A Review of Nebivolol Pharmacology and Clinical Evidence.

Nebivolol is a highly selective ß1-adrenergic receptor antagonist with a pharmacologic profile that differs from those of other drugs in its class. In addition to cardioselectivity mediated via ß1 receptor blockade, nebivolol induces nitric oxide-mediated vasodilation by stimulating endothelial nitric oxide synthase via ß3 agonism. This vasodilatory mechanism is distinct from those of other vasodilatory ß-blockers (carvedilol, labetalol), which are mediated via α-adrenergic receptor blockade. Nebivolol is approved for the treatment of hypertension in the US, and for hypertension and heart failure in Europe. While ß-blockers are not recommended within the current US guidelines as first-line therapy for treatment of essential hypertension, nebivolol has shown comparable efficacy to currently recommended therapies in lowering peripheral blood pressure in adults with hypertension with a very low rate of side effects. Nebivolol also has beneficial effects on central blood pressure compared with other ß-blockers. Clinical data also suggest that nebivolol may be useful in patients who have experienced erectile dysfunction while on other ß-blockers. Here we review the pharmacological profile of nebivolol, the clinical evidence supporting its use in hypertension as monotherapy, add-on, and combination therapy, and the data demonstrating its positive effects on heart failure and endothelial dysfunction.

Agreement between ICU clinicians and electrophysiology cardiologists on the decision to initiate a QTc-interval prolonging medication in critically ill patients with potential risk factors for torsade de pointes: a comparative, case-based evaluation.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To measure concordance between different intensive care unit (ICU) clinicians and a consensus group of electrophysiology (EP) cardiologists for use of a common rate-corrected QT interval (QTc)-prolonging medication in cases containing different potential risk factor(s) for torsade de pointes (TdP). DESIGN: Prospective case-based evaluation. SETTING: Academic medical center with 320 beds. SUBJECTS: Medical house staff (MDs) and ICU nurses (RNs) from one center and select critical care pharmacists (PHs). INTERVENTION: Completion of a survey containing 10 hypothetical ICU cases in which patients had agitated delirium for which a psychiatrist recommended intravenous haloperidol 5 mg every 6 hours. Each case contained different potential risk factor(s) for TdP in specific combinations. A group of five EP cardiologists agreed that haloperidol use was safe in five cases and not safe in five cases. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: For each case, participants were asked to document whether they would administer haloperidol, to provide a rationale for their decision, and to state their level of confidence in that decision. Most clinicians (92 of 115 [80%]) invited to participate completed the cases. Among the five cases where EP cardiologists agreed that haloperidol was not safe, 29% of respondents felt that haloperidol was safe. Conversely, in the five cases where EP cardiologists felt haloperidol was safe, 21% of respondents believed that it was not safe. Overall respondent-EP cardiologist agreement for haloperidol use across the 10 cases was moderate (κ = 0.51). MDs and PHs were in agreement with the EP cardiologists more than RNs (p=0.03). Interprofessional variability existed for the TdP risk factors each best identified. Clinician confidence correlated with EP cardiologist concordance for MDs (p=0.002) and PHs (p=0.0002), but not for RNs (p=0.69). CONCLUSION: When evaluating use of a QTc interval-prolonging medication, ICU clinicians often fail to identify the TdP risk factors that EP cardiologists feel should prevent its use. Clinician-EP cardiologist concordance varies by the specific risk factor(s) for TdP and the ICU professional conducting the assessment.