Showing posts with label beta blokers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label beta blokers. Show all posts

New ASCOT Analysis: Beta Blockers Not Beneficial in Hypertensives With Tachycardia

Sunday, October 4, 2009

by Lisa Nainggolan

September 24, 2009 — A new analysis of the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial--Blood Pressure Lowering Arm (ASCOT-BPLA) shows that the amlodipine (Norvasc, Pfizer)-based arm of the study remained superior to the beta-blocker arm, even when resting heart rate was taken into account [1].

The study was published in the September 22, 2009 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The findings mean that "there is no reason to believe that beta blockers should be used earlier on in the treatment of hypertension on the basis of heart rate," lead author Dr Neil R Poulter (Imperial College London, UK) told heartwire . He said many cardiologists have had "a hindbrain belief" that "if there is a touch of tachycardia, beta blockers are the right drugs to use in hypertension management." But prior to this analysis, there had been no data from randomized controlled trials available to assess the impact of this advice on patient outcomes, he noted.

"We thought, if it's true that a touch of tachycardia should push you toward beta blockers, we'd be able to see that in ASCOT," Poulter added. Noting that the ASCOT-BPLA study–-reported in 2005--confirmed the superiority of an amlodipine-based regimen over an atenolol-based regimen, "we looked to see whether, if you started with tachycardia, was that still the case?" he noted. "The bottom line is, yes, it is. Pulse rate should not be the determinant of what drugs you use in hypertension."

These findings "reinforce the UK guidelines that state that, in primary prevention, beta blockers should be kept to a much later stage of intervention," Poulter says.

No Attenuation of Amlodipine Superiority on Basis of Heart Rate

The ASCOT trial enrolled 19 257 hypertensive patients with at least three other cardiovascular risk factors from 650 general practices in the UK, Ireland, and the Nordic countries. The results showed that an antihypertensive strategy based on amlodipine, with perindopril added as required, significantly reduced all-cause mortality and other cardiovascular end points, including stroke, compared with an atenolol-based strategy, with the diuretic bendroflumethiazide added as required.

In this new subgroup analysis, patients with atrial fibrillation or taking rate-limiting antihypertensive drugs at baseline were excluded. The potential attenuation of the treatment effect with higher baseline heart rate on total cardiovascular events and procedures (TCVP) was assessed via an interaction term. Secondary analyses evaluated coronary and stroke outcomes.

There were 12 759 of the ASCOT patients included and 1966 total cardiovascular events and procedures. At the final visit, mean heart-rate reduction from baseline was 12.0 and 1.3 beats per minute in the atenolol- and amlodipine-based groups, respectively. There was a reduction in total cardiovascular events and procedures in those allocated to amlodipine-based therapy compared with those on atenolol-based therapy (unadjusted hazard ratio 0.81; p<0.001).

This benefit was unattenuated at higher heart rates (interaction p value=0.82). Similar results were obtained for coronary and total stroke outcomes.

"These analyses provide no evidence that atenolol-based therapy is superior to amlodipine-based therapy for patients with hypertension uncomplicated by coronary heart disease across the wide range of baseline heart rates observed in the ASCOT database," say Poulter et al.

"Pending further information--which could perhaps be gleaned from other studies such as [Losartan Intervention for Endpoint Reduction in Hypertension] LIFE--beta-blocker–based therapies are not appropriate to select as initial therapy for hypertension on the basis of a higher heart rate unless congestive heart failure and/or symptomatic ischemic heart disease coexist," they conclude.

Results Apply to All Beta Blockers, Until Further Notice

Poulter added to heartwire that "some cardiologists will say that if we hadn’t used atenolol the results would have been different: 'If you'd used my favorite "olol," ' for example, and I say, 'Prove it!' "

He believes that beta blockers "are not all the same, they do have different effects on all sorts of things," but "there is no evidence of heterogeneity in terms of cardiovascular outcomes," he maintains.

"Until further notice, beta blockers should not come up the pecking order on the basis of pulse rate."

Poulter has served as a consultant to and received travel expenses, payment for speaking at meetings, or funding for research from one or more pharmaceutical companies marketing BP-lowering or lipid-lowering drugs. Poulter has also previously received financial support from Pfizer to cover administrative and staffing costs of the ASCOT study and travel or accommodation expenses or both incurred by attending relevant meetings. Disclosures for the coauthors are listed in the paper.

References

  1. Poulter NR, Dobson JE, Sever PS, et al. Baseline heart rate, antihypertensive treatment, and prevention of cardiovascular outcomes in ASCOT (Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial). J Am Coll Cardiol 2009; 54:1154-1161.
Read More .......

Gene variants influence heart-failure risk, response to beta blockers

Thursday, July 23, 2009

by Steve Stiles

Washington, DC - Increasingly in explorations of why African Americans and whites with heart failure seem to respond differently to some drug therapies, genotype rules; race is a distraction.

A large, prospective study published online July 20, 2009 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology suggests that much of the perceived differences in beta-blocker effectiveness, as well as variability in beta-blocker responses among African Americans, may be attributed to a couple of gene variants that affect beta receptors and their signaling pathways [1]. When those polymorphisms are controlled for, the supposed racial distinctions in beta-blocker response disappear, according to the authors, led by Dr Sharon Cresci (Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO).

Of their 2460 patients with systolic heart failure followed for a median of 46 months, including 711 African Americans and 1749 whites, 2039 (about 82%) were treated with a beta blocker. Of those, 66% received carvedilol and 24% were given metoprolol.

All patients were genotyped for polymorphisms of beta-1 adrenergic receptor (ADRB1) Arg389gly (which encodes for beta receptors, the target of beta blockers) and for G-protein receptor kinase 5 (GRK5) Gln41Leu (which regulates beta-receptor signaling pathways). Both polymorphisms are "overrepresented" in African Americans compared with whites, Cresci et al explain, and "may play roles in determining individual clinical responses to beta blockade in heart failure."

G-protein receptor kinases desensitize and thereby "turn off" the beta receptors, primary author Dr Gerald W Dorn (Washington University School of Medicine) told heartwire. "It's the body's way of beta blocking."

Dorn and his colleagues previously found that 41% of a sample of African Americans carried at least one allele of the GRK5 variant, which was associated with significant improvement in heart-failure prognosis in the absence of beta-blocker therapy [2]. Similar survival times were seen in those without the variant who were taking beta blockers. But beta blockade in black patients with the variant didn't further prolong survival in this comparatively small study.

As described by heartwire in its coverage at the time, the polymorphism that is common in African Americans (but rare in whites) can make it appear that beta blockers don't improve their heart-failure survival. In effect, according to Dorn, the drugs are unable to extend the benefit already conferred by the GRK5 variant.

The apparent lack of beta-blocker effect masks the benefit observed in African Americans without the variant. They and the white patients showed similar survival gains on beta blockers.

The larger current study extends those findings in a more expansive population, Dorn said. In it, mortality was about 31% and was similarly reduced in whites and African Americans. The reduction in adjusted hazard ratio (HR) was significant in the former (HR 0.679, p=0.005) but not in the latter (HR 0.698, p=0.1).

Among the patients not taking beta blockers, the ADRB1 Gly389 variant was associated with a mortality HR of 1.98 (p=0.03) in whites, and the Leu41 variant of GRK5 was associated with a mortality HR of 0.325 (p<0.01) in African Americans.

Among those who were on beta blockers, African Americans genotyped as ADRB1 Gly389Gly GRK5 Gln41Gln showed a mortality reduction (HR 0.385, p=0.012) similar to that of whites with the same variants (HR 0.529, p=0.010), consistent with the smaller study's results.

Their data, write Cresci et al, show that the two polymorphisms can have a significant influence on heart-failure prognosis and outcomes "in the same manner as clinical risk modifiers." They also suggest that variations in apparent beta-blocker efficacy in their population associated with beta-receptor signaling-pathway gene polymorphisms, "rather than race, are the major factor contributing to apparent differences in beta-blocker treatment effect between [whites] and African Americans."

Sources

  1. Cresci S, Kelly RJ, Cappola TP, et al. Clinical and genetic modifiers of long-term survival in heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009; 54:432-444). DOI:10.1016/j.jacc.2009.05.009. Available at: http://content.onlinejacc.org.
  2. Liggett SB, Cresci S, Kelly RJ, et al. A GRK polymorphism that inhibits beta-adrenergic receptor signaling is protective in heart failure. Nat Med 2008; 14:510-517.

Read More .......