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

Asthma and Cardiovascular Diseases: Navigating Mutual Pharmacological Interferences

Asthma and cardiovascular disease (CVD) often co-exist. When a patient has both conditions, management requires an approach that addresses the unique challenges of each condition separately, while also considering their potential interactions. However, specific guidance on the management of asthma in patients with CVD and on the management of CVD in patients with asthma is still lacking. Nevertheless, health care providers need to adopt a comprehensive approach that includes both respiratory and CVD health. The management of CVD in patients with asthma requires a delicate balance between controlling respiratory symptoms and minimising potential cardiovascular (CV) risks. In the absence of specific guidelines for the management of patients with both conditions, the most prudent approach would be to follow established guidelines for each condition independently. Careful selection of asthma medications is essential to avoid exacerbation of CV symptoms. In addition, optimal management of CV risk factors is essential. However, close monitoring of these patients is important as there is evidence that some asthma medications may have adverse effects on CVD and, conversely, that some CVD medications may worsen asthma symptoms. On the other hand, there is also increasing evidence of the potential beneficial effects of asthma medications on CVD and, conversely, that some CVD medications may reduce the severity of asthma symptoms. We aim to elucidate the potential risks and benefits associated with the use of asthma medications in patients with CVD, and the potential pulmonary risks and benefits for patients with asthma who are prescribed CVD medications.

Safety and tolerability of β-blockers: importance of cardioselectivity

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 β1- vs. β2-adrenoceptors, does not block β2-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 β1-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.

Abdominal aortic aneurysm growth rates in patients undergoing local ultrasound surveillance

Objectives

Abdominal aortic aneurysm ultrasound surveillance varies between hospitals in the United Kingdom. University Hospitals Bristol and Weston adopt a 6-monthly surveillance interval for 4.5-4.9 cm abdominal aortic aneurysm, which is a deviation from nationally recommended 3-monthly intervals. Assessment of abdominal aortic aneurysm growth rate, and the concurrent impact of abdominal aortic aneurysm risk factors and medications prescribed for risk factors, may inform whether this change in surveillance intervals is safe and appropriate.

Methods

This analysis was conducted retrospectively. A total of 1312 abdominal aortic aneurysm ultrasound scans from 315 patients between January 2015 and March 2020 were split into 0.5 cm groups, ranging from 3.0 to 5.5 cm. Abdominal aortic aneurysm growth rate was assessed with one-way analysis of variance. The impact of risk factors and risk factor medication on abdominal aortic aneurysm growth rate was analysed using multivariate and univariate linear regression and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Patient cause of death among surveillance patients was recorded.

Results

Abdominal aortic aneurysm growth rate was significantly associated with increased abdominal aortic aneurysm diameter (p < 0.001). There was a significant whole-group reduction in growth rate from 0.29 to 0.19 cm/year in diabetics compared to non-diabetics (p = 0.02), supported by univariate linear regression (p = 0.04). In addition, gliclazide patients had lower growth rate compared to patients not on the medication (p = 0.04). One abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture occurred <5.5 cm resulting in death.

Conclusion

Abdominal aortic aneurysm measuring 4.5-4.9 cm had a mean growth rate of 0.3 cm/year (± 0.18 cm/year). Therefore, mean growth rate and variability suggest patients are unlikely to surpass surgical threshold of 5.5 cm between the 6-monthly surveillance scans, supported by low rupture rates. This suggests the surveillance interval for 4.5-4.9 cm abdominal aortic aneurysm is a safe and appropriate deviation from national guidance. In addition, it may be pertinent to consider diabetic status when designing surveillance intervals.

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

Bisoprolol and nebivolol are highly selective β₁-adrenoceptor antagonists, with clinical indications in many countries within the management of heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF), ischaemic heart disease (IHD), and hypertension. Nebivolol has additional vasodilator actions, related to enhanced release of NO in the vascular wall. In principle, this additional mechanism compared with bisoprolol might lead to more potent vasodilatation, which in turn might influence the effectiveness of nebivolol in the management of HFrEF, IHD and hypertension. In this article, we review the therapeutic properties of bisoprolol and nebivolol, as representatives of “second generation” and “third generation” β-blockers, respectively. Although head-to-head trials are largely lacking, there is no clear indication from published studies of an additional effect of nebivolol on clinical outcomes in patients with HFrEF or the magnitude of reductions of BP in patients with hypertension.

The safety of cardioselective β1-blockers in asthma: literature review and search of global pharmacovigilance safety reports

INTRODUCTION

Beta-blockers are key in the management of cardiovascular diseases but blocking airway β2-receptors can cause severe and sometimes fatal bronchoconstriction in people with asthma. Although cardioselective β1-blockers may be safer than non-selective β-blockers, they remain relatively contraindicated and under-prescribed. We review the evidence of the risk associated with cardioselective β1-blocker use in asthma.

METHODS

We searched "asthma" AND "beta-blocker" in PubMed and EmbaseOvid from start to May 2020. The World Health Organization (WHO) global database of individual case safety reports (VigiBase) was searched for reports of fatal asthma or bronchospasm and listed cardioselective β1-blocker use (accessed February 2020). Reports were examined for evidence of pre-existing asthma.

RESULTS

PubMed and EmbaseOvid searches identified 304 and 327 publications, respectively. No published reports of severe or fatal asthma associated with cardioselective β1-blockers were found. Three large observational studies reported no increase in asthma exacerbations with cardioselective β1-blocker treatment. The VigiBase search identified five reports of fatalities in patients with pre-existing asthma and reporting asthma or bronchospasm during cardioselective β1-blocker use. Four of these deaths were unrelated to cardioselective β1-blocker use. The circumstances of the fifth death were unclear.

CONCLUSIONS

There were no published reports of cardioselective β1-blockers causing asthma death. Observational data suggest that cardioselective β1-blocker use is not associated with increased asthma exacerbations. We found only one report of an asthma death potentially caused by cardioselective β1-blockers in a patient with asthma in a search of VigiBase. The reluctance to use cardioselective β1-blockers in people with asthma is not supported by this evidence.