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.).

Impact of CYP2D6*2A, CYP2D6*4 and CYP3A5*3 genetic polymorphisms on Bisoprolol peak concentration and clinical response in acute coronary syndrome patients.

AIMS: Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) represents a major cause of death. Bisoprolol is commonly used in the management of ACS. This study aims to investigate the impact of CYP2D6*2A, CYP2D6*4 and CYP3A5*3 genetic polymorphisms on pharmacokinetics and clinical response of bisoprolol in ACS patients. METHODS: This is an open-label cohort study that included 127 ACS patients and studied the effect of CYP3A5*3, CYP2D6*2A and CYP2D6*4 genotyping using real-time polymerase chain reaction on steady state bisoprolol plasma peak concentration analysed by high performance liquid chromatography-fluorescence detector. RESULTS: Regarding CYP3A5*3, the mean peak bisoprolol concentration for CC, CT and TT genotypes were 4.25 ± 1.20, 3.93 ± 1.10 and 1.79 ± 0.69 ng/mL, respectively (P < .001). Higher systolic (126 ± 5.47 mmHg), diastolic blood pressure (82 ± 2.73 mmHg) and heart rate (97.80 ± 3.03 beats/min) were also observed in CYP3A5*3 TT carriers (P < .05). In CYP2D6*2A, the peak concentration of bisoprolol was lower in CC carriers (3.54 ± 1 ng/mL) compared to GG (4.38 ± 1.25 ng/mL) and GC carriers (4.07 ± 1.29 ng/mL, P = .019). In CYP2D6*4, the mean bisoprolol peak concentration in CC carriers was 3.98 ± 1.31 ng/mL, which was lower than T allele carriers (4.5 ± 0.8, P = .02). No differences in heart rate, systolic, diastolic blood pressure or bisoprolol dose were observed among CYP2D6*2A or CYP2D6*4 variants. Smokers exhibited lower bisoprolol peak concentration (3.96 ± 1.2 ng/mL) compared to nonsmokers (4.55 ± 1.34 ng/mL, P = .037). CONCLUSION: There is an association between CYP3A5*3, CYP2D6*4, CYP2D6*2A variants and bisoprolol peak concentration, which may serve as a guide in the future in choosing the optimum dose of bisoprolol in ACS patients.

Bisoprolol in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease at High Risk of Exacerbation: The BICS Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Observational studies report that ß-blocker use may be associated with reduced risk of COPD exacerbations. However, a recent trial reported that metoprolol did not reduce COPD exacerbations and increased COPD exacerbations requiring hospital admission. Objective: To test whether bisoprolol decreased COPD exacerbations in people with COPD at high risk of exacerbations. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Bisoprolol in COPD Study (BICS) was a double-blind placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial conducted in 76 UK sites (45 primary care clinics and 31 secondary clinics). Patients with COPD who had at least moderate airflow obstruction on spirometry (ratio of forced expiratory volume in the first second of expiration [FEV1] to forced vital capacity <0.7; FEV1 <80% predicted) and at least 2 COPD exacerbations treated with oral corticosteroids, antibiotics, or both in the prior 12 months were enrolled from October 17, 2018, to May 31, 2022. Follow-up concluded on April 18, 2023. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to bisoprolol (n = 261) or placebo (n = 258). Bisoprolol was started at 1.25 mg orally daily and was titrated as tolerated during 4 sessions to a maximum dose of 5 mg/d, using a standardized protocol. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary clinical outcome was the number of patient-reported COPD exacerbations treated with oral corticosteroids, antibiotics, or both during the 1-year treatment period. Safety outcomes included serious adverse events and adverse reactions. Results: Although the trial planned to enroll 1574 patients, recruitment was suspended from March 16, 2020, to July 31, 2021, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Two patients in each group were excluded postrandomization. Among the 515 patients (mean [SD] age, 68 [7.9] years; 274 men [53%]; mean FEV1, 50.1%), primary outcome data were available for 514 patients (99.8%) and 371 (72.0%) continued taking the study drug. The primary outcome of patient-reported COPD exacerbations treated with oral corticosteroids, antibiotics, or both was 526 in the bisoprolol group, with a mean exacerbation rate of 2.03/y, vs 513 exacerbations in the placebo group, with a mean exacerbation rate of 2.01/y. The adjusted incidence rate ratio was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.84-1.13; P = .72). Serious adverse events occurred in 37 of 255 patients in the bisoprolol group (14.5%) vs 36 of 251 in the placebo group (14.3%; relative risk, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.62-1.66; P = .96). Conclusions and Relevance: Among people with COPD at high risk of exacerbation, treatment with bisoprolol did not reduce the number of self-reported COPD exacerbations requiring treatment with oral corticosteroids, antibiotics, or both. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN10497306.

Consensus Statement from India on the Renal Benefits of ARNi, SGLT-2i, and Bisoprolol in Chronic Kidney Disease.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a major contributor to morbidity and mortality in India. CKD often coexists with heart failure (HF), diabetes, and hypertension. All these comorbidities are risk factors for renal impairment. HF and CKD are pathophysiologically intertwined, and the deterioration of one can worsen the prognosis of the other. There is a need for safe renal pharmacological therapies that target both CKD and HF and are also useful in hypertension and diabetes. Neurohormonal activation achieved through the activation of the sympathetic nervous system (SNS), the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS), and the natriuretic peptide system (NPS) is fundamental in the pathogenesis and progression of CKD and HF. Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNi), sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i), and selective ß1-blocker (B1B) bisoprolol suppress this neurohormonal activation. They also have many other cardiorenal benefits across a wide range of CKD patients with or without concomitant HF, diabetes, or hypertension. This consensus statement from India explores the place of ARNi, SGLT-2i, and bisoprolol in the management of CKD patients with or without HF and other comorbidities.

Position of Beta-blockers in the Treatment of Hypertension Today: An Indian Consensus.

BACKGROUND: Management of essential hypertension (HTN) remains challenging, with contemporary control being achieved in <1/10 of the cases, especially when aligned with the recently updated guidelines of American College of Cardiology (ACC) or International Society of Hypertension (ISH). The place and positioning of beta-blockers have been evolving, with recent focused updates, such as the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) 2023 guidelines, that may hold relevance for the Indian phenotypic traits of premature cardiovascular disease (CVD), fragile coronary architecture, and/or high resting heart rate. To further develop consensus on the clinical role and relevance of beta-blockers, including nebivolol, an Indian consensus was evolved with graded recommendations on their clinical role in HTN, HTN with additional cardiovascular (CV) risk, or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODOLOGY: An expert review panel was constituted, comprising interventional and clinical cardiologists as experts, to synthesize the literature for the development of a validated knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP) survey questionnaire. Research databases, including Cochrane Systematic Reviews, PubMed, and Google Scholar, were accessed for contemporary information and guidelines on beta-blockers updated until Dec 2023. Delphi rounds were conducted to develop graded recommendations based on the strength, quality of evidence, and the agreement among the panelists (n = 9). Consensus was achieved on the graded recommendations, with ≥70% of national panelists in agreement. RESULTS: Ninety-six percent of respondents opined that the new ESH HTN guidelines (2023) help gain confidence in using beta-blockers, which are considered first-line drugs for the treatment of HTN. Beta-blockers, including nebivolol, can be recommended in patients with HTN with high resting heart rates, including young hypertensive patients under 40 years of age. For people under 60 years old with HTN, regardless of whether they have comorbid diseases, beta-blockers are the recommended drug choice. Ninety-five percent of respondents opined that nebivolol is the preferred beta-blocker in hypertensive patients with T2DM, followed by bisoprolol and metoprolol. More than 90% of respondents opined that the three most commonly preferred beta-blockers by experts in patients with angina were nebivolol, metoprolol, and bisoprolol. CONCLUSION: Beta-blockers, including nebivolol, can be considered initial-line therapy for HTN management in real-life settings in India and nebivolol is preferred because of its two important properties: highest beta-1 selectivity and endothelial-dependent vasodilation.

MULTIPLE KERATINOCYTIC CANCERS AFTER INTAKE OF ANTIHYPERTENSIVES (LISINOPRIL/BISOPROLOL/HCT) AND ANTIARRHYTMICS (PROPAFENONE): THE IMPORTANT NEW LINKS TO THE NITROSO-CONTAMINATION AND THE METABOLIC REPROGRAMMING OF THE FUTURE CANCER CELL.

The pathogenesis of cutaneous tumors has been known for decades yet remains largely unexplained or incompletely understood. The reason for this mystery lies in the concepts of photosensitivity and phototoxicity: how do they arise or what actually causes them? Recently published data in the medical literature link certain nitrosamines such as nitrosomorpholine, for example, to gene and phototoxicity in humans. A number of other nitrosamines analogous in action and structure are found as contaminants in about 300 of the most widely distributed pharmaceuticals worldwide: NDEA, NDMA, NMBA and many others. These contaminated drugs include beta blockers/ bisoprolol/, thiazide diuretics/ hydrochlorothiazide/, antiarrhythmics/ propafenone/, ACE inhibitors/ lisinopril/, but also a number of other drugs which are, according to the FDA, found to have contaminants with a certain carcinogenic potency ranging between 1 and 5. The phototoxicity and genotoxicity of these contaminants, attributed to the pathogenesis of skin tumors, still remain a mystery. The problems of the intake of the above-mentioned groups of drugs arise mainly on the basis of the official bulletins of the regulatory bodies, namely that: in practice, the intake of polymedication could in many cases also be considered as regular, permanent, long-term intake of contaminants/carcinogens/mutagens of heterogeneous type, also known as nitrosamines or NDSRIs. Nitrosamines are genome modifiers in humans and cause acquired mutations. Their concomitant administration in the context of standard, but currently not yet officially declared as contaminated polymedication, would be able to block certain tumor suppressor genes (p53) as well as activate RAS oncogenes. Or in practice- daily administration of a particular combination of drugs could activate the cascades of carcinogenesis regulating the genesis of skin cancer. Precisely because of this fact, it should not be surprising to anyone that the concurrent intake of the aforementioned drugs could also be associated with the clinical manifestation of multiple keratinocytic tumors. We describe a consecutive case of a patient who developed 4 keratinocytic tumors: 2 basal cell carcinomas, 1 keratoacanthoma, and 1 squamous cell carcinoma on a background of potentially contaminated polymedication with propafenone, lisinopril, hydrochlorothiazide, and bisoprolol. Recently published innovative international data on the topic are discussed in the context of concepts such as drug-mediated nitrosogenesis, photonitrosо-carcinogenesis and metabolic programming/ reprogramming of the tumor cell.

Unilateral adrenalectomy for a drug-resistant bilateral primary aldosteronism with heart failure: pathophysiology and surgical indication.

BACKGROUND: Patients with bilateral primary aldosteronism (PA) generally are treated with antihypertensive drugs, but optimal treatment for patients with complications due to refractory hypertension has not been established. In this report, we present a case with bilateral PA who presented with persistent hypertension, despite treatment with 6 drugs, and left-dominant heart failure, which was improved after unilateral adrenalectomy. CASE PRESENTATION: A 61-year-old man was admitted to our hospital because of severe left-dominant heart failure. His heart rhythm was atrial fibrillation and the left ventricle was diffusely hypertrophic and hypokinetic. Coronary arteries were normal on coronary arteriogram. Primary aldosteronism was suspected based on severe hypokalemia (2.5 mEq/L) and plasma aldosterone concentration (PAC; 1,410 pg/mL). Although computed tomography (CT) showed a single left cortical nodule, adrenal vein sampling (AVS) indicated bilateral PA. Early in the case, heart failure and hyperkalemia in this patient were improved by treatment with a combination of 6 antihypertensive drugs (spironolactone 25 mg/day, eplerenone 100 mg/day, azosemide 60 mg/day, tolvaptan 7.5 mg/day, enalapril 5 mg/day, and bisoprolol fumarate 10 mg/day); however, heart failure relapsed after four months of treatment. We hypothesized that hypertension caused by excess aldosterone was inducing the patient's heart failure. In order to reduce aldosterone secretory tissue, a laparoscopic adrenalectomy was performed for the left adrenal gland, given the higher level of aldosterone from the left gland compared to the right. Following surgery, the patient's heart failure was successfully controlled despite the persistence of high PAC. Treatment with anti-hypertensive medications was reduced to two drugs (eplerenone 100 mg/day and bisoprolol fumarate 10 mg/day). In order to elucidate the mechanism of drug resistance, immunohistochemistry (IHC) and real time-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assays were performed to assess the expression of steroidogenic factor 1 (SF-1), a regulator of steroid synthesis in adrenal tissue. IHC and RT-PCR demonstrated that the expression of SF-1 in this patient (at both the protein and mRNA levels) was higher than that observed in unilateral PA cases that showed good responsivity to drug treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Unilateral adrenalectomy to reduce aldosterone secretory tissue may be useful for patients with drug-refractory, bilateral PA. Elevated expression of SF-1 may be involved in drug resistance in PA.

Role of Bisoprolol in Heart Failure Management: A Consensus Statement from India.

In India, heart failure (HF) is an important health concern affecting younger age groups than the western population. A limited number of Indian patients receive guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT). Selective ß-1 blockers (BB) are one of the GDMTs in HF and play an important role by decreasing the sympathetic overdrive. The BB reduces heart rate (HR) reverse the adverse cardiac (both ventricular and atrial), vascular, and renovascular remodeling seen in HF. Bisoprolol, a ß-1 blocker, has several advantages and can be used across a wide spectrum of HF presentations and in patients with HF and comorbid conditions such as coronary artery disease (CAD), atrial fibrillation (AF), post-myocardial infarction (MI), uncontrolled diabetes, uncontrolled hypertension, and renal impairment. Despite its advantages, bisoprolol is not optimally utilized for managing HF in India. This consensus builds on updated evidence on the efficacy and safety of bisoprolol in HF and recommends its place in therapy with a focus on Indian patients with HF.

Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy in Newly Diagnosed Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction in the Community.

BACKGROUND: Guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) dramatically improves outcomes in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Our goal was to examine GDMT use in community patients with newly diagnosed HFrEF. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a population-based, retrospective cohort study of all Olmsted County, Minnesota, residents with newly diagnosed HFrEF (EF ≤ 40%) 2007-2017. We excluded patients with contraindications to medication initiation. We examined the use of beta-blockers, HF beta-blockers (metoprolol succinate, carvedilol, bisoprolol), angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIS), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) in the first year after HFrEF diagnosis. We used Cox models to evaluate the association of being seen in an HF clinic with the initiation of GDMT. From 2007 to 2017, 1160 patients were diagnosed with HFrEF (mean age 69.7 years, 65.6% men). Most eligible patients received beta-blockers (92.6%) and ACEis/ARBs/ARNIs (87.0%) in the first year. However, only 63.8% of patients were treated with an HF beta-blocker, and few received MRAs (17.6%). In models accounting for the role of an HF clinic in initiation of these medications, being seen in an HF clinic was independently associated with initiation of new GDMT across all medication classes, with a hazard ratio (95% CI) of 1.54 (1.15-2.06) for any beta-blocker, 2.49 (1.95-3.20) for HF beta-blockers, 1.97 (1.46-2.65) for ACEis/ARBs/ARNIs, and 2.14 (1.49-3.08) for MRAs. CONCLUSIONS: In this population-based study, most patients with newly diagnosed HFrEF received beta-blockers and ACEis/ARBs/ARNIs. GDMT use was higher in patients seen in an HF clinic, suggesting the potential benefit of referral to an HF clinic for patients with newly diagnosed HFrEF.

Therapeutic Properties of Highly Selective ß-blockers With or Without Additional Vasodilator Properties: Focus on Bisoprolol and Nebivolol in Patients With Cardiovascular Disease.

Bisoprolol and nebivolol are highly selective ß1-adrenoceptor antagonists, with clinical indications in many countries within the management of heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF), ischaemic heart disease (IHD), and hypertension. Nebivolol has additional vasodilator actions, related to enhanced release of NO in the vascular wall. In principle, this additional mechanism compared with bisoprolol might lead to more potent vasodilatation, which in turn might influence the effectiveness of nebivolol in the management of HFrEF, IHD and hypertension. In this article, we review the therapeutic properties of bisoprolol and nebivolol, as representatives of "second generation" and "third generation" ß-blockers, respectively. Although head-to-head trials are largely lacking, there is no clear indication from published studies of an additional effect of nebivolol on clinical outcomes in patients with HFrEF or the magnitude of reductions of BP in patients with hypertension.

In older patients with permanent AF and HF, digoxin and bisoprolol did not differ for QoL at 6 mo.

SOURCE CITATION: Kotecha D, Bunting KV, Gill SK, et al. Effect of digoxin vs bisoprolol for heart rate control in atrial fibrillation on patient-reported quality of life: the RATE-AF randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2020;324:2497-508. 33351042.

Suboptimal Dosing of ß-Blockers in Chronic Heart Failure: A Missed Opportunity?

BACKGROUND: The evidence base for the benefits of ß-blockers in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) suggests that higher doses are associated with better outcomes. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to report the proportion of patients receiving optimized doses of ß-blockers, outcomes, and factors associated with suboptimal dosing. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study of 390 patients with HFrEF undergoing clinical and echocardiography assessment at baseline and at 1 year. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-seven patients (61%) were receiving optimized doses (≥5-mg/d bisoprolol equivalent), 72 (18%) could not be up-titrated (because of heart rate < 60 beats/min or systolic blood pressure <100 mm Hg), and the remaining 81 (21%) should have been. Survival was similarly reduced in those who could not and should have been receiving 5 mg/d or greater, and patient factors did not explain the failure to attain optimized dosing. CONCLUSIONS: Many patients with HFrEF are not receiving optimal dosing of ß-blockers, and in around half, there was no clear contraindication in terms of heart rate or blood pressure.

To Evaluate the 'Real World' Clinical Performance of Bisoprolol in Post-Myocardial Infarction with Left Ventricular Dysfunction: Tenacity Study.

Beta-blockers are the cornerstone in management of heart failure and are well studied in Acute Coronary Syndromes (ACS). There is paucity of data of Bisoprolol in acute ICU setting in patients admitted with left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) with recent ACS, especially amongst Asian Indians. We evaluated the impact of Bisoprolol on Heart Rate (HR) and Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction (LVEF) along with metabolic indicators of HbA1C and lipid profile in post-ACS patients with LVSD at 1 year as compared to baseline. MATERIAL: This non-interventional, retrospective, single center, secondary data collection study captured demographics, comorbidities, hemodynamics, concomitant medications and assessed the effectiveness of oral Bisoprolol (1.25, 2.5 mg, 5 mg and 10mg) treatment over a 1-year follow up period, in post-ACS patients with LVSD (i.e., HFmrEF and HFrEF; LVEF <50%). Data-records of 400 patients hospitalized between August 1, 2016 to November 30, 2018 were evaluated for change in LVEF as primary endpoint and change in HR and Lipid profile, HBA1C and ST segment deviation of J point at 1 year as compared to baseline as secondary outcomes. OBSERVATION: The mean age of 400 patients was 55.28±7.9 years of which 29.75% were female. Significant improvement in LVEF (41.45±5.1% vs 48.73±5.5%) with significant reduction in heart rate (85.06±5.64 bpm vs 76.73±4.6 bpm) was observed at the end of 1-year treatment as compared to baseline (p=0.0001 and p=0.0001 respectively) on treatment with Bisoprolol (mean 4.15 + 1.4 mg). NYHA class improved from 1.6 + 0.5 to 1.11 + 0.31 at the end of 1 year. Bisoprolol along with GDMT was neutral for HbA1C (6.2±0.6 % vs 6.1±0.7%; p=0.64), while serum lipids (Total Cholesterol: 199.7 + 7.6 vs 127.6 + 4.85 mg% p=0.001; TG: 196.2 +12.1 vs 111.7 + 6.88 mg%, p=0.001; LDL: 126.9 + 9.1 vs 62.4 + 5.51 p=0.001; HDL: 33.7 + 3 vs 42.8 +1.9 p=0.001) improved at 1 year due to statins. Maximum ST deviation at J point in resting ECG was also lesser at 1 year as compared to baseline (0.29 + 1.5 mm vs 0.05 + 0.22 mm; p=0.0001). CONCLUSION: Bisoprolol administered along with GDMT to patients post-ACS with LVSD significantly improved LVEF with significant reduction in heart rate and ST segment deviation at J point at 1 year without adverse effect on lipid and HBA1C.

Beta-blockers for the treatment of arrhythmias: Bisoprolol - a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Beta-blockers have long been successfully used for the treatment of both supraventricular and ventricular arrhythmias. However, differences exist between their chemical structure, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties (absorption, bioavailability, metabolism, hydrophilic or lipophilic character, selective or non-selective nature, the presence or absence of intrinsic sympathomimetic activity), which may confer different antiarrhythmic properties to different beta-blockers. The aim of this study was to analyze the current existing evidence for bisoprolol for the treatment of both supraventricular and ventricular arrhythmias. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Using the keywords "bisoprolol" and "arrhythmias" or "atrial fibrillation" or "ventricular tachycardia" or "premature ventricular complexes" or "ventricular fibrillation", the Medline database was searched for articles in English or French until April 2020 assessing the role of bisoprolol in the treatment of arrhythmias. Data was then analyzed according to the type of arrhythmia treated and the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: A total of 325 studies were identified, of which 28 were considered relevant to the current topic. Among these studies, 19 assessed the role of bisoprolol for the treatment of supraventricular arrhythmias, 8 its role in treating ventricular arrhythmias and 1 its role in supraventricular and ventricular arrhythmias. The quality of evidence varied from low (7 studies) to high (5 studies). CONCLUSION: Current evidence exists supporting the use of bisoprolol for the treatment of supraventricular arrhythmias, especially for rate control during atrial fibrillation. Evidence also exists for its efficacy in the treatment of ventricular arrhythmias, both in primary and in secondary prevention.

ß-Blocker Use and Risk of Mortality in Heart Failure Patients Initiating Maintenance Dialysis.

RATIONAL & OBJECTIVE: Beta-blockers are recommended for patients with heart failure (HF) but their benefit in the dialysis population is uncertain. Beta-blockers are heterogeneous, including with respect to their removal by hemodialysis. We sought to evaluate whether ß-blocker use and their dialyzability characteristics were associated with early mortality among patients with chronic kidney disease with HF who transitioned to dialysis. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Adults patients with chronic kidney disease (aged≥18 years) and HF who initiated either hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis during January 1, 2007, to June 30, 2016, within an integrated health system were included. EXPOSURES: Patients were considered treated with ß-blockers if they had a quantity of drug dispensed covering the dialysis transition date. OUTCOMES: All-cause mortality within 6 months and 1 year or hospitalization within 6 months after transition to maintenance dialysis. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Inverse probability of treatment weights using propensity scores was used to balance covariates between treatment groups. Cox proportional hazard analysis and logistic regression were used to investigate the association between ß-blocker use and study outcomes. RESULTS: 3,503 patients were included in the study. There were 2,115 (60.4%) patients using ß-blockers at transition. Compared with nonusers, the HR for all-cause mortality within 6 months was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.65-0.94) among users of any ß-blocker and 0.68 (95% CI, 0.53-0.88) among users of metoprolol at transition. There were no observed differences in all-cause or cardiovascular-related hospitalization. LIMITATIONS: The observational nature of our study could not fully account for residual confounding. CONCLUSIONS: Beta-blockers were associated with a lower rate of mortality among incident hemodialysis patients with HF. Similar associations were not observed for hospitalizations within the first 6 months following transition to dialysis.

The impact of regular bisoprolol on the response to salbutamol in asthma: A double-blind randomized placebo-controlled crossover trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Non-selective beta-blockers impair the bronchodilator response to beta2 -agonists. Cardio-selective beta1 -blockers are less likely to cause this effect, yet they remain relatively contraindicated in asthma. We investigated whether the response to salbutamol is impaired during cardio-selective beta1 -blocker treatment in people with asthma. METHODS: A random-order, double-blind, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority, crossover study was conducted comparing up to 5 mg bisoprolol daily for 2 weeks with matching placebo, with an open-label extension of up to 10 mg bisoprolol daily. After each treatment period, mannitol was inhaled to induce bronchoconstriction with a 15% fall in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1 ). Immediately after mannitol challenge, salbutamol (100, 100 and 200 µg) was administered via spacer at 5-min intervals with repeated FEV1 measures. The FEV1 recovery with salbutamol was measured as an area under recovery curve (AUC). Based on earlier research, a clinically relevant non-inferiority limit of a 30% reduction in the AUC was set. RESULTS: A total of 19 adults with mild asthma and positive inhaled mannitol challenge completed the study. Adjusting for the FEV1 fall induced by mannitol and treatment sequence, the mean AUC response to salbutamol after bisoprolol was 5% lower than after placebo, with a one-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of 26% lower. Thirteen participants completed the open-label extension up to 10 mg bisoprolol daily with mean AUC 11% higher after bisoprolol with a 95% CI of 5% lower. CONCLUSION: The bronchodilator response to rescue salbutamol after mannitol-induced bronchoconstriction is non-inferior during regular treatment with the cardio-selective beta1 -blocker, bisoprolol, compared to placebo. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12618000306213 at https://www.anzctr.org.au.

An attempt at administering a transdermal formulation of bisoprolol in patients with acute cardiac symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Bisono® is the world's first transdermal formulation of a bisoprolol, which is approved for the treatment of hypertension in Japan. We aimed to investigate the usefulness of this formulation in patients who were admitted to our hospital with cardiac symptoms suggestive of acute coronary syndrome or an acute exacerbation of heart failure. METHODS: This study involved a retrospective survey of medical records from September 1, 2017 to April 30, 2018 obtained from the Cardiovascular Center of Kyoto Katsura Hospital. The clinical data of patients on admission who had received a transdermal formula of bisoprolol (Bisono® tape) were retrieved; their blood pressure and heart rate data were analyzed in relation to the doses of Bisono® tape administered. RESULTS: Sixty-three patients received the Bisono® tape. Their final diagnoses included acute myocardial infarction, an exacerbation of heart failure, and atrial fibrillation. While there was no significant correlation observed between the administered doses of the drug and reduction in blood pressure achieved within 24 h after admission, there was a significant (p < 0.05) correlation between the doses of Bisono®tnd reduction in the heart rate within 24 h after admission (ΔHR0-24 h). Only one patient who received 8 mg of Bisono® exhibited temporal bradycardia (heart rate < 50 bpm). CONCLUSION: The transdermal formulation of bisoprolol may be useful for the early introduction of ß-blockers in patients admitted with cardiac symptoms associated with myocardial ischemia or heart failure. However, caution should be exercised because of the possible risk of hypotension.

Rate Versus Rhythm Control in Tachycardia-Induced Cardiomyopathy Patients with Persistent Atrial Flutter.

Tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy (TIC) is a potentially reversible cardiomyopathy caused by tachyarrhythmia. For atrial flutter (AFL) -induced TIC, a rhythm control strategy, such as catheter ablation, has been recommended. However, the efficacy of rate control has remained unclear due to the difficulty of achieving control using arrhythmic medications.We prospectively assessed 47 symptomatic heart failure (HF) patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 50% and suspected persistent AFL-induced TIC. Patients were divided into the rhythm control strategy (n = 22; treatment with catheter ablation or electrical cardioversion) and rate control strategy (n = 25; treatment with bisoprolol) groups. The latter was further divided into the strict rate control strategy (average heart rate < 80 bpm) and lenient rate control strategy (average heart rate < 110 bpm) subgroups. The primary outcome was left ventricular (LV) function recovery, which was defined as an increase in LVEF ≥ 20% or to a value of ≥ 55% after 6 months.In the rhythm control strategy group, more patients achieved LV function recovery after 6 months (95.2% versus 60.9%, P = 0.010). The cumulative incidence of worsening HF events was significantly higher in the rate control strategy group than in the rhythm control strategy group (hazard ratio, 4.66; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-21.57). The subgroup study revealed the advantage of the strict rate control strategy for achieving LV function recovery (83.3% versus 36.4%, P = 0.036).The rate control strategy was significantly inferior to the rhythm control strategy for the LV function recovery in TIC patients with persistent AFL. Our findings suggest that the strict rate control strategy should be aimed if the rhythm control strategy cannot be performed.

Effect of Bisoprolol on the Level of Dabigatran.

BACKGROUND: Many patients receiving dabigatran treatment might also require bisoprolol therapy. However, there is a possibility that bisoprolol as significant P-glycoprotein inhibitor might interact with dabigatran. STUDY QUESTION: To investigate the impact of concomitant bisoprolol therapy on dabigatran plasma level in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. STUDY DESIGN: A pilot drug interaction study in 29 patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation on dabigatran therapy. Bisoprolol was administrated in 18 patients. Blood samples were collected at baseline (in the morning, before any medication was administered) and at hour 2 (2 hours after administration of dabigatran and bisoprolol). RESULTS: The dabigatran plasma level was significantly higher at baseline and at hour 2 in patients treated with bisoprolol compared with patients without bisoprolol therapy. In addition, we have shown that this increase is affected by dabigatran dosage and concomitant treatment with proton-pump inhibitor and digoxin. The impact of bisoprolol on dabigatran concentration was still significant despite these confounders. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated the interaction between dabigatran and bisoprolol, which is modulated with dabigatran dosage and concomitant treatment with proton-pump inhibitor and digoxin.

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 ß-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.