercise and domiciliary safety in COPD: a single-centre, randomised, crossover study

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is frequently associated with cardiovascular disease. The utility of beta-blockers for treating patients with COPD may be beneficial, but their safety remains uncertain, including worsening of dynamic hyperinflation (DH) during exercise. We hypothesised that among cardioselective beta-blockers celiprolol, due to its partial beta-2 agonist activity, may be safer than bisoprolol on exercise DH.

METHODS

We measured isotime inspiratory capacity (IC) during cycle endurance testing in eleven moderate-severe COPD subjects, alongside other non-invasive cardiopulmonary exercise, bioreactance cardiac output, pulmonary function, biomarkers and daily domiciliary measures. Participants received titrated doses of either bisoprolol (maximim 5 mg) or celiprolol (maximum 400 mg) in randomised crossover fashion, each over 4 weeks.

RESULTS

Clinically relevant DH occurred between resting and exercise isotime IC but showed no significant difference with either beta-blocker compared with post-run-in pooled baseline or between treatments. There were no other significant differences observed for remaining exercise ventilatory; non-invasive cardiac output; resting pulmonary function; beta-2 receptor and cardiac biomarkers; domiciliary pulmonary function, oxygen saturation and symptom outcomes, either between treatments or compared with baseline. No significant adverse effects occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant DH in moderate-severe COPD subjects was no different between bisoprolol or celiprolol or versus baseline. A broad spectrum of other non-invasive cardiopulmonary and domiciliary safety outcomes was equally reassuring. Bronchoprotection with a concomitant long-acting muscarinic antagonist might be an important safety measure in this context.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02380053.

Efficacy and safety of bisoprolol 5 mg plus amlodipine 5 mg in patients with hypertension uncontrolled on monotherapy with 5 mg of amlodipine, a phase III multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial - the AMCOR study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the antihypertensive effect and safety of bisoprolol 5 mg (BISO5mg) and amlodipine 5 mg (AMLO5mg) combination in comparison to AMLO5mg in hypertensive subjects uncontrolled with AMLO5mg.

METHODS

Phase III, prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 8-week trial with parallel design (EudraCT Number: 2019-000751-13).

RESULTS

367 patients aged 57.58 ± 14.62 years were randomized to BISO5mg once daily on top of AMLO5mg (n = 181) or placebo on top of AMLO5mg (n = 186). Systolic/diastolic blood pressure (SBP/DBP) in the bisoprolol-treated group was reduced by 7.2 ± 12.74/3.95 ± 8.85 mmHg at 4 weeks (both p < .0001) and by 5.5 ± 12.44/3.84 ± 9.46 mmHg at 8 weeks (p < .0001/p < .0002) compared to placebo control. Bisoprolol-treated group had lower heart rate than placebo control (difference -7.23 ± 9.84/-6.25 ± 9.26 beats per minute at 4 and 8 weeks, respectively, both p < .0001). Both target SBP and DBP was achieved at 4 weeks by 62 vs. 41% (p = .0002) and at 8 weeks by 65 vs. 46% (p = .0004) of bisoprolol-treated patients and placebo group patients, respectively. SBP <140 mmHg was achieved at 4 and 8 weeks in 68 and 69% of bisoprolol-treated patients and 45 and 50% of placebo group patients, respectively. No deaths and serious adverse events were reported. Adverse events occurred in 34 bisoprolol-treated patients vs. 22 patients in the placebo group (p = .064). Bisoprolol was withdrawn due to adverse events in 7 patients, mostly (n = 4) due to asymptomatic bradycardia.

CONCLUSIONS

Addition of bisoprolol to patients uncontrolled with amlodipine monotherapy significantly improves blood pressure control. We can expect additional 7.2/3.95 mmHg SBP/DBP lowering effect by adding bisoprolol 5 mg to amlodipine 5 mg.

Effectiveness and Tolerability of Bisoprolol/Perindopril Single-Pill Combination in Patients with Arterial Hypertension and a History of Myocardial Infarction: The PRIDE Observational Study

INTRODUCTION

This study assessed the real-life effectiveness of a single-pill combination (SPC) of bisoprolol/perindopril for controlling blood pressure (BP) and symptoms of angina in patients with hypertension and a history of myocardial infarction (MI).

METHODS

Eligible patients with arterial hypertension and a history of MI were aged 18-79 years and had initiated bisoprolol/perindopril SPC within 3 months of study enrollment as part of routine Russian clinical practice. The primary endpoint was mean change in systolic and diastolic BP (SBP/DBP) at week 12 compared with baseline (data collected retrospectively). Secondary endpoints were assessed at weeks 4 and 12 and included mean change in resting heart rate (HR), proportion of patients reaching target level of resting HR, antianginal effectiveness of the SPC, and proportion of patients reaching target BP levels.

RESULTS

A total of 504 patients were enrolled, of whom 481 comprised the full analysis set (mean age 61.4 ± 8.9 years, 68% men). Mean baseline SBP/DBP and HR values were 148.9 ± 16.8/87.7 ± 11.0 mmHg and 77.4 ± 10.5 bpm, respectively. Mean durations of hypertension and CAD were 12.8 ± 8.4 and 6.1 ± 6.3 years, respectively, and time since MI was 3.8 ± 5.3 years. At week 12, SBP/DBP had decreased by 24.9/12.2 mmHg (P < 0.001 vs baseline). Target BP (< 140/90 mmHg) was achieved by 69.8% and 95.9% of patients at weeks 4 and 12, respectively, and target HR (55-60 bpm) by 17.3% and 34.5% at weeks 4 and 12 versus 3.1% at baseline (P < 0.001). Reductions in angina attacks, nitrate consumption, and improvements in HR were statistically significant. Treatment was well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Treatment of symptomatic patients with CAD, hypertension, and a history of MI with a bisoprolol/perindopril SPC was associated with significant decreases in SBP/DBP and a high proportion of patients achieving BP treatment goals. This was accompanied by improvements in angina symptoms and reductions in HR in a broad patient population representative of those seen in everyday clinical practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT04656847.

A growing evidence base for the fixed-dose combination of bisoprolol and amlodipine to manage hypertension

OBJECTIVES

Hypertension is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Although current drug therapies can be effective, management of hypertension is closely linked to patient adherence to therapy. A fixed-dose combination (FDC) of bisoprolol and amlodipine has shown to be effective and convenient, and to significantly improve patient adherence.

METHODS

This narrative review evaluates recent evidence from four studies which explore the efficacy, safety, and adherence of FDC bisoprolol and amlodipine in patients with hypertension: one observational study; two randomized clinical trials (RCTs); and one indirect comparison analysis.

RESULTS

All four studies support the efficacy of FDC bisoprolol and amlodipine in the management of hypertension, highlighting clinically meaningful reductions in systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP), and high adherence. In a large cohort study exploring FDC bisoprolol and amlodipine in daily practice, high adherence improved BP and heart rate control versus baseline. In a Phase 3 RCT, FDC bisoprolol and amlodipine demonstrated superiority over monotherapies in BP control and a positive tolerability profile, further supporting its use to manage hypertension in second line following monotherapy. In another Phase 3 RCT, the combination of bisoprolol and amlodipine led to significant BP reductions versus monotherapy with amlodipine with a comparable safety profile. Finally, in the indirect treatment comparison, a low dose combination of bisoprolol and amlodipine showed a similar decrease in systolic BP compared with a maximum dose of amlodipine.

CONCLUSIONS

This review adds to growing evidence supporting the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of FDC bisoprolol and amlodipine in managing hypertension.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the management of chronic heart failure

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is an unprecedented challenge. Meeting this has resulted in changes to working practices and the impact on the management of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is largely unknown. We performed a retrospective, observational study contrasting patients diagnosed with HFrEF attending specialist heart failure clinics at a UK hospital, whose subsequent period of optimisation of medical therapy was during the COVID-19 pandemic, with patients diagnosed the previous year. The primary outcome was the change in equivalent dosing of ramipril and bisoprolol at 6-months. Secondary outcomes were the number and type of follow-up consultations, hospitalisation for heart failure and all-cause mortality. In total, 60 patients were diagnosed with HFrEF between 1 December 2019 and 30 April 2020, compared to 54 during the same period of the previous year. The absolute number of consultations was higher (390 vs 270; p = 0.69), driven by increases in telephone consultations, with a reduction in appointments with hospital nurse specialists. After 6-months, we observed lower equivalent dosing of ramipril (3.1 ± 3.0 mg vs 4.4 ± 0.5 mg; p = 0.035) and similar dosing of bisoprolol (4.1 ± 0.5 mg vs 4.9 ± 0.5 mg; p = 0.27), which persisted for ramipril (mean difference 1.0 mg, 95% CI 0.018-2.09; p = 0.046) and bisoprolol (mean difference 0.52 mg, 95% CI -0.23-1.28; p = 0.17) after adjustment for baseline dosing. We observed no differences in the proportion of patients who died (5.0% vs 7.4%; p = 0.59) or were hospitalised with heart failure (13.3% vs 9.3%; p = 0.49). Our study suggests the transition to telephone appointments and re-deployment of heart failure nurse specialists was associated with less successful optimisation of medical therapy, especially renin-angiotensin inhibitors, compared with usual care.

Effect of Digoxin vs Bisoprolol for Heart Rate Control in Atrial Fibrillation on Patient-Reported Quality of Life: The RATE-AF Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

There is little evidence to support selection of heart rate control therapy in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation, in particular those with coexisting heart failure.

OBJECTIVE

To compare low-dose digoxin with bisoprolol (a β-blocker).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Randomized, open-label, blinded end-point clinical trial including 160 patients aged 60 years or older with permanent atrial fibrillation (defined as no plan to restore sinus rhythm) and dyspnea classified as New York Heart Association class II or higher. Patients were recruited from 3 hospitals and primary care practices in England from 2016 through 2018; last follow-up occurred in October 2019.

INTERVENTIONS

Digoxin (n = 80; dose range, 62.5-250 μg/d; mean dose, 161 μg/d) or bisoprolol (n = 80; dose range, 1.25-15 mg/d; mean dose, 3.2 mg/d).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was patient-reported quality of life using the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey physical component summary score (SF-36 PCS) at 6 months (higher scores are better; range, 0-100), with a minimal clinically important difference of 0.5 SD. There were 17 secondary end points (including resting heart rate, modified European Heart Rhythm Association [EHRA] symptom classification, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP] level) at 6 months, 20 end points at 12 months, and adverse event (AE) reporting.

RESULTS

Among 160 patients (mean age, 76 [SD, 8] years; 74 [46%] women; mean baseline heart rate, 100/min [SD, 18/min]), 145 (91%) completed the trial and 150 (94%) were included in the analysis for the primary outcome. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome of normalized SF-36 PCS at 6 months (mean, 31.9 [SD, 11.7] for digoxin vs 29.7 [11.4] for bisoprolol; adjusted mean difference, 1.4 [95% CI, -1.1 to 3.8]; P = .28). Of the 17 secondary outcomes at 6 months, there were no significant between-group differences for 16 outcomes, including resting heart rate (a mean of 76.9/min [SD, 12.1/min] with digoxin vs a mean of 74.8/min [SD, 11.6/min] with bisoprolol; difference, 1.5/min [95% CI, -2.0 to 5.1/min]; P = .40). The modified EHRA class was significantly different between groups at 6 months; 53% of patients in the digoxin group reported a 2-class improvement vs 9% of patients in the bisoprolol group (adjusted odds ratio, 10.3 [95% CI, 4.0 to 26.6]; P < .001). At 12 months, 8 of 20 outcomes were significantly different (all favoring digoxin), with a median NT-proBNP level of 960 pg/mL (interquartile range, 626 to 1531 pg/mL) in the digoxin group vs 1250 pg/mL (interquartile range, 847 to 1890 pg/mL) in the bisoprolol group (ratio of geometric means, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.64 to 0.92]; P = .005). Adverse events were less common with digoxin; 20 patients (25%) in the digoxin group had at least 1 AE vs 51 patients (64%) in the bisoprolol group (P < .001). There were 29 treatment-related AEs and 16 serious AEs in the digoxin group vs 142 and 37, respectively, in the bisoprolol group.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with permanent atrial fibrillation and symptoms of heart failure treated with low-dose digoxin or bisoprolol, there was no statistically significant difference in quality of life at 6 months. These findings support potentially basing decisions about treatment on other end points.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02391337 and clinicaltrialsregister.eu Identifier: 2015-005043-13.

The mortality benefit of carvedilol versus bisoprolol in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

BACKGROUND/AIMS

It is unknown whether different β-blockers (BBs) have variable effects on long-term survival of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). This study compares the effects of two BBs, carvedilol and bisoprolol, on survival in patients with HFrEF.

METHODS

The Korean Acute Heart Failure (KorAHF) registry is a prospective multicenter cohort that includes 5,625 patients who were hospitalized for acute heart failure (AHF). We selected 3,016 patients with HFrEF and divided this study population into two groups: BB at discharge (n = 1,707) or no BB at discharge (n = 1,309). Among patients with BB at discharge, subgroups were formed based on carvedilol prescription (n = 831), or bisoprolol prescription (n = 553). Propensity score matching analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Among patients who were prescribed a BB at discharge, 60.5% received carvedilol and 32.7% received bisoprolol. There was a significant reduction in allcause mortality in those patients with HFrEF prescribed a BB at discharge compared to those who were not (BB vs. no BB, 26.1% vs. 40.8%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52 to 0.67; p < 0.001). However, there was no significant difference in the rate of all-cause mortality between those receiving different types of BB (carvedilol vs. bisoprolol, 27.5% vs. 23.5%; HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.47; p = 0.07). Similar results were observed after propensity score matching analysis (508 pairs, 26.2% vs. 23.8%; HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.40; p = 0.47).

CONCLUSION

In the treatment of AHF with reduced EF after hospitalization, mortality benefits of carvedilol and bisoprolol were comparable.

Impact of the β-1 adrenergic receptor polymorphism on tolerability and efficacy of bisoprolol therapy in Korean heart failure patients: association between β adrenergic receptor polymorphism and bisoprolol therapy in heart failure (ABBA) study

BACKGROUND/AIMS

We evaluated the association between coding region variants of adrenergic receptor genes and therapeutic effect in patients with congestive heart failure (CHF).

METHODS

One hundred patients with stable CHF (left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] < 45%) were enrolled. Enrolled patients started 1.25 mg bisoprolol treatment once daily, then up-titrated to the maximally tolerable dose, at which they were treated for 1 year.

RESULTS

Genotypic analysis was carried out, but the results were blinded to the investigators throughout the study period. At position 389 of the β-1 adrenergic receptor gene (ADRB1), the observed minor Gly allele frequency (Gly389Arg + Gly389Gly) was 0.21, and no deviation from Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium was observed in the genotypic distribution of Arg389Gly (p = 0.75). Heart rate was reduced from 80.8 ± 14.3 to 70.0 ± 15.0 beats per minute (p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in final heart rate across genotypes. However, the Arg389Arg genotype group required significantly more bisoprolol compared to the Gly389X (Gly389Arg + Gly389Gly) group (5.26 ± 2.62 mg vs. 3.96 ± 2.05 mg, p = 0.022). There were no significant differences in LVEF changes or remodeling between two groups. Also, changes in exercise capacity and brain natriuretic peptide level were not significant. However, interestingly, there was a two-fold higher rate of readmission (21.2% vs. 10.0%, p = 0.162) and one CHF-related death in the Arg389Arg group.

CONCLUSIONS

The ADRB1 Gly389X genotype showed greater response to bisoprolol than the Arg389Arg genotype, suggesting the potential of individually tailoring β-blocker therapy according to genotype.

[The evaluation of the prevalence of constipation at the Centre of clinical gerontology]

Constipation is a disease which increases in the senior population and is a common complication for hospitalised patients. Among the risk factors are age, female gender, immobility, diet, fluid intake and polypharmacotherapy. The aim of the study was to analyse the prevalence of constipation according to the used drugs and known risk factors in a population with a high prevalence of constipation. In the department of clinical gerontology, observational prevalence point study was performed using a questionnaire involving 100 patients based on the patients subjective perception of constipation. Prevalence of constipation was determined according to the drug categories and individual drugs, gender, age, mobility, diagnosis, diet and fluid intake. There were 59 patients who suffered from constipation. A high prevalence of constipation was associated with the diet, the principal diagnosis, and mainly the use of drugs. Among the drugs associated with constipation were the calcium channel blockers of 21 patients out of 28, HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors of 22 patients out of 30, drugs for the treatment of increased urinary frequency and incontinence of 6 patients out of 6 and bisoprolol of 10 patients out of 11. Hospitalisation of seniors is connected with the high prevalence of constipation that is increased by the use of drugs that influence constipation. A change in the therapeutic value of drugs should be taken into consideration during the pharmacotherapy of this group of patients.

KEY WORDS

constipation risks factors for constipation drug-induced constipation.

Effects of Celiprolol and Bisoprolol on Blood Pressure, Vascular Stiffness, and Baroreflex Sensitivity

BACKGROUND

We tested the hypothesis that celiprolol and bisoprolol have differential effects on blood pressure (BP), flow-mediated dilation (FMD), and vascular stiffness.

METHODS

We analyzed 102 hypertensives (mean age: 59±14 years) who were being treated other than beta-blockers. They were randomized to receive add-on treatment with either celiprolol 100-200mg (C group) or bisoprolol 2.5-5mg (B group), and followed up for 3 months. In addition to clinic, home, and ambulatory BP monitoring, the FMD, radial augmentation index (AI), brachial-ankle pulse wave velocity (baPWV), urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio, and baroreflex sensitivity (BRS) were measured at baseline and at the end of the study.

RESULTS

Compared to the baseline values, home and 24-hour BP were significantly lowered in the third month in both groups (all Ps < 0.05). Pulse rate (PR) and baPWV were reduced (P < 0.001), and BRS was increased significantly only in the B group (P = 0.02). Radial AI was unchanged in the C group but was significantly increased in the B group (P < 0.001). Central BP was significantly reduced in the C group (P = 0.003) but was unchanged in the B group. FMD was significantly increased in both groups (both P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Bisoprolol achieved the greater reduction of PR and improved BRS and vascular stiffness, whereas, celiprolol reduced the central BP level. In treated hypertensive patients, add-on use of celiprolol may be favorable in uncomplicated stage of hypertension. On the other hand, bisoprolol may be useful in hypertensives with cardiac or vascular diseases who have advanced atherosclerotic changes and sympathetic nervous system activation.

[Which is the preferred perioperative beta-blocker?]

Guidelines on perioperative cardiovascular evaluation and management of patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery recommend initiation of beta-blocker therapy in at-risk patients who are undergoing intermediate- to high-risk surgery. Continuation of therapy in patients already receiving beta-blockers is also recommended. Recent literature, however, reported an increased risk of perioperative cardiovascular mortality among patients who continued with existing beta-blockade; most patients in this study were using metoprolol. There are important pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic differences between various beta-blockers, and these differences may explain the differences in clinical effects. Metoprolol has less beta1 receptor affinity compared with atenolol and bisoprolol, and beta1 receptor polymorphisms affect the clinical effects of metoprolol. Furthermore, metoprolol is dependent on activity of the CYP2D6 liver enzyme, which results in clinically important differences in plasma concentration. It is, therefore, wise to follow the European guidelines and to initiate beta-blocker therapy in the perioperative period with either atenolol or bisoprolol.

[Efficacy and safety of bisoprololal in hypertensive patients with cardiovascular disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease]

Efficacy and safety of bisoprolol in hypertensive patients with cardiovascular disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. A comparative study on the efficacy and safety of bisoprolol and sustained release metoprolol succinate in patients with arterial hypertension (AH), cardiovascular disease (CVD) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) was conducted. High antihypertensive efficacy and good tolerability of bisoprolol and metoprolol succinate sustained release was shown in hypertensive patients with CVD and COPD. Bisoprolol versus metoprolol succinate sustained release was more effective in reducing the number of PVCs in hypertensive patients with CVD and COPD. After 12 weeks of therapy of bisoprolol there was a trend to reduce the number of patients with concentric left ventricular hypertrophy by 16.6 % (from 83.3% at baseline vs 66.7% after 12 weeks of treatment, p < 0.1). Despite the fact that the identified changes in respiratory function (ERF) in both groups did not reach certainty bisoprolol versus metoprolol succinate sustained-release was a lesser extent influenced the performance of ERF and more - to reduce dyspnea to the evaluation scales Borg and mMRC (delta% = -7.1 in fixed vs delta% = -3.8 in control groups and delta% = -5.6 vs delta% = 0 respectively) in patients with AH, CVD and COPD.

[Possible applications bisoprolol for heart rate control in young patients with connective tissue dysplasia]

To assess the efficacy and safety of bisoprolol to monitor heart rate (HR) in young patients with connective tissue dysplasia (CTD) examined 58 patients (22,3 + 3,47 years, 38 men). Bisoprolol drug was administered at an initial dose of 1.25 mg/day, with a further increase to 2.5 mg/day in 2 weeks, etc. to achieve the level of heart rate 59-69 beats/min. Average effective dose was 7.27 ± 2.08 mg/day. Target heart rate,improvement of health and the pumping function of the heart, reducing the activation of the sympathetic nervous system and of anxiety achieved the absolute majority of patients. During treatment unit observed transient manifestations of general weakness, headache, episodes of vertigo in the selection of the dose, cases of bradycardia and hypotension pathological registered for the time of ingestion. Thus, the use of mandatory bisoprolol gradual careful titration, starting with 1.25 mg/day as a means to control the heart rate in young patients with CTD with sinus tachycardia, the manifestations of autonomic nervous system dysfunction, safely and effectively in relation to adverse orthostatic reactions.

[Digital necrosis in hand by uncommon mechanism]

A 43-year-old, non-smoking man presented with acute ischemic lesions of his left hand. He had been taking beta-blockers for his arterial hypertension. The day before the occurrence of these acute lesions, he self medicated with a drug containing ergotamine and caffeine because of a headache. About one hour after mild trauma to the hand, he noticed intense cyanosis accompanied by severe pain in the fingers that progressed to digital necrosis. Hematological tests, hand radiography, echo Doppler, and nailfold videocapillaroscopy were performed. Digital necrosis owing to an unusual combination of ischemic mechanisms is assumed.

[Effect of monotherapy with nebivolol, bisoprolol, carvedilol on the state of vegetative nervous system and sexual function in men with arterial hypertension]

Aim of the study was to assess effect of monotherapy with nebivolol, bisoprolol, carvedilol for 2 months on sexual function in men with arterial hypertension (AH). Men with 1-2 degree of AH (n=75, age 35-55 years, mean age 48+/-3,5 years) received monotherapy with these drugs for 2 months. Registration of parameters of heart rate variability (HRV), Dopplerography of penile arteries, and the Vasilchenko questionnaire were implemented at the end of 4 months of placebo period and after 2 months of therapy with a study drug. Therapy with bisoprolol, carvedilol, and nebivolol was associated with significant elevation of parasympathetic part of vegetative nervous system tone, improvement of systolic blood flow in cavernous and dorsal arteries. Analysis of data obtained by Vasilchenko questionnaire demonstrated improvement of psychic and erectile components of sexual function. Thus bisoprolol, carvedilol, and nebivolol did not worsen sexual function of men with AH, improved spectral parameters of HRV and vascular blood flow in arteries of cavernous bodies.

[The choked heart]

A couple of days after increasing the dosage of betaadrenergic- and adding calcium channel blockers due to an increased heart rate in atrial fibrillation, a 77 year old female was found in cardiogenic shock. After exclusion of further causes a therapy with catecholamines, calcium, high dose insulin and phosphodiesterase inhibitors was initiated. Despite this combined therapy the shock persisted. Only after administration of levosimendan, a calcium sensitizer, a normalization of the heart function could be observed. We discuss the danger of combining drugs with negative inotropic properties for rate control in atrial fibrillation and review the therapy with focus on the effects on cardiac cells of all recommended drugs in the treatment of intoxication with betareceptor- and calcium channel blockers.

[Bisoprolol: opportunities in the treatment of hypertension]

Bisoprolol (bisoprolol fumarate) - -cardioselective blocker, does not possess intrinsic sympathomimetic and membrane stabilizing activity. The main indications for bisoprolol are arterial hypertension (AH) and heart failure. This article provides an overview of the literature on the potential uses of bisoprolol in the treatment of hypertension. The features of the pharmacokinetics of the drug. The data on the effectiveness of bisoprolol in hypertension and tolerability in patients with concomitant disorders: diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, peripheral atherosclerosis. Proofs of the high efficiency of antianginal bisoprola and justified the use of the drug in patients with hypertension and coronary heart disease. The capabilities of bisoprolol in the perioperative correction of hypertension. The data and pharmacoeconomic properties of bisoprolol generic counterparts.

[Combined low-dose antihypertensive therapy in pregnant women with hypertension and preeclampsia]

The effect of low-dose combination antihypertensive therapy in fixed form, containing 2.5 mg of bisoprolol and 6.25 mg of hydrochlorothiazide, the clinical condition, the daily profile of blood pressure, body adrenoreactivity structural and functional parameters of the left ventricle in 28 pregnant women with preeclampsia in the background chronic hypertension (hypertension stage II, 2 nd degree) and 28 pregnant women with preeclampsia and mild to moderate severity in terms of 22-28 weeks of pregnancy. After 16 weeks of receiving a fixed form, containing 2.5 mg of bisoprolol and 6.25 mg hydrochlorothiazide, the target BP level reached 76% of pregnant women with preeclampsia with chronic hypertension and 81% - with preeclampsia. In both groups, the parameters are optimized daily profile of blood pressure, the value of the total peripheral vascular resistance.

[Clinical-pharmacoeconomical aspects of ß-adrenoblockers use in patients with ischemic heart disease undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting]

Aim of this study was to assess clinical and pharmacoeconomic effects of long term use of adrenoblockers in patients with ischemic heart disease (IHD) undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. Patients with IHD (n=294) were included in open, prospective, randomized clinical trial. The follow up period was 3 years. It was noted that long term use of bisoprolol in comparison with atenolol and metoprolol was characterized by more pronounced increase of exercise tolerance, lower rate of angina recurrence and lower expenses for treatment of patients with IHD.

[The efficacy and safety of the combination of β-blocker bisoprolol and if inhibitor I(f) ivabradine in patients with stable angina and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease]

The study was aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of treating coronary heart disease (CHD) patients complicated with COPD using the combination of tolerable doses of -blocker bisoprolol and inhibitor If-channel ivabradine, compared with bisoprolol alone. A total of 50 patients were included (88% men, mean age 62.8+/-7.2 years) with stable angina and clinical signs of bronchoobstruction (84% with COPD and 16% with bronchial asthma in remission phase). At the study start, all patients received bisoprolol, the dose of which was titrated until the clinical signs of intolerance (most common - bronchoobstruction) appeared or worsened. Average dose of bisoprolol at the time of forced titration stop was 6.3+/-2.2 mg/day, mean heart rate (HR) decreased from 82.1+/-8.4 to 72.2+/-8.5 bpm. Then, the patients were randomized into two groups: patients of the first group (n=25) continued to take bisoprolol in tolerable dose, and patients of the second group were added ivabradine (5-15 mg, mean dose 10.7+/- 3.1 mg/day). In contrast to the bisoprolol alone, combination therapy resulted in further decrease of HR to an average of 62.6+/-4.1 bpm over 6 month of follow-up. This was associated with additional decrease of the number of angina attacks (by 4.68+/-4.40 per week vs. 2.48+/-4.70, &lt;0.05), nitrates consumption (by 206.0+/-153.6 mg/week vs. 95.6+/-134.2 mg/week, &lt;0.01) and score of negative components of quality of life (by 5.16+/-3.3 vs. 2.24+/-4.5, &lt;0.05), compared with the first group, respectively. In combination therapy group there was also the decrease of the inhaled broncholytics consumption (from 2.88+/-3.23 to 1.88+/-2.65 per week, &lt;0.05), that was not evident in the first group. Average number of hospitalizations per 1 patient decreased over 6 months of follow-up, compared to the same period before the trial, in both groups, but more prominently in the combination therapy group (-0.31+/-0.55 vs. -0.56+/-0.76, accordingly, &lt;0.1). Therefore, in the treatment of patients with CHD, stable angina and concomitant bronchoobsrtuctive manifestations, if not possible to administer -blockers in the adequate HR-reducing dose, the addition of ivabradine to the treatment could be the treatment of choice. The combination of tolerable doses of bisoprolol and ivabradine is s afe and allows to achieve adequate HR decrease. This is a ssociated with maximal antianginal effect, decrease in the need for broncholytic therapy, improvement of the quality of life and decrease of the number of hospitalizations, compared with the treatment with bisoprolol alone.

[Efficacy of a cardioselective beta1-adrenoblocker bisoprolol in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in combination with ischemic heart disease]

AIM

To study effects of a selective beta1-adrenoblocker (B1AB) bisoprolol fumarate (conkor, Nikomed, Germany) on severity of pulmonary hypertension (PH), bronchial obstruction and bioelectric activity of the myocardium in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) associated with ischemic heart disease (IHD).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Effects of an 8-week course of bisoprolol therapy on pulmonary hypertension, its efficacy and safety were studied in 30 IHD patients with COPD of stage III-IV on broncholytic therapy. The comparison group consisted of 45 IHD patients with COPD untreated with basic bisoprolol therapy. The following parameters were assessed: chest x-ray data, mean pulmonary artery pressure (MPAP) by echocardiography findings, frequency of anginal attacks by ECG monitoring, bronchial permeability by investigation of external respiration function, partial pressure and carbonic gas in blood, oxygen blood saturation (pO2, pCO2 and SaO2).

RESULTS

Bisoprolol has decreased MPAP from 23.8 +/- 0.8 mmHg to 21.9 +/- 1.0 mmHg, by 8%, p < 0.05; frequency of anginal attacks, heart rate from 82.2 +/- 1.4 to 73.2 +/- 1.5 b/min; number of episodes of ST segment depression from 2.35 +/- 0.43 to 0.95 +/- 0.22, p < 0.01; total duration of ST segment depression from 10.1 +/- 2.54 to 2.89 +/- 0.76 min, p < 0.01; number of supraventricular and ventricular extrasystoles for 24 hours from 194.5 +/- 74.4 to 96.2 +/- 27.4 and from 239.1 +/- 124.9 to 111.3 +/- 44.1, respectively. Parameters of a 6 min walk test improved from 326.7 to 442 m, p < 0.01. Bisoprolol had no negative effect on bronchial obstruction.

CONCLUSION

Bisoprolol is well tolerated, effective and safe in COPD patients with IHD.

Effect of prophylactic bisoprolol plus magnesium on the incidence of atrial fibrillation after coronary bypass surgery: results of a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Bisoprolol, a highly cardioselective beta(1)-blocker, is widely used to treat elderly patients with hypertension, coronary artery disease and heart failure. The current literature lacks evidence regarding its potency to prevent atrial fibrillation (AF) following cardiac surgery. Therefore the aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of bisoprolol plus magnesium (Mg) in the prophylaxis of AF after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A total of 100 consecutive patients subjected to elective on-pump CABG (84 men, age 65 +/- 8 [SD] years), with no prior AF history, were randomly assigned to the prophylaxis group (n = 50) receiving after surgery bisoprolol (5 mg/day) plus Mg (intravenous infusion of 2 g of Mg on arrival in the intensive care unit, followed by oral Mg at 1800 mg/day for 1 week), or to the control group (n = 50), receiving no combined study medication but remaining on their preoperative drugs, including beta-blockers. All patients were continuously monitored to identify the onset of AF.

RESULTS

In the prophylaxis group the incidence of postoperative AF was significantly lower, with 20% (10 / 50) compared to 42% (21 / 50) among controls (p = 0.030, 95% confidence interval [CI] for absolute risk reduction [ARR], 2-42%). Particularly in the elderly, bisoprolol plus Mg was effective in preventing AF; in the prophylaxis group only six of 36 (17%) patients > or = 65 years of age developed AF, compared to 13 of 20 (65%) in the control group (p < 0.001, 95% CI for ARR, 17-65%). This was associated with significantly (p = 0.022) shorter hospital stays in the prophylaxis group (median of 7 vs. 9 days, 95% CI for difference in medians, 0-3 days).

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of bisoprolol plus Mg effectively reduces the incidence of postoperative AF following on-pump CABG, particularly in elderly patients, and is associated with a shorter hospital length of stay.

[The effect long-term administration of a selective beta1 blocker bisoprolol on glucose metabolism in patients with essential hypertensive and type 2 diabetes mellitus]

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effects of bisoprolol on glucose metabolism and blood pressure in essential hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

A total of 92 hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes on stable antidiabetic therapy with HbAlc less than 7% were recruited. In a randomized, open trial the patients were treated for 12 weeks with bisoprolol or captopril following a 1-week placebo run-in period, the main parameters measured were HbA1c, fasting blood glucose and 2-hour postprandial glucose following a standard dinner as well as systolic and diastolic blood pressure.

RESULTS

There were no differences in HbA1 [(6.0 +/- 0.8)% vs (6.2 +/- 0.8)%, P > 0.05], fasting glucose [(7.0 +/- 1.8) mmol/L vs (7.0 +/- 1.9) mmol/L, P > 0.05], 2-hour postprandial blood glucose [(10.7 +/- 2.5) mmol/L vs (11.2 +/- 3.4) mmol/L, P > 0.05], systolic blood pressure [(147.3 +/- 9.7) mm Hg (1 mm Hg = 0.133 kPa) vs (146.2 +/- 8.3) mm Hg, P > 0.05] and diastolic blood pressure (88.3 +/- 8.9 mm Hg vs 87.8 +/- 7.9 mm Hg, P > 0.05) between the bisoprolol and captopril group before treatment. After administration of bisoprolol or captopril, there were still no differences between these two groups in HbA1c [(5.7 +/- 0.9)% vs (5.7 +/- 1.1)%, P > 0.05], fasting blood glucose [(6.8 +/- 1.6) mmol/L vs (6.4 +/- 2.1) mmol/L, P > 0.05], 2-hour postprandial glucose [(10.0 +/- 2.9) mmol/L vs (10.2 +/- +/- 2.9)mmol/L, P > 0.05], systolic blood pressure [(124.8 +/- 10.6) mm Hg vs (126.6 +/- 7.8) mm Hg, P > 0.05] and diastolic blood pressure [(74.5 +/- 7.7) mm Hg vs (77.6 +/- 7.6) mm Hg, P = 0.05].

CONCLUSIONS

Based on these results, bisoprolol appears to be a beta1-selective blocker possessing a satisfactory antihypertensive effect without any adverse effects on glucose metabolism and is therefore a choice for treating hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Repeated intensification of lower urinary tract symptoms in the patient with benign prostatic hyperplasia during bisoprolol treatment

A case of a 60-year-old male patient, suffering from benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), with deterioration of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) during antihypertensive treatment with bisoprolol was presented. Discontinuation of beta-blocker resulted in giving a relief whereas the resumption of its use caused repeated deterioration. Bisoprolol deteriorated lower urinary tract symptoms in patient with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Increase of lower urinary tract symptoms caused by beta-blockers can be more significant in elderly men.

Tolerability of beta-blocker initiation and titration with bisoprolol and carvedilol in congestive heart failure -- a randomized comparison

In clinical trials beta-blockers (BB) are well tolerated in patients with systolic congestive heart failure (CHF). In contrast, in daily practice treatment initiation and titration appear to be more difficult and may differ in various BB -- but systematic data are lacking. We randomized 87 patients with systolic CHF (mean age 70.1 +/- 10.6 years, 24% females, LVEF 0.28 +/- 0.10, NYHA III-IV 29%) to treatment with either bisoprolol or carvedilol, in order to assess and compare the maximally achievable number of patients on treatment with these BB and the maximally achieved dosage during a minimum of 2 months attendance at our out patient heart failure clinic. In those randomized to bisoprolol, mean dose at 2 months was 33% of target dose (3.1 +/- 2.6 mg) and 41% at discharge. In those on carvedilol, the mean dose at 2 months was 27% of target dose (13.4 +/- 14.0 mg) and 32% at discharge. Thirty-nine and 40% of the bisoprolol and carvedilol treated patients, respectively, had stopped treatment at discharge. None of the figures differed significantly between the two treatment groups and no baseline parameter predicted BB tolerability. Thus, almost twice the number of unselected patients with systolic CHF attending a heart failure clinic focusing on systematic medical titration were intolerant to BB treatment and only a minority reached target dose treatment. The present data reveal no clear difference with respect to tolerability of carvedilol and bisoprolol, and no parameter predicts tolerability.

Adverse Effects of β-Blocker Therapy for Patients With Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

Beta-blockers substantially improve survival in patients with chronic heart failure (HF) with left ventricular systolic dysfunction, but concerns about cardiovascular adverse effects may deter physicians from prescribing this therapy. We performed an overview of randomized beta-blocker trials in patients with HF to quantify the risks of these adverse effects.

METHODS

Heart failure trials of beta-blockers were identified by electronic searches of the MEDLINE database from 1966 to 2002. The random-effects model was used to combine results from individual trials and calculate estimates of risks associated with therapy.

RESULTS

beta-Blocker therapy was associated with significant absolute annual increases in risks of hypotension (11 per 1000; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0-22), dizziness (57 per 1000; 95% CI, 11-104), and bradycardia (38 per 1000; 95% CI, 21-54). There was no significant absolute risk of fatigue associated with therapy (3 per 1000; 95% CI, -2 to 9). beta-Blocker therapy was associated with a reduction in all-cause withdrawal of medication (14 per 1000; 95% CI, -2 to 29) as well as significant reductions in all-cause mortality (34 per 1000; 95% CI, 20-49), HF hospitalizations (40 per 1000; 95% CI, 22-58), and worsening HF (52 per 1000; 95% CI, 10-94).

CONCLUSIONS

Although beta-blocker therapy was associated with hypotension, dizziness, and bradycardia, the absolute increases in risk were small, and overall fewer patients were withdrawn from beta-blocker therapy than from placebo. This information should alleviate concerns about prescribing this life-saving therapy to patients with HF.

Bilateral cleft lip and palate, hypertelorism and hypoplastic toes

We report on a 23-month-old boy with bilateral cleft lip and palate, marked hypertelorism, frontal bossing and severe bilateral, asymmetric hypoplasia of toes. The mother used bisoprolol, naproxen and sumatriptan for migraine until the fifth postmenstrual week of pregnancy. We suggest that this patient's features represent a previously undescribed entity of as yet unknown aetiology.

Amiodarone-associated "torsade de pointes". Relevance of concomitant cardiovascular medication in a patient with atrial fibrillation and structural heart disease

A 69 year old female with history of coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction and paroxysmal atrial fibrillation suffered from occipital apoplexy. Under treatment with amiodarone 600 mg daily and concomitant medication with beta-acetyldigoxine (0.1 mg daily) and bisoprolole (1.25 mg daily), significant QT-prolongation (max. 700 ms; QTc: 614 ms) could be documented. Out of normofrequent sinus rhythm but as well out of bradycardia, the patient developed repetitive short-lasting "torsade de pointes" tachycardias (320 bpm) which terminated spontaneously. Serum electrolytes, plasma levels of digoxine (1.76 ng/ml) and amiodarone (1.9 mcg/ml) were within therapeutic range. This case report is the first to describe induction of amiodarone-associated "torsade de pointes" tachycardia during concomitant beta-blocker and digitalis medication in a patient with atrial fibrillation and structural heart disease. This points towards an elevated risk for proarrhythmia under this triple therapy.

Comparison of the new cardioselective beta-blocker nebivolol with bisoprolol in hypertension: the Nebivolol, Bisoprolol Multicenter Study (NEBIS)

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the antihypertensive efficacy of the highly beta(1)-selective adrenergic antagonist nebivolol in comparison with bisoprolol in the treatment of mild to moderate essential hypertension.

METHODS

This multicenter, single-blind, randomized, parallel-group 16-week study involved a 4-week placebo run-in, followed by a 12-week treatment period (5 mg nebivolol or 5 mg bisoprolol). Patients (n = 273) eligible for the study had a sitting diastolic blood pressure (DBP) between 95 and 110 mm Hg and a systolic blood pressure (SBP) </=180 mm Hg at the end of the placebo run-in period. The primary endpoint of the study was the percentage of responders achieving DBP normalization (</=90 mm Hg) or a DBP reduction of at least 10 mm Hg.

RESULTS

The baseline SBP and DBP were similar in the two groups. Both SBP and DBP decreased gradually and significantly upon treatment. The two treatments had similar effects on the mean change from the baseline for both DBP (nebivolol -15.7 +/- 6.4 mm Hg vs. bisoprolol -16.0 +/- 6.8 mm Hg) and SBP. A high proportion of responders was noted in both groups (nebivolol 92.0% vs. bisoprolol 89.6%) and there was no significant difference between the treatments. The overall number and incidence of spontaneously reported adverse events were slightly, but not significantly lower for nebivolol (8 events; 5.8%) than for bisoprolol (12 events; 8.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of the present trial indicate that 5 mg nebivolol once daily is an effective antihypertensive agent. It can therefore be recommended as a useful alternative first-line treatment option for the management of patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension.

[Efficacy and safety of different beta-blockers in patients with isolated systolic hypertension associated with diabetes mellitus and obstructive pulmonary diseases]

AIM

To compare efficacy and safety of atenolol, methoprolol and bisoprolol, as the most usable beta-blockers, in patients with isolated systolic arterial hypertension (ISAH) and concomitant diabetes mellitus (DM) and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Forty tow patients with ISAH and coronary heart disease, 30 patients with these diseases associated with DM and 32 patients with associated COPD were randomized into three groups. Group 1 received atenolol in a dose 25 mg twice a day, group 2--metoprolol tartrate in a dose 25-50 mg twice a day, group 3--bisoprolol in a single dose 5-10 mg/day. All the patients were examined before the treatment and in 8 weeks. Arterial pressure was assessed at 24-h monitoring (ABPM-04 unit, Mediteck, Hungary) and quality of life (QL) was estimated by DISS Disability Scale. In addition, blood glucose was measured in patients with concomitant DM, external respiration function (ERF) was studied before and after the treatment in patients with concomitant COPD.

RESULTS

In all ISAH patients there was a significant fall of systolic arterial pressure and heart rate. 2 hours after intake of atenolol and methoprolol blood glucose lowered significantly in diabetics as well as peak volume expiration velocity in patients with COPD. In the bisoprolol group ERF and blood glucose in DM and COPD patients remained unchanged. Atenolol deteriorated QL by the "job" and "social life" scales, methoprolol--by the scale "job" while bisoprolol improved the above parameters.

CONCLUSION

The results of bisoprolol treatment are better than those of methoprolol and atenolol treatment of hypertensive patients with concomitant DM and COPD.

Beta blockers in older persons with heart failure: tolerability and impact on quality of life

OBJECTIVE

To determine tolerability and symptom changes associated with the introduction of bisoprolol treatment in older patients with heart failure.

DESIGN

Prospective observational cohort study.

SETTING

Geriatric medicine outpatient department of a university hospital.

PATIENTS

51 patients (mean age 78 years, range 70-89 years) with stable symptomatic heart failure caused by left ventricular systolic dysfunction.

INTERVENTIONS

Bisoprolol tablets, 1.25-10.0 mg.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Tolerability; changes in symptoms and exercise tolerance.

RESULTS

69% of patients tolerated bisoprolol. Mean tolerated dose was 7.6 mg. There was no change in symptoms or exercise capacity in those who tolerated bisoprolol. Perceived health status and symptoms of anxiety and depression improved during the titration period.

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of withdrawal from bisoprolol treatment in older patients with congestive heart failure was twice that previously reported in younger patients. The mean tolerated dose was similar to that found in trials reporting clinical efficacy. There was no evidence of a negative impact on symptoms or exercise capacity in patients who tolerated bisoprolol.

Factors related to the occurrence of microalbuminuria during antihypertensive treatment in essential hypertension

The objective of the study was to assess the factors related to the occurrence of microalbuminuria during the follow-up of a young adult group with essential hypertension that had not been previously treated. Normo-albuminuric essential hypertensives, <50 years old, who had not been previously treated with antihypertensive drugs and who did not have diabetes mellitus were included. After the initial evaluation, patients were treated using only nonpharmacological measures (n=62), beta-blockers (n=38), ACE inhibitors (n=64), calcium channel blockers (n=8), and several classes (n=15). Measurements were taken for office blood pressure, biochemical profile, and 24-hour urinary albumin excretion at the beginning of the study and were measured yearly during an average of 2.7+/-1.2 years of follow-up. Among the 187 patients included, 22 (11,7%) developed microalbuminuria (progressors, 4.4/100 patients/y). No differences were present between progressors and those who remained normo-albuminuric (nonprogressors) in terms of age, gender, body mass index, disease duration, blood pressure values, biochemical profile, familial history of diabetes or hypertension, smoking habits, or the presence of EKG left ventricular hypertrophy. The group with the lowest progression rate was the patients treated with ACE inhibitors (n=5; 2.9/100 patients/y), followed by the diet group (n=5; 3.3/100 patients/y) and the beta-blockers group (n=5; 4.1/100 patients/y). When we excluded patients treated with calcium channel blockers or those who changed over time between different classes of treatment, no significant differences in the incidence of microalbuminuria were observed among the groups. Progressors showed higher slopes of fasting glucose (4.78+/-11.4 versus 0.50+/-6.8 mg/y, P<0.02) and uric acid (0.58+/-0.93 versus 0.05+/-1.10 mg/y, P<0.03) compared with the slopes of nonprogressors. Both the slopes for glucose and systolic blood pressure over time were associated independently with the slope of the logarithm of urinary albumin excretion when adjusted for age, gender, and treatment groups. Cox proportional hazard model for progression of microalbuminuria showed that baseline urinary albumin excretion (risk ratio [RR]=1.06; confidence interval [CI] 95%, 1.01 to 1.11), slope for systolic blood pressure (RR=1.11; CI 95%, 1.03 to 1.20), and slope for glucose (RR=1.08; CI 95%, 1.03 to 1.14) were independently associated to the development of microalbuminuria. In conclusion, in a group of young adults with essential hypertension that had not been previously treated, the main factors influencing the occurrence of microalbuminuria during antihypertensive treatment were the values of microalbuminuria at baseline and the slopes for systolic blood pressure and fasting glucose.

Bisoprolol for the treatment of chronic heart failure: a meta-analysis on individual data of two placebo-controlled studies--CIBIS and CIBIS II. Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol Study

BACKGROUND

Despite the available evidence from randomized clinical trials, beta-blockers are often not used optimally in patients with congestive heart failure (CHF). This meta-analysis aims at providing a precise and quantitative estimate of the benefit and risks of long-term bisoprolol on major clinical events in patients with CHF, both overall and in selected subgroups. This may help clinicians in their decisions as to whether to prescribe bisoprolol for their individual patients.

METHODS

Meta-analysis was performed of results from the 2 randomized, controlled clinical studies in which bisoprolol was compared with placebo (Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol Study [CIBIS and CIBIS II]), which included 3288 patients with proven CHF. The main outcomes were total death, cardiovascular death, sudden death, hospitalization for heart failure, and myocardial infarction.

RESULTS

A highly significant 29.3% relative reduction of death (17%, 40%; P =.00003) was observed, as well as significant risk reduction in cardiovascular death and sudden death in favor of bisoprolol. Also, a highly significant relative reduction of 18.4% (25%, 11%; P =.00001) in hospital admission or death was observed. A similar relative reduction of death was consistently observed in selected subgroups of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Bisoprolol prevents major cardiovascular events in patients with CHF with a high benefit-to-risk ratio and can be recommended for these patients.

Maintenance of sinus rhythm after electrical cardioversion of persistent atrial fibrillation; sotalol vs bisoprolol

AIMS

The purpose of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of sotalol and bisoprolol in the maintenance of sinus rhythm after electrical cardioversion of atrial fibrillation.

METHODS

Patients (n=128) were randomized to sotalol (80 mg b.i.d.) or bisoprolol (5 mg x day(-1)). Patients with contraindications to beta-blockers, class III antiarrhythmic drugs or prior treatment with use of study medication for prevention of atrial fibrillation were excluded. Follow-up clinical evaluation was performed 1 day and 1 month after cardioversion and thereafter at 3-month intervals.

RESULTS

There were no group differences in baseline clinical characteristics. After a follow-up of 12 months, 59% of all patients were still in sinus rhythm. The fraction remaining in sinus rhythm was calculated for the two groups by Kaplan--Meier analysis. During follow-up, 41% of patients on sotalol and 42% on bisoprolol developed atrial fibrillation (ns). In two patients (3.1%) on sotalol, life-threatening proarrhythmias (torsade de pointes tachycardias) occurred, whereas none were found in the bisoprolol group. Symptomatic bradycardias occurred in two patients on sotalol and three on bisoprolol.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that sotalol (160 mg x day(-1)) and bisoprolol (5 mg x day(-1)) are equally effective in maintaining sinus rhythm. Because of the side effects of sotalol, bisoprolol seems to be advantageous for maintenance of sinus rhythm after cardioversion of atrial fibrillation.

Myocardial integrated ultrasonic backscatter in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy: prediction of response to beta-blocker therapy

BACKGROUND

Myocardial integrated backscatter (IB) imaging has been reported to be useful for ultrasonic tissue characterization and delineation of myocardial viability or fibrosis. beta-Blocker therapy has beneficial effects for patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM), but there are no clear findings that indicate which patients with DCM will respond to this therapy. This study was performed to evaluate whether myocardial IB analysis can predict the response to beta-blocker therapy.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We prospectively performed echocardiographic examination with IB analysis in 29 patients with DCM (20 men, 9 women) before starting bisoprolol therapy and in 15 normal subjects. Standard echocardiographic examination and IB analysis in the left ventricular wall in the 2-dimensional short-axis view were performed and the magnitude of cyclic variation (CV) of IB and calibrated myocardial IB intensity (subtracted pericardial) were obtained from the interventricular septum and the left ventricular posterior wall. Sixteen patients responded to bisoprolol therapy and 13 did not respond after 12 months of full-dose therapy. Calibrated myocardial IB intensity was lower in responders relative to nonresponders in both the interventricular septum (responders, -20.1 +/- 3.6 dB vs nonresponders, -9.8 +/- 5.1 dB, P <.0001; controls, -20.1 +/- 4.4 dB) and posterior wall (responders, -20.6 +/- 3.6 dB vs nonresponders, -14.6 +/- 4.2 dB, P =.0002; controls, -22.7 +/- 3.3 dB). Also, the lower the myocardial intensity in the interventricular septum or posterior wall, the better left ventricular systolic function improved after beta-blocker therapy. However, CV was lower in both DCM groups than in the controls, and CV in the interventricular septum was lower in nonresponders than in responders (responders, 4.0 +/- 4.1 dB vs nonresponders, -0.8 +/- 6. 1 dB, P <.02; controls, 8.3 +/- 2.4 dB). In addition, CV in the posterior wall showed no difference between the 2 DCM groups (responders, 5.6 +/- 1.3 dB vs nonresponders, 5.1 +/- 3.5 dB, P = not significant; controls, 9.6 +/- 2.5 dB). Also, the percent fibrosis on right ventricular endomyocardial biopsy specimens showed no distinctions between these 2 groups (responders, 25.1% +/- 16.1% vs nonresponders, 24.9% +/- 15.0%, P = not significant).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that left ventricular myocardial IB data, especially IB intensity, provide useful information for predicting the response to beta-blocker therapy in patients with DCM. However, right ventricular endomyocardial biopsy findings do not appear to contribute to discriminating between the 2 groups.