Search

Importance: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Observational studies report that β-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.

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.)., (Copyright © 2024 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

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 β 1 - vs. β 2 -adrenoceptors, does not block β 2 -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 β 1 -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.

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, FEV 1 , MD (0.46 [95% CI, 0.27 to 0.65], P=0.000), FEV 1 %, 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., Competing Interests: There are no other conflicts of interest in this work., (© 2023 Feng et al.)

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.

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., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

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., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) after open-heart surgery is a non-negligible complication. We aimed to describe the efficacy of a transdermal patch of bisoprolol for managing POAF and flutter in thoracic surgical procedures., Methods: We analyzed the data of 384 patients who underwent open-heart surgery at our hospital and received oral bisoprolol to prevent POAF. Among them, 65 patients (16.9%) also received a 4-mg transdermal patch of bisoprolol to control the heart rate due to POAF. We applied the bisoprolol transdermal patch when the heart rate was > 80 bpm and removed it at ≤ 60 bpm; an additional patch was applied when the heart rate was > 140 bpm. Heparin calcium injections were administered twice daily for anticoagulation between 2 and 6 days postoperatively., Results: The average number of prescriptions for transdermal patches of bisoprolol during hospitalization was 1.8 ± 1.1 (1-5). The median first prescription date was on postoperative day 2 (range: days 0-37). Sinus rhythm recovered within 24 h in 18 patients (27.7%). Eight patients (12.3%) were switched to continuous landiolol infusion because of persistent tachycardia. In three patients, the transdermal patch was removed owing to severe bradycardia. Fifteen patients experienced persistent atrial fibrillation and were treated with electrical cardioversion during hospitalization. We did not observe any serious complications that could be directly attributed to bisoprolol transdermal patch use., Conclusions: Single-use bisoprolol transdermal patch may help control the heart rate during the initial treatment of POAF after open-heart surgery., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Premature ventricular contraction (PVC) is a common arrhythmia that causes a large number of clinical symptoms, adversely impacts the quality of life, and can even initiate serious arrhythmias, such as ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation. The incidence of premature ventricular contraction is higher in hypertensive patients, particularly if concomitant left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) is present., Objectives: This study was conducted on the characteristics of PVC in hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy and aimed to evaluate the effect of bisoprolol on PVC in Vietnamese patients with hypertension and LVH., Materials and Methods: We conducted a study to determine how bisoprolol potency affected PVC management in the group with both high blood pressure and LVH. We selected a convenient sample of all patients who came to the Medical Examination Department at the Can Tho University of Medicine and Pharmacy Hospital and met sampling criteria with hypertension, LVH on echocardiography, and PVC on 12-leads electrocardiogram. Over 2 years, we collected 76 patients who satisfied the above conditions. Out of which, 50 patients were indicated for management with bisoprolol, and 26 patients were excluded from the study, including 7 patients with asthma and 19 patients who had simple PVC on a 24-hour Holter ECG. Data were analyzed with SPSS version 22., Results: Fifty patients participated in the study, of whom 70% were female. It is clear that palpitation was the most prevalent symptom (66%), and 38% of patients had complicated PVC (Lown III-V). When treating PVC with bisoprolol, 50% of patients achieved the treatment goal with a decrease in the number of PVCs of more than 70%, accompanied by symptom relief and eradication of dangerous PVCs. After 4 weeks of treatment, bisoprolol decreased the number of PVCs, heart rate, and blood pressure while also easing PVC-related symptoms (p < 0.05)., Conclusion: Low-dose bisoprolol effectively reduces the number of PVCs in hypertensive patients with LVH., (Copyright© Bentham Science Publishers; For any queries, please email at epub@benthamscience.net.)

Background: Bisoprolol is commonly used to treat moderate or severe chronic stable heart failure, coronary heart disease, and hypertension. This study is aimed at analyzing the efficacy of bisoprolol in the treatment of myocardial infarction with cardiac insufficiency and its effect on cardiac function, Hcy, and CRP through meta-analysis., Methods: A total of 120 patients with myocardial infarction and cardiac insufficiency from February 2020 to February 2021 were selected and randomly divided into two groups (control and the observation, n = 60) according to the random number table method. The control group was given conventional treatment. The observation group was given bisoprolol on the basis of control group. The clinical efficacy, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, heart rate, cardiac function indexes, homocysteine (Hcy), and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels were compared between the two groups before and after treatment through data analysis. Adverse reactions were observed during treatment., Results: Compared with the control group, the total effective rate of the observation group was significantly increased ( p < 0.05). After treatment, the levels of heart rate, left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), and left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) and serum Hcy and CRP levels in the observation group were significantly lower than those in the control group ( p < 0.05). Meanwhile, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) level in the observation group after treatment was higher than that of the control group ( p < 0.05)., Conclusion: Bisoprolol combined with conventional treatment can reduce serum Hcy and CRP levels in patients with myocardial infarction and cardiac insufficiency and improve cardiac function. Moreover, there are no obvious adverse reactions during the treatment., Competing Interests: The author declares no potential conflicts of interest with the respect to the research, authorship, and publication of this article., (Copyright © 2022 Yan Wang.)

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.

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with significant morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs. Beta blockers are well-established drugs widely used to treat cardiovascular conditions. Observational studies consistently report that beta blocker use in people with COPD is associated with a reduced risk of COPD exacerbations. The bisoprolol in COPD study (BICS) investigates whether adding bisoprolol to routine COPD treatment has clinical and cost-effective benefits. A sub-study will risk stratify participants for heart failure to investigate whether any beneficial effect of bisoprolol is restricted to those with unrecognised heart disease., Methods: BICS is a pragmatic randomised parallel group double-blind placebo-controlled trial conducted in UK primary and secondary care sites. The major inclusion criteria are an established predominant respiratory diagnosis of COPD (post-bronchodilator FEV 1 < 80% predicted, FEV 1 /FVC < 0.7), a self-reported history of ≥ 2 exacerbations requiring treatment with antibiotics and/or oral corticosteroids in a 12-month period since March 2019, age ≥ 40 years and a smoking history ≥ 10 pack years. A computerised randomisation system will allocate 1574 participants with equal probability to intervention or control groups, stratified by centre and recruitment in primary/secondary care. The intervention is bisoprolol (1.25 mg tablets) or identical placebo. The dose of bisoprolol/placebo is titrated up to a maximum of 4 tablets a day (5 mg bisoprolol) over 4-7 weeks depending on tolerance to up-dosing of bisoprolol/placebo-these titration assessments are completed by telephone or video call. Participants complete the remainder of the 52-week treatment period on the final titrated dose (1, 2, 3, 4 tablets) and during that time are followed up at 26 and 52 weeks by telephone or video call. The primary outcome is the total number of participant reported COPD exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids and/or antibiotics during the 52-week treatment period. A sub-study will risk stratify participants for heart failure by echocardiography and measurement of blood biomarkers., Discussion: The demonstration that bisoprolol reduces the incidence of exacerbations would be relevant not only to patients and clinicians but also to healthcare providers, in the UK and globally., Trial Registration: Current controlled trials ISRCTN10497306 . Registered on 16 August 2018., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

β-blocker therapy has been positively associated with improved survival in patients undergoing oncologic colorectal resection. This study investigates if the type of β-blocker used affects 90-day postoperative mortality following colon cancer surgery. The study was designed as a nationwide retrospective cohort study including all adult (≥ 18 years old) patients with ongoing β-blocker therapy who underwent elective and emergency colon cancer surgery in Sweden between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2017. Patients were divided into four cohorts: metoprolol, atenolol, bisoprolol, and other beta-blockers. The primary outcome of interest was 90-day postoperative mortality. A Poisson regression model with robust standard errors was used, while adjusting for all clinically relevant variables, to determine the association between different β-blockers and 90-day postoperative mortality. A total of 9254 patients were included in the study. There was no clinically significant difference in crude 90-day postoperative mortality rate [n (%)] when comparing the four beta-blocker cohorts metoprolol, atenolol, bisoprolol and other beta-blockers. [97 (1.8%) vs. 28 (2.0%) vs. 29 (1.7%) vs. 11 (1.2%), p = 0.670]. This remained unchanged when adjusting for relevant covariates in the Poisson regression model. Compared to metoprolol, there was no statistically significant decrease in the risk of 90-day postoperative mortality with atenolol [adj. IRR (95% CI): 1.45 (0.89-2.37), p = 0.132], bisoprolol [adj. IRR (95% CI): 1.45 (0.89-2.37), p = 0.132], or other beta-blockers [adj. IRR (95% CI): 0.92 (0.46-1.85), p = 0.825]. In patients undergoing colon cancer surgery, the risk of 90-day postoperative mortality does not differ between the investigated types of β-adrenergic blocking agents., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

The protective role of preoperative beta-blocker in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery is unknown. We aimed to evaluate the effects of beta-blocker on perioperative myocardial injury in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. We consecutively enrolled 112 patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. They were randomly allocated to receive bisoprolol or placebo given at least 2 days preoperatively and continued until 30 days after surgery. The primary outcome was incidence of perioperative myocardial injury defined by a rise of high-sensitive troponin-T (hs-TnT) more than 99th percentile of upper reference limit or a rise of hs-TnT more than 20% if baseline level is abnormal. Baseline characteristics were comparable between bisoprolol and placebo in randomized cohort Mean age was 62.5 ± 11.8 years and 76 (67.8%) of 112 patients were male. Among 112 patients, 49 (43.8%) underwent vascular surgery and 63 (56.2%) underwent thoracic surgery. The median duration of assigned treatment prior to surgery was 4 days (2-6 days). We did not demonstrate the significant difference in the incidence of perioperative myocardial injury [52.6% (30 of 57 patients) vs. 49.1% (27 of 55 patients), P = 0.706]. In addition, the incidence of intraoperative hypotension was higher in bisoprolol group than placebo group in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery [70.2% (40 of 57 patients) vs. 47.3% (26 of 55 patients), P = 0.017]. We demonstrated that there was no statistically significant difference in perioperative myocardial injury observed between patients receiving bisoprolol and placebo who had undergone non-cardiac surgery., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Introduction: The association between an ACE-inhibitor and a beta-blocker is recommended in case of complicated arterial hypertension and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. This retrospective drug-utilization study has described its chronic use from the Italian National Healthcare Service perspective., Methods: From the ReS (Ricerca e Salute) database, collecting Italian healthcare administrative data, patients receiving an ACE-inhibitor or a beta-blocker from 2013 to 2019 were selected. The prevalence of use (patients treated/1000 inhabitants) and of continuous treatment (patients treated for ≥80% period from the supply to the end of the same year - by means of dosage units - per 1000 inhabitants) of each single active substance were assessed. Among patients continuously treated, those supplied with an ACE-inhibitor and a beta-blocker (unfixed and fixed combinations) were analyzed in terms of prevalence of continuous treatment. Subjects treated with the unfixed combination ramipril-bisoprolol in 2019 were characterized by gender and age., Results: The prevalence of ACE-inhibitors' use increased from 49.7/1000 inhab. in 2013 to 50.2 in 2019: ramipril was the most supplied each year (28.9 to 31.6/1000 inhab.). The prevalence of continuous treatment increased from 27.4 to 28.3/1000 inhab.: ramipril the most continuously dispensed (16 to 18/1000 inhab.). The prevalence of beta-blockers' use increased from 61.0 to 90.4/1000 inhab.: bisoprolol the most supplied and with the highest increase (27.1 to 52.2/1000 inhab.). The prevalence of continuous treatment increased from 33.1 to 55.8/1000 inhab.: bisoprolol the most continuously dispensed (18 to 37/1000 inhab.). Among patients with continuous supplies, from 49,843 a 51,496 were treated with associations between an ACE-inhibitor and a beta-blocker on an ongoing basis. Half of them were continuously treated with the unfixed combination ramipril-bisoprolol (4.3 to 4.8/1000 inhab.). In 2019, subjects with continuous supplies of ramipril-bisoprolol were mainly males (63.4%) and elderly (mean age 71±12), and the prevalence of use increased with age., Conclusions: These findings, together with recommendations from the main international guidelines encourage to make available also ramipril and bisoprolol as fixed dose combination, in order to simplify the therapy administration and improve the adherence, especially among elderly and patients with multimorbidity.

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., Competing Interests: KKW has received speakers’ fees and honoraria from Medtronic, Cardiac Dimensions, Novartis, Abbott, BMS, Pfizer, Bayer and has received an unconditional research grant from Medtronic. JG has received honoraria from Abbott, Medtronic and Microport and has received an unrestricted research grant from Medtronic. SS is funded by a British Heart Foundation Clinical Research Training Fellowship. None of the other authors have any disclosures., (© 2021 The Author(s). Published by IMR Press.)

Beta-adrenergic blocking agents (abbreviated as beta-blockers) have been used for treating various cardiovascular diseases. However, the potential for asthma exacerbation is one of the major adverse effects of beta-blockers. This study aimed to compare the level of risk for an asthma attack in patients receiving various beta-blockers. We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of either placebo-controlled or active-controlled design. The current network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted under a frequentist model. The primary outcome was the incidence of asthmatic attack. A total of 24 RCTs were included. Overall NMA revealed that only oral timolol [risk ratio (RR) = 3.35 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04-10.85)] and infusion of propranolol [RR = 10.19 (95% CI 1.29-80.41)] were associated with significantly higher incidences of asthma attack than the placebo, whereas oral celiprolol [RR = 0.39 (95% CI 0.04-4.11)], oral celiprolol and propranolol [RR = 0.46 (95% CI 0.02-11.65)], oral bisoprolol [RR = 0.46 (95% CI 0.02-11.65)], oral atenolol [RR = 0.51 (95% CI 0.20-1.28)], infusion of practolol [RR = 0.80 (95% CI 0.03-25.14)], and infusion of sotalol [RR = 0.91 (95% CI 0.08-10.65)] were associated with relatively lower incidences of asthma attack than the placebo. In participants with a baseline asthma history, in addition to oral timolol and infusion of propranolol, oral labetalol, oxprenolol, propranolol, and metoprolol exhibited significantly higher incidences of asthma attack than did the placebo. In conclusion, oral timolol and infusion of propranolol were associated with a significantly higher risk of developing an asthma attack in patients, especially in those with a baseline asthma history, and should be avoided in patients who present a risk of asthma.Trial registration: PROSPERO CRD42020190540.

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.

Alveolar β 2 -receptor blockade worsens lung diffusion in heart failure (HF). This effect could be mitigated by stimulating alveolar β 2 -receptors. We investigated the safety and the effects of indacaterol on lung diffusion, lung mechanics, sleep respiratory behavior, cardiac rhythm, welfare, and exercise performance in HF patients treated with a selective (bisoprolol) or a non-selective (carvedilol) β-blocker. Study procedures were performed before and after indacaterol and placebo treatments according to a cross-over, randomized, double-blind protocol in forty-four patients (27 on bisoprolol and 17 on carvedilol). No differences between indacaterol and placebo were observed in the whole population except for a significantly higher VE/VCO 2 slope and lower maximal P ET CO 2 during exercise with indacaterol, entirely due to the difference in the bisoprolol group (VE/VCO 2 31.8 ± 5.9 vs. 28.5 ± 5.6, p < 0.0001 and maximal P ET CO 2 36.7 ± 5.5 vs. 37.7 ± 5.8 mmHg, p < 0.02 with indacaterol and placebo, respectively). In carvedilol, indacaterol was associated with a higher peak heart rate (119 ± 34 vs. 113 ± 30 bpm, with indacaterol and placebo) and a lower prevalence of hypopnea during sleep (3.8 [0.0;6.3] vs. 5.8 [2.9;10.5] events/hour, with indacaterol and placebo). Inhaled indacaterol is well tolerated in HF patients, it does not influence lung diffusion, and, in bisoprolol, it increases ventilation response to exercise.

Background: Although bisoprolol has been established to prevent heart failure (HF), finding the optimal dose remains a challenge. It is crucial to understand the distribution of bisoprolol plasma concentration (Bis-PC) and association with outcomes., Methods: This was a single-center observational study in 114 HF patients under once-daily bisoprolol. After obtaining trough Bis-PC, patients were followed-up for 1 year. The primary endpoint was worsening of HF. Patients were divided according to the tertiles of Bis-PC., Results: In multivariate logistic regression analysis, independent predictors of high Bis-PC (1st tertile: ≥ 5.38 ng/mL) were age, eGFR, and bisoprolol dose. The cumulative incidence rates of the primary endpoint were 10.5%/13.2%/26.3% in low/middle/high Bis-PC categories, respectively (log rank test, p = 0.087). Bis-PC was independently associated with the primary endpoint (hazard ratio [HR], 1.19 [per ng/mL], 95% CI 1.03-1.36). In subgroups, high Bis-PC was independently associated with the primary endpoint in elderly (HR 6.32, 95% CI 1.34-29.83) and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) (HR 3.52, 95% CI 1.06-11.70)., Conclusions: Bis-PC was increased by age and renal dysfunction, and high Bis-PC was associated with worsening of HF in elderly and HFpEF patients. Care should be taken to avoid overdose., (Copyright © 2020 The Japanese Society for the Study of Xenobiotics. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of transdermal β-blocker patches, which offer stable blood concentration and easy availability during operation, for prevention of perioperative myocardial injury (PMI) in high-risk patients., Methods and results: In this randomized controlled trial, patients aged >60 years with hypertension and high revised cardiac risk index (≥2) undergoing non-cardiac surgery were randomly assigned to a bisoprolol patch or control group. Primary efficacy outcome was incidence of PMI, defined as postoperative high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) >0.014ng/mL and relative hs-cTnT change ≥20%. Secondary efficacy outcomes were number of cardiovascular events and 30-day mortality. From November 2014 to February 2019, 240 patients from 5 hospitals were enrolled in this study. The incidence of PMI was 35.7% in the bisoprolol patch group and 44.5% in the control group (P=0.18). Incidence of major adverse cardiac events including non-critical myocardial infarction, strokes, decompensated heart failure and tachyarrhythmia was similar between the 2 groups. Tachyarrhythmia tended to be higher in the control group. There were no significant differences in safety outcomes including significant hypotension and bradycardia requiring any treatment between the 2 groups., Conclusions: Bisoprolol patches do not influence the incidence of PMI and cardiovascular events in high-risk patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery, but perioperative use of these patches is safe.

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.

Objectives: Our aim was to evaluate the effects of beta-blockers during the second and third trimester on fetal growth, length of gestation and postnatal symptoms in exposed infants., Methods: The current prospective observational cohort study compares 294 neonates of hypertensive mothers on metoprolol or bisoprolol during the second and/or third trimester with 225 methyldopa-exposed infants and 588 infants of nonhypertensive mothers. The risks for reduced birth weight, prematurity, neonatal bradycardia, hypoglycaemia and respiratory disorders were analysed., Results: The rate of small-for-gestational-age children was significantly higher in long-term beta-blocker exposed infants (24.1%) compared with the methyldopa cohort [10.2%, odds ratio (OR)adj 2.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2-5.2] and the nonhypertensive cohort (9.9%, ORadj 4.3, 95% CI 2.6-7.1). The risk for preterm birth was significantly increased compared with nonhypertensive pregnancies (ORadj 2.2, 95% CI 1.3-3.8) but not compared with the methyldopa cohort. Neonatal adverse outcomes occurred more frequently in the study cohort (11.5%) compared with the nonhypertensive comparison group (6.5%) and the methyldopa cohort (8.4%), but without statistical significance (ORadj 1.5, 95% CI 0.7-3.0 and ORadj 1.5, 95% CI 0.7-3.3, respectively)., Conclusion: Long-term intrauterine exposure to metoprolol or bisoprolol may increase the risk of being born small-for-gestational-age. It is still a matter of debate to which extent maternal hypertension contributes to the lower birth weight. Serious neonatal symptoms are rare. Altogether, metoprolol and bisoprolol are well tolerated treatment options, but a case-by-case decision on close neonatal monitoring is recommended.

Background: Non-cardiac surgery for hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy (HOCM) is considered to require meticulous perioperative care. β-blockers are considered the first-line drugs for patients with HOCM, and they play a key role in preventing cardiovascular complications in perioperative care. The bisoprolol transdermal patch has recently become available in Japan, and it is useful for patients who are unable to take oral medication during perioperative care. The aim of this case series was to assess the hemodynamic features of patients with HOCM who used the bisoprolol transdermal patch during perioperative care for non-cardiac surgery., Methods: Between August 2016 and August 2018, we retrospectively analyzed 10 consecutive cases of HOCM with the patients using the bisoprolol transdermal patch during perioperative care. Hemodynamic and echocardiographic features were evaluated before and after patients were switched from oral bisoprolol to transdermal patch therapy or started transdermal patch therapy as a new β-blocker medication. In addition, cardiovascular complications (all-cause death, cardiac death, heart failure, ventricular tachycardia, and ventricular fibrillation) during the perioperative period were evaluated., Results: There was no significant change in the patients' heart rate, blood pressure, ejection fraction, and pressure gradient in the left ventricle after switching from oral bisoprolol to the transdermal patch therapy. On the other hand, patients who started using the bisoprolol transdermal patch as a new ß-blocker medication tended to have a decreased heart rate and pressure gradient thereafter, but there was no significant difference in blood pressure or ejection fraction. No cardiovascular complications occurred during the perioperative period., Conclusions: We described the utilization of the bisoprolol transdermal patch during perioperative care for non-cardiac surgery in patients with HOCM. We determined that the hemodynamic features of these patients did not change significantly after switching to patch therapy. Further, initiation of the bisoprolol transdermal patch as a new ß-blocker medication sufficiently tended to decrease the pressure gradient. This unique approach can be an alternate treatment option for HOCM., Trial Registration: The registry was registered in the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN000036703). The date of registration was 10/5/2019 and it was "Retrospectively registered".

Introduction : S-amlodipine is main anti-hypertensive active enantiomer of amlodipine. Bisoprolol is a β-blocker particularly suitable for hypertensive patients with sinus tachycardia. We evaluated the pharmacokinetic interaction between S-amlodipine and bisoprolol in healthy Chinese subjects. Areas covered : Thirty-two subjects were randomly divided into two equal groups. Subjects in group A were administered S-amlodipine 5 mg for 10 days followed by S-amlodipine 5 mg plus bisoprolol 5 mg for 7 days. Subjects in group B were administered bisoprolol 5 mg for 7 days, followed by S-amlodipine 5 mg plus bisoprolol 5 mg for 10 days. Blood samples were collected for evaluation of pharmacokinetic interaction. Tolerability was evaluated by interview, vital signs, 12-lead ECGs, physical examination, and clinical laboratory tests. Expert opinion : The geometric mean ratio (90% CI) for amlodipine AUC τ,ss and C ss-max during the monotherapy and combination therapy periods were 1.0389 (0.9879, 1.0926) and 1.0213 (0.9556, 1.0915). For bisoprolol, it was 1.0193 (0.9834, 1.0566) and 0.9989 (0.9133, 1.0925). Most adverse events were mild-moderate. There was high incidence of elevated alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, and triglyceride.This study found no pharmacokinetic interaction between S-amlodipine and bisoprolol. Alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, and triglycerides should be closely monitored.

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.

Background: Cardioselective beta-blockers may affect glucose or lipid profiles., Objective: We sought to compare the effects of two beta-blockers, metoprolol and bisoprolol, as the most commonly used drugs in cardiology, on glucose and lipid profiles in patients with cardiovascular diseases., Methods: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional matched study at Prince Sultan Cardiac Center in Burydah in August 2017. Patient records were screened, and adult patients with cardiovascular disorders who were treated with a stable dose of metoprolol or bisoprolol were included. Parameters related to glucose and lipid metabolism were compared using the Student's t-test between the two groups., Results and Conclusion: The metoprolol and bisoprolol arms included 204 and 200 patients, respectively., (Copyright© Bentham Science Publishers; For any queries, please email at epub@benthamscience.net.)

Lacosamide, one of the last antiepileptic drugs marketed, can cause extension of PR interval. Precautions are recommended when used in elderly and with other drugs extending PR interval. Cases of severe third-degree atrioventricular block have been reported only in post-marketing case reports when used at high-doses and remain rare. We report the case of an 88-year-old woman treated with bisoprolol, who experienced a complete atrioventricular block after initiation of lacosamide for epilepsy associated with neurodegenerative disease. This dramatic event required a pacemaker implementation. Not being dose-dependent (initiation dosage used), it seemed partially explained by drug-drug interaction with bisoprolol.

Objectives: Beta-blockers are frequently used during pregnancy, with labetalol and metoprolol being considered as drugs of choice. As there are no prospective pregnancy studies for bisoprolol yet, our aim was to analyze pregnancy outcomes after bisoprolol exposure., Methods: Pregnancies exposed to bisoprolol during the first trimester were retrieved from the German Embryotox pharmacovigilance database. Pregnancy outcomes of prospectively ascertained pregnancies were compared with women neither exposed to beta-blockers nor other antihypertensives. In addition, retrospective reports on adverse drug reactions were screened for patterns of birth defects., Results: Inclusion criteria for the prospective study were met by 339 bisoprolol-treated women and 678 patients in the comparison cohort. Neither the risk for spontaneous abortions [adjusted hazard ratio (HRadj.) 1.06; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66-1.70] nor for major congenital malformations [adjusted odds ratio (ORadj.) 0.77; 95% CI 0.34-1.75] was increased after first trimester bisoprolol treatment. However, higher rates of preterm births [ORadj. 1.90; 95% CI 1.17-3.11] and reduced birthweights in singleton pregnancies (adjusted standard deviation score difference -0.48; 95% CI -0.62 to -0.34) were noted. Continued treatment with beta-blockers until birth was found to be associated with a higher risk for growth restriction than first trimester exposure only. A sensitivity analysis did not suggest higher rates of adverse pregnancy outcomes in hypertensive women on bisoprolol compared with nonhypertensive bisoprolol-exposed women., Conclusion: Our study supports the hypothesis that first trimester bisoprolol treatment does not increase the risk for spontaneous abortions or major birth defects. However, an influence of prolonged bisoprolol exposure on fetal growth cannot be ruled out.

Beta-blockers are widely prescribed in elderly patients and may induce severe adverse drug reactions. We report a case of bisoprolol-induced bradycardia in an elderly patient with impaired renal function and use of cytochrome P450 inhibitors. A literature review has been performed in order to analyze pharmacokinetic risk factors of beta-blockers overdosing in geriatrics. Various mechanisms can result in decreased elimination of beta-blockers. These mechanisms vary according to the beta-blocker agent and may be combined in some individuals, especially elderly patients. This can lead to unexpected overexposure. Knowledge about drug interactions and pharmacokinetic elimination pathways is important for preventing overexposure and adverse drug reactions when using beta-blockers., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: Resistant hypertension is characterized when the blood pressure (BP) remains above the recommended goal after taking three antihypertensive drugs with synergistic actions at their maximum recommended tolerated doses, preferably including a diuretic. Identifying the contribution of intravascular volume and serum renin in maintaining BP levels could help tailor more effective hypertension treatment, whether acting on the control of intravascular volume or sodium balance, or acting on the effects of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) on the kidney., Methods/design: This is a randomized, open-label, clinical trial is designed to compare sequential nephron blockade and its contribution to the intravascular volume component with dual blockade of the RAAS plus bisoprolol and the importance of serum renin in maintaining BP levels. The trial has two arms: sequential nephron blockade versus dual blockade of the RAAS (with an angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor plus a beta-blocker) both added-on to a thiazide diuretic, a calcium-channel blocker and an angiotensin receptor-1 blocker (ARB). Sequential nephron blockade consists in a progressive increase in sodium depletion using a thiazide diuretic, an aldosterone-receptor blocker, furosemide and, finally, amiloride. On the other hand, the dual blockade of the RAAS consists of the progressive addition of an ACE inhibitor until the maximum dose and then the administration of a beta-blocker until the maximum dose. The primary outcomes will be reductions in the systolic BP, diastolic BP, mean BP and pulse pressure (PP) after 20 weeks of treatment. The secondary outcomes will evaluate treatment safety and tolerability, biochemical changes, evaluation of renal function and recognition of hypotension (ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM)). The sample size was calculated assuming an alpha error of 5% to reject the null hypothesis with a statistical power of 80% giving a total of 40 individuals per group., Discussion: In recent years, the cost of resistant hypertension (RH) treatment has increased. Thus, identifying the contribution of intravascular volume and serum renin in maintaining BP levels could help tailor more effective hypertension treatment, whether by acting on the control of intravascular volume or sodium balance, or by acting on the effects of the RAAS on the kidney., Trial Registration: Sequential Nephron Blockade vs. Dual Blockade Renin-angiotensin System + Bisoprolol in Resistant Arterial Hypertension (ResHypOT). ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02832973 . Registered on 14 July 2016. First received: 12 June 2016. Last updated: 18 July 2016.

We investigated if serial domiciliary measures of spirometry were sensitive at detecting subtle effects of beta-2 blockade associated with bisoprolol in (n = 17) patients with COPD. After a two-week run in on inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and long acting beta-2 agonist (LABA): beclometasone/formoterol 100/6 µg, patients' started additional a long acting muscarinic receptor antagonist: (LAMA) Tiotropium 18 µg, with concomitant weekly dose titration of bisoprolol: 1.25-2.5-5 mg. After a further week of bisoprolol 5 mg, they were stepped back down to (ICS/LABA) for one week. Mean age was 64 years, mean FEV 1 52% predicted, and mean FEV 1 /FVC ratio of 0.46. Compared to baseline am FEV 1 of 1.38 L (95% CI 1.14-1.61 L), both ICS/LABA/LAMA and ICS/LABA in conjunction with bisoprolol showed statistically significant mean falls of 100 ml (1.28 L, 95% CI 1.03-1.53 L), and 120 ml, respectively (1.26 L, 95% CI 1.01-1.51 L); equalling and exceeding the MCID of 100 ml, respectively. These changes were disconnected from symptoms, reliever use and oxygen saturation.

Treatment with beta-blockers appears to show inferior reduction in central versus peripheral blood pressure. We aimed to examine simultaneous changes in central and peripheral blood pressure, vascular resistance, cardiac function and arterial stiffness during beta-blockade. Haemodynamics were investigated after 3 weeks of bisoprolol treatment (5 mg/day) in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled cross-over trial in never-treated 16 Caucasian males with grade I-II primary hypertension using continuous tonometric pulse wave analysis and whole-body impedance cardiography. Bisoprolol decreased radial (134/80 versus 144/89 mmHg) and aortic blood pressure (122/80 versus 130/90 mmHg) and heart rate (57 versus 68 beats/min) when compared with placebo (p < 0.05 for all). Ejection duration (336 versus 316 ms) and stroke volume (109 versus 98 ml) were increased (p < 0.01 for all), while cardiac output was not significantly changed (6.2 versus 6.6 l/min). Bisoprolol decreased pulse wave velocity (7.8 versus 8.9 m/s, p < 0.001), but after adjustment for blood pressure, the decrease was not significant (8.16 versus 8.52 m/s, p = 0.464). The treatment reduced pulse pressure amplification from central to peripheral circulation (30 versus 38%, p = 0.002). No differences were observed in systemic vascular resistance, augmentation index, aortic characteristic impedance or total arterial stiffness after bisoprolol versus placebo. Bisoprolol decreased central and peripheral blood pressure and pulse wave velocity in male individuals with grade I to grade II hypertension. The decrease in pulse wave velocity was related to the antihypertensive effect. Reduced pulse pressure amplification indicates that peripheral blood pressure was reduced more efficiently than central blood pressure., (© 2017 Nordic Association for the Publication of BCPT (former Nordic Pharmacological Society).)

Clinical efficacy and adverse effects of the β-blocking agents, carvedilol, bisoprolol, and metoprolol were analyzed theoretically, and then compared quantitatively, for the purpose of determining their proper use for chronic heart failure. Initially, we evaluated occupancy binding to the β 1 and β 2 receptors (Фss β 1 and Фss β 2 ) by these drugs. Thereafter, we examined the relationship between Фss β 1 values and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) increase rate to determine efficacy. The result showed that the efficacy with carvedilol could be attained with a lower Фss β 1 value than the others. Therefore, we constructed a model under the assumption that β-blocking agents exert both indirect action of LVEF increase through the β 1 receptor and direct action on ryanodine receptor 2. Using the model, it was suggested that these drugs have no differences in regard to the efficacy, while it was clarified theoretically that only carvedilol produces an effect that directly involves ryanodine receptor 2 at clinical doses. We also investigated decreases in heart rate and forced expiratory volume in 1 s as adverse effects of β-blocking agents using a ternary complex model. It was indicated that carvedilol is less likely to induce a heart rate decrease. Meanwhile, it was also suggested that the risk of an asthmatic attack was higher for carvedilol at clinical doses. Our results are considered useful for selection of a proper β-blocking agent and its administration at a reasonable dose for successful heart failure therapy.

Objective: To evaluate the effects of discontinuing chronic beta-blocker (BB) treatment on short-term outcome in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) during acute decompensation., Methods: We selected all the patients previously diagnosed with CHF and currently on BB and attended for acute heart failure (AHF) in one of the 35 Spanish emergency departments participating in the EAHFE registry. Patients were classified according to BB maintenance or withdrawal (BBM or BBW, respectively) during the episode. In-hospital mortality was the primary endpoint; and 30-day mortality, 30-day combined endpoint, and prolonged hospitalization were secondary. We used logistic regression for adjustment of results according to the differences between the BBM and BBW groups, and stratified analysis by age, sex, left ventricular ejection fraction, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart rate (HR), and BB type (carvedilol/bisoprolol) was performed., Results: Among 2058 patients receiving chronic BB treatment, 1990 were analyzed: BBM 530 (27 %), BBW 1460 (73 %). Compared to BBM, BBW had a higher in-hospital mortality (5.5 vs 3.0 %; p < 0.05), 30-day mortality (8.7 vs 4.5 %; p < 0.01), and 30-day combined endpoint (29.8 vs 23.4 %; p < 0.05). Multivariate adjustment confirmed an independent direct association between BBW and in-hospital mortality (OR 1.89; 95 % CI 1.09-3.26) and 30-day mortality (OR 2.01; 95 % CI 1.28-3.15). Stratified analysis indicated no interaction by all the subgroups analyzed, except for HR (p = 0.01 for interaction), which showed a greater negative impact of BBW in patients with HR >80 bpm (OR 2.74; 95 % CI 1.13-6.63)., Conclusions: In the absence of clear contraindications, BB treatment should be maintained during AHF episodes in patients already receiving BB at home.

Introduction: The objective of this study was to establish the benefit of bisoprolol up-titration toward recommended dosage targets, versus lower-dose maintenance, in heart failure (HF) patients with systolic dysfunction., Methods: Korean HF patients received bisoprolol 1.25 mg/day, incrementally up-titrated toward 10 mg/day in the absence of contraindications. After 26 weeks' treatment, patients were grouped as low-dose (<3.75 mg/day) or high-dose (≥3.75 mg/day). Primary endpoint was change in serum N-terminal probrain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). Other markers of HF were also evaluated., Results: 159 of 180 enrolled patients were evaluable. After 16 weeks' follow-up, there were 52 and 107 patients in the low- and high-dose groups respectively. Mean bisoprolol dosage was 5.4 mg/day; 24% of patients achieved target (10 mg/day). Mean logNT-proBNP significantly decreased in both groups, with no significant difference in the magnitude of change between groups. Mean heart rate (HR) and blood pressure decreased significantly in both groups, but only HR showed a significantly greater change in high-dose versus low-dose patients. In both groups, mean left ventricular (LV) end-systolic and end-diastolic dimensions were significantly decreased and mean LV ejection fraction was significantly improved. Mean 6-min walk test distances improved in both groups (significant in low-dose patients only). Functional class improvement was observed in both low- and high-dose patients. No patients were rehospitalized due to aggravated HF., Conclusions: In HF patients with systolic dysfunction, any bisoprolol dose is beneficial, but an attempt to up-titrate toward guideline-recommended dosages offers additional benefit in terms of restoration of LV systolic function and remodeling., (© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: We compared the efficacy of perioperative ivabradine, bisoprolol, or both for prevention of postoperative atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)., Methods and Results: We enrolled 740 consecutive patients scheduled for elective CABG with/without valve surgery. Patients were assigned to 1 of 3 protocols: ivabradine given perioperatively (48 hours preoperatively, then 1 week postoperatively) 5 mg bid for 24 hours, then 7.5 mg bid thereafter in patients who can tolerate (group 1, n = 212); bisoprolol given perioperatively 5 mg bid (group 2, n = 288); or both drugs given perioperatively (ivabradine as before + bisoprolol 5 mg once daily) (group 3, n = 240). Cardiac rhythm was continuously monitored for 15 days postoperatively by ambulatory event recorder. Clinical follow-up for the occurrence of arrhythmias was performed for the next 15 days. The primary endpoint was the incidence of AF at 30-day follow-up. Mean age was 56.5 ± 8.9 years (30.5% females). All patients completed 30-day follow-up. AF occurred in 10.4%. The 3 groups were matched for most baseline characteristics, echocardiographic and angiographic data (P > 0.05 for all). The incidence of AF was significantly lower in group 3 (4.2%), compared with group 1 (15.5%), and group 2 (12.2%), (P < 0.001 both). The duration of stay in the intensive care unit was shorter in group 3 versus group 1 and 2 (P < 0.001 both)., Conclusion: In patients undergoing elective CABG, adding ivabradine to β-blockers during the perioperative period was associated with reduced incidence of AF at 30-day follow-up, compared with either medication alone., (© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Propranolol in slow-release form has been the first-line treatment in long QT (LQT) until it was withdrawn from the market. We describe two cases where a switch to bisoprolol resulted in worsening of arrhythmia control: A man with LQT2, asymptomatic on propranolol, experienced syncope after switching to bisoprolol 5 mg daily. He switched back to propranolol and has remained asymptomatic during subsequent 12 months. A man with classical Jervell Lange-Nielsen syndrome, previous gangliectomy, and ICD implantation, switched to bisoprolol 5 mg daily. Four months later he experienced a tachycardia storm. He switched back to propranolol and has remained free from arrhythmias during subsequent 12 months., (©2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Unlabelled: 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.

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.

Background: Heart failure is a highly prevalent cardiovascular complication among patients receiving long-term hemodialysis, but the benefits of carvedilol, bisoprolol, and metoprolol controlled release/extended release on the outcomes of these patients remain unclear. In this study, we address the use of these 3 β-blockers and their associations with mortality., Methods and Results: Long-term hemodialysis patients, aged ≥35 years, with new-onset heart failure and receiving various medications were identified through the use of 1999-2010 data from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. From the total of 4435 heart failure patients, we selected 1700 new users of the 3 β-blockers (study group) and 1700 nonusers (control group), by using matched cohorts according to their propensity scores, and then compared the 5-year all-cause mortality rates by using Cox proportional hazard regressions and time-dependent covariate adjustment. During 3944 person-years of follow-up, 666 (39.2%) deaths occurred within the study group, compared with 918 (54%) deaths during 2893 person-years of follow-up in the control group. The 5-year mortality rate for the study (control) group was 54.5% (70.3%); P<0.001. Adjusted hazard regression analyses revealed that the therapeutic effects of β-blockers remained significant for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.90). Subgroup analyses revealed that patients in the study group receiving β-blockers plus renin-angiotensin system antagonists exhibited the lowest mortality rate, while the highest mortality rate was found among patients in the control group receiving neither β-blockers nor renin-angiotensin system antagonists., Conclusions: This study demonstrates that the 3 β-blockers were associated with improved survival in long-term hemodialysis patients with heart failure., (© 2016 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley Blackwell.)

Aim: To compare the efficiency and safety of antianginal therapy (AAT) using a combination of bisoprolol, ivabradine, and trimetazidine or ranolazine in elderly and senile patients with stable angina., Subjects and Methods: The study enrolled 107 patients aged 60 to 79 years with coronary heart disease and Functional Class II and III angina. When the patients taking bisoprolol 1.25-2.5 mg once daily and ivabradine 2.5-7.5 mg twice daily continued to have angina and/or silent myocardial ischemia, after randomization 54 patients received an additional 35 mg of trimetazidine twice a day and 53 patients had ranolazine 500 mg twice daily. A comprehensive clinical and instrumental study was conducted prior to randomization and after 6 months of triple AAT., Results: The patients tolerated well both treatments that substantially improved the results of a treadmill exercise test. Trimetazidine reduced to a greater extent the duration of silent ST-segment depression, as evidenced by Holter monitoring. Trimetazidine and ranolazine comparably improved left ventricular systolic and diastolic function, large arterial structure and function, and quality of life in the patients., Conclusion: The combinations of the low-dose β-blocker with ivabradine and trimetazidine or ranolazine may be used to treat refractory stable angina in elderly and senile patients. Trimetazidine is preferred due to its higher efficacy in treating silent myocardial ischemia and to its lower cost.