Esmolol Compared with Amiodarone in the Treatment of Recent-Onset Atrial Fibrillation (RAF): An Emergency Medicine External Validity Study.

BACKGROUND: Recent-onset atrial fibrillation (RAF) is the most frequent supraventricular dysrhythmia in emergency medicine. Severely compromised patients require acute treatment with injectable drugs OBJECTIVE: The main purpose of this external validity study was to compare the short-term efficacy of esmolol with that of amiodarone to treat severe RAF in an emergency setting. METHODS: This retrospective survey was conducted in mobile intensive care units by analyzing patient records between 2002 and 2013. We included RAF with (one or more) severity factors including: clinical shock, angina pectoris, ST shift, and very rapid ventricular rate. A blind matching procedure was used to constitute esmolol group (n = 100) and amiodarone group (n = 200), with similar profiles for age, gender, initial blood pressure, heart rate, severity factors, and treatment delay. The main outcome measure was the percentage of patients with a ventricular rate control defined as heart frequency ≤ 100 beats/min. More stringent (rhythm control) and more humble indicators (20% heart rate reduction) were analyzed at from 10 to 120 min after treatment initiation. RESULTS: Patient characteristics were comparable for both groups: age 66 ± 16 years, male 71%, treatment delay < 1 h 36%, 1-2 h 29%, > 2 h 35%, chest pain 61%, ST shift 62%, ventricular rate 154 ± 26 beats/min, and blood pressure 126/73 mm Hg. The superiority of esmolol was significant at 40 min (64% rate control with esmolol vs. 25% with amiodarone) and for all indicators from 10 to 120 min after treatment onset. CONCLUSION: In "real life emergency medicine," esmolol is better than amiodarone in the treatment of RAF.

Harmonization of values for serum alkaline phosphatase catalytic activity concentration employing commutable calibration materials.

BACKGROUND: Harmonization of results allows a more effective utilization of laboratory tests; we verified the feasibility of harmonizing serum alkaline phosphatase results by two methods. METHODS: Patient sera (n=106) and candidate calibration materials (n=8) were analyzed by two methods, employing either diethanolamine (DEA) or 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol (AMP) as phosphate-accepting buffers. Results for patient sera by the DEA method were recalculated, with either a commutable or a non-commutable calibration material, both with values assigned by the AMP method. RESULTS: After calibration with the commutable material, the median intermethod difference (DEA-AMP) and ratio (DEA/AMP) dropped from 195 U/l to 0 U/l and from 2.47 to 1.00, respectively. When a non-commutable material was used the former became 124 U/l and the latter 1.94. After recalibration with the commutable material, linear regression and correlation analysis of DEA vs AMP values for the set of 106 patient sera gave: intercept=0.8 U/l; slope=0.997; and nonparametric correlation coefficient r=0.9995. CONCLUSIONS: Harmonization of alkaline phosphatase results by AMP and DEA methods is feasible when commutable calibration materials are used in the trueness transfer process.

Are generic formulations of carvedilol of inferior pharmaceutical quality compared with the branded formulation?

INTRODUCTION: Carvedilol is a comprehensive beta(1)-, beta(2)-, and alpha(1)-adrenoreceptor blocker marketed as Dilatrend by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. (Roche) and as Coreg by GlaxoSmithKline for the treatment of hypertension, stable angina pectoris, post myocardial infarction with left ventricular dysfunction and all degrees of symptomatic chronic heart failure. OBJECTIVES: In this report, the pharmaceutical qualities of Dilatrend 6.25 mg, 12.5 mg and 25 mg tablets and 35 randomly selected carvedilol generic products from 20 manufacturers in 19 countries have been assessed according to the European Pharmacopoeia and the Roche specifications. METHODS: The generic products were subjected to four key tests: carvedilol content, tablet hardness, tablet dissolution and purity. RESULTS: All three Dilatrend strengths conformed to specifications. At least 17/35 (48.6%) generic products failed the specifications due to: incorrect mean carvedilol content (outside 95-105%) - three products; excess impurities (> 0.3%) - one product; incorrect tablet hardness (outside 30-70 N) - 11 products; inadequate dissolution (< 75% in 30 min) - nine products. Seven products (20%) failed two tests, generally hardness and dissolution. CONCLUSION: The dose-for-dose substitution of the original formulation of carvedilol (Dilatrend) with a pharmaceutically different, and possibly inferior, generic copy may conceivably result in a change in the efficacy of the treatment, because of an unanticipated change in pharmacokinetics or bioequivalence, and/or in a change in tolerability due to impurities.

Impact of a standardized titration protocol with carvedilol in heart failure: safety, tolerability, and efficacy-a report from the GESICA registry.

Grupo de Estudio de la Sobrevida en la Insuficiencia Cardiaca en Argentina (GESICA) studied whether a standardized protocol for the initiation and titration of the beta-blocker carvedilol in a multicenter, open-label program would optimize beta-blocker use in heart failure (HF) patients. The program included: (1) the carvedilol initiation and titration period, and (2) long-term follow-up at 6 and 12 months. Of 1299 patients in the registry, 504 were excluded due to current therapy; of the remaining 795 eligible patients, 293 were excluded due to contraindications. Of the included patients with follow-up data (n = 316), 93.3% tolerated carvedilol initiation and 47.7% of the patients reached the target dose of 50 mg/day for a mean dose of 39 mg/day. Rates were comparable in the elderly (n = 83), of which 53% achieved a target dose for a mean dose of 43.08 mg/day. This protocol improved therapy rates and achieved target doses quickly (average of 4 visits). Concomitant medications did not have to be adjusted and there were low withdrawal rates (10%) and hospital admissions (7.2%) for HF. Patients were able to maintain carvedilol therapy at 6 and 12 months. These results indicate that a standardized titration protocol, as used in GESICA, for the initiation and titration of beta-blockers is well tolerated and may improve beta-blocker use in carefully selected heart failure patients.

Clinical experience with carvedilol.

Clinical experience indicates that carvedilol, a beta-blocker with vasodilating properties, is effective as once daily monotherapy in both young and elderly hypertensives. Titration is simple to an effective dosage, and response rates appear to be equivalent to those noted with other monotherapeutic agents presently recommended as initial therapy in hypertension. The drug is well tolerated by the majority of patients. No significant metabolic changes have been noted with carvedilol in short-term studies. Additional research is ongoing to determine the long-term effectiveness of this new antihypertensive agent.

An evaluation of self-measured blood pressure in a study with a calcium-channel antagonist versus a beta-blocker.

In recent years self-measurement of blood pressure at home has gained increasing importance but there have been only a few studies comparing casual, ambulatory, and self-measured blood pressure determinations during a single clinical trial. We therefore compared treatment-induced blood pressure-reductions in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel study design with a single morning dose of either 10 mg bisoprolol (n = 26) or 20 mg nitrendipine (n = 27) with casual blood pressure readings in the morning before the dose, ambulatory 24-h monitoring, and self-recorded measurements in the morning before the dose and in the evening. Mean reductions for systolic and diastolic blood pressure after 4 weeks of therapy were significantly greater for bisoprolol than for nitrendipine. The treatment-induced blood pressure reductions were most pronounced as assessed by casual readings but showed good agreement between casual, ambulatory, and self-measured blood pressure for group comparisons. In some patients, however, marked individual differences between the three methods were observed. Correlation coefficients between ambulatory and self-measured blood pressure were 0.4 for systolic blood pressure (P less than .05) and 0.6 for diastolic blood pressure (P less than .0005). Under the conditions of this parallel study design and the usual statistical risks, a difference of 5 mm Hg in diastolic blood pressure can be detected in 118 patients at the clinic, in 70 patients if ambulatory blood pressure is used, or in 56 patients if self-measured blood pressure is used. In conclusion, bisoprolol was more effective over 24 h than nitrendipine at the doses studied.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)