Metoprolol compared to carvedilol deteriorates insulin-stimulated endothelial function in patients with type 2 diabetes - a randomized study

The effects of antihypertensive drugs on glucose metabolism

Abnormal glucose metabolism is a common disease of the endocrine system. The effects of drugs on glucose metabolism have been reported frequently in recent years, and since abnormal glucose metabolism increases the risk of microvascular and macrovascular complications, metabolic disorders, and infection, clinicians need to pay close attention to these effects. A variety of common drugs can affect glucose metabolism and have different mechanisms of action. Hypertension is a common chronic cardiovascular disease that requires long-term medication. Studies have shown that various antihypertensive drugs also have an impact on glucose metabolism. Among them, α-receptor blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and calcium channel blockers can improve insulin resistance, while β-receptor blockers, thiazides and loop diuretics can impair glucose metabolism. The aim of this review was to discuss the mechanisms underlying the effects of various antihypertensive drugs on glucose metabolism in order to provide reference information for rational clinical drug use.

Carbazoles: Role and Functions in Fighting Diabetes

Carbazole derivatives have gained a lot of attention in medicinal chemistry over the last few decades due to their wide range of biological and pharmacological properties, including antibacterial, antitumor, antioxidant, and anti-inflammatory activities. The therapeutic potential of natural, semi-synthetic or synthetic carbazole-containing molecules has expanded considerably owing to their role in the pathogenesis and development of diabetes. Several studies have demonstrated the ability of carbazole derivatives to reduce oxidative stress, block adrenergic hyperactivation, prevent damage to pancreatic cells and modulate carbohydrate metabolism. In this survey, we summarize the latest advances in the synthetic and natural carbazole-containing compounds involved in diabetes pathways.

Beta-blockers for Atherosclerosis Prevention: a Missed Opportunity?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Current guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension endorse β-adrenergic receptor blocking agents (beta-blockers, BBs) as being particularly useful for hypertension in specific situations such as symptomatic angina, tachycardia, post-myocardial infarction, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), and as an alternative to angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in hypertensive women planning pregnancy or at least of child-bearing potential. One of the most common uses of BBs is in patients with a recent myocardial infarction, with or without hypertension. Although this one use is specifically in a setting of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), it is not primarily for atheroprevention, but rather for cases with impaired systolic function, and it is intended primarily to lessen adverse cardiac remodeling and worsening of congestive heart failure (CHF). The BB class consists of numerous agents which differ widely in pharmacologic properties and physiologic effects. These differences include selectivity for β-adrenergic receptors and their subtypes, hydro- or lipophilicity, effects on blood pressure and heart rate, influence on lipoprotein and glucose metabolism, and direct impact on the artery wall, including platelet reactivity, endothelial function, infiltration of inflammatory cells and on inflammation per se, and on smooth muscle cell proliferation. Importantly, BBs are not commonly used for prevention of atherosclerosis or ASCVD per se. Many studies of early-generation BBs showed adverse effects on lipoprotein levels and metabolism of glucose and insulin and thus discouraged their use in atheroprevention. Nevertheless, newer BBs often have neutral or favorable metabolic effects on these important factors in ASCVD pathophysiology, and recent scientific studies now document direct beneficial effects of BBs on the artery wall. This document reviews both types of newer data, not only to encourage consideration of BB treatment to reduce ASCVD in the present, but also to call for future research to better explore the clinical settings in which BBs may be proven to have additional benefit in preventing ASCVD when added to the better-established treatments for dyslipidemia and diabetes.

RECENT FINDINGS

Relatively recent publications have clarified the diversity among BBs regarding adverse, neutral, or favorable effects on lipoproteins (especially triglycerides (TG) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL)) and on glucose/insulin metabolism. Specifically, the newer BBs (metoprolol ER, carvedilol ER, bisoprolol, and nebivolol) are now documented to be metabolically beneficial. These new data are complex but instructive regarding potential mechanisms of the diverse effects of various BBs on metabolism. Further and more importantly, these new data refute the traditional, but now outmoded, concept that BBs are universally harmful metabolically and therefore must be used sparingly, if at all, for atheroprevention. Recent studies have also reported exciting new data regarding how certain BBs can reduce platelet adhesion and improve the function of the major cell types in the artery wall, including the endothelium, macrophages, and smooth muscle cells. Specifically, BBs can improve endothelial function by enhancing arterial vasodilation and by reducing monocyte adhesion and transmigration. Further, BBs can decrease numbers and activity of inflammatory cells, including decreasing proliferation of smooth muscle cells and their transformation into inflammatory cells. These data help with the crucial step of distinguishing among available BBs regarding their likely overall arterial effects, whether to accelerate or prevent the development of atherosclerosis. In this regard, there is even some limited published information beyond these intermediary steps, going directly to the clinically more important endpoints of atherosclerosis and ASCVD events. The negative metabolic effects observed with the use of traditional/earlier generations of BBs have discouraged use of any BBs to prevent ASCVD. These adverse effects are not seen, however, with newer BBs. Thus, BBs continue to be a useful component of combination regimens not only in the treatment of arterial hypertension, heart failure, and arrhythmia, but also potentially in the prevention of atherosclerosis and ASCVD. Despite this exciting potential, further research is greatly needed to better establish the possible benefits of the most promising BBs as they might work in combination with other better-established atheropreventive agents. Specifically, there is a need for randomized, prospective, cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) in high-risk patients, adding a BB to background LDL-lowering (statins, etc.), TG-lowering (specifically icosapent ethyl, which reduces ASCVD in patients with high TG, although apparently not via TG-lowering), and/or anti-diabetic (sodium glucose transport-2 inhibitors, SGLT2i, and glucagon-like protein-1 receptor agonists, GLP1-RA) treatments, as indicated in a given subject population.

Risk of clinically relevant hyperglycemia with metoprolol compared to carvedilol in older adults with heart failure and diabetes

BACKGROUND

Although prior literature suggests that metoprolol may worsen glucose control compared to carvedilol, whether this has clinical relevance among older adults with diabetes and heart failure (HF) remains an open question.

METHODS

This was a US retrospective cohort study utilizing data sourced from a 50% national sample of Medicare fee-for-service claims of patients with part D prescription drug coverage (2007-2017). Among patients with diabetes and HF, we identified initiators of metoprolol or carvedilol, which were 1:1 propensity score matched on >90 variables. The primary outcome was initiation of a new oral or injectable antidiabetic medication (proxy for uncontrolled diabetes); secondary outcomes included initiation of insulin and severe hyperglycemic event (composite of emergency room visits or hospitalizations related to hyperglycemia).

RESULTS

Among 24 239 propensity score-matched pairs (mean [SD] age 77.7 [8.0] years; male [39.1%]), there were 8150 (incidence rate per 100 person-years [IR] = 33.5) episodes of antidiabetic medication initiation among metoprolol users (exposure arm) compared to 8576 (IR = 33.4) among carvedilol users (comparator arm) compared to corresponding to an adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of 0.97 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.94, 1.01). Similarly, metoprolol was not associated with a significant increase in the risk of secondary outcomes including insulin initiation: aHR of 0.98 (95% CI: 0.93, 1.04) and severe hyperglycemic events: aHR of 0.98 (95% CI: 0.93, 1.02).

CONCLUSIONS

In this large study of older adults with HF and diabetes, initiation of metoprolol compared to carvedilol was not associated with an increase in the risk of clinically relevant hyperglycemia.

β-blockade prevents coronary macro- and microvascular dysfunction induced by a high salt diet and insulin resistance in the Goto-Kakizaki rat

A high salt intake exacerbates insulin resistance, evoking hypertension due to systemic perivascular inflammation, oxidative-nitrosative stress and endothelial dysfunction. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) have been shown to abolish inflammation and redox stress but only partially restore endothelial function in mesenteric vessels. We investigated whether sympatho-adrenal overactivation evokes coronary vascular dysfunction when a high salt intake is combined with insulin resistance in male Goto-Kakizaki (GK) and Wistar rats treated with two different classes of β-blocker or vehicle, utilising synchrotron-based microangiography in vivo. Further, we examined if chronic carvedilol (CAR) treatment preserves nitric oxide (NO)-mediated coronary dilation more than metoprolol (MET). A high salt diet (6% NaCl w/w) exacerbated coronary microvessel endothelial dysfunction and NO-resistance in vehicle-treated GK rats while Wistar rats showed modest impairment. Microvascular dysfunction was associated with elevated expression of myocardial endothelin, inducible NO synthase (NOS) protein and 3-nitrotyrosine (3-NT). Both CAR and MET reduced basal coronary perfusion but restored microvessel endothelium-dependent and -independent dilation indicating a role for sympatho-adrenal overactivation in vehicle-treated rats. While MET treatment reduced myocardial nitrates, only MET treatment completely restored microvessel dilation to dobutamine (DOB) stimulation in the absence of NO and prostanoids (combined inhibition), indicating that MET restored the coronary flow reserve attributable to endothelium-derived hyperpolarisation (EDH). In conclusion, sympatho-adrenal overactivation caused by high salt intake and insulin resistance evoked coronary microvessel endothelial dysfunction and diminished NO sensitivity, which were restored by MET and CAR treatment in spite of ongoing inflammation and oxidative-nitrosative stress presumably caused by uninhibited renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) overactivation.

Carvedilol and metoprolol are both able to preserve myocardial function in type 2 diabetes

PURPOSE

Increasing cohorts of patients present with diabetic cardiomyopathy, and with no targeted options, treatment often rely on generic pharmaceuticals such as β-blockers. β-blocker efficacy is heterogenous, with second generation β-blocker metoprolol selectively inhibiting β₁ -AR, while third generation β-blocker carvedilol has α₁ -AR inhibition, antioxidant, and anti-apoptotic actions alongside nonselective β-AR inhibition. These additional properties have led to the hypothesis that carvedilol may improve cardiac contractility in the diabetic heart to a greater extent than metoprolol. The present study aimed to compare the efficacy of metoprolol and carvedilol on myocardial function in animal models and cardiac tissue from patients with type 2 diabetes and preserved ejection fraction.

METHODS

Echocardiographic examination of cardiac function and assessment of myocardial function in isolated trabeculae was carried out in patients with and without diabetes undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) who were prescribed metoprolol or carvedilol. Equivalent measures were undertaken in Zucker Diabetic Fatty (ZDF) rats following 4 weeks treatment with metoprolol or carvedilol.

RESULTS

Patients receiving carvedilol compared to metoprolol had no difference in cardiac function, and no difference was apparent in myocardial function between β-blockers. Both β-blockers similarly improved myocardial function in diabetic ZDF rats treated for 4 weeks, without significantly affecting in vivo cardiac function.

CONCLUSIONS

Metoprolol and carvedilol were found to have no effect on cardiac function in type 2 diabetes with preserved ejection fraction, and were similarly effective in preventing myocardial dysfunction in ZDF rats.

Metoprolol and bisoprolol ameliorate hypertrophy of neonatal rat cardiomyocytes induced by high glucose via the PKC/NF-κB/c-fos signaling pathway

Hyperglycemia caused by diabetes mellitus could increase the risk of diabetic cardiomyopathy. However, to the best of our knowledge, the underlying mechanism of this process is still not fully explored. Thus, developing ways to prevent hyperglycemia can be beneficial for diabetic patients. The present study was designed to investigate the influence of metoprolol and bisoprolol on the cardiomyocytic hypertrophy of neonatal rat cardiomyocytes. Cardiomyocytes were cultured in two types of media: One with low glucose levels and one with high glucose levels. Cardiomyocytes cultured in high glucose were further treated with the following: A protein kinase C (PKC) inhibitor, an NF-κB inhibitor, metoprolol or bisoprolol. The pulsatile frequency, cellular diameter and surface area of cardiomyocytes were measured. Protein content and [³H]-leucine incorporation were determined, atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP), α-myosin heavy chain (α-MHC) and β-myosin heavy chain (β-MHC) mRNA levels were calculated by reverse transcription-quantitative PCR, while the expression and activation of PKC-α, PKC-β₂, NF-κB, tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), and c-fos were detected by western blotting. Metoprolol or bisoprolol were also used in combination with PKC inhibitor or NF-κB inhibitor to determine whether the hypertrophic response would be attenuated to a lower extent compared with metroprolol or bisoprolol alone. Cardiomyocytes cultured in high glucose presented increased pulsatile frequency, cellular diameter, surface area, and protein content and synthesis, higher expression of ANP and β-MHC, and lower α-MHC expression. High glucose levels also upregulated the expression and activation of PKC-α, PKC-β₂, NF-κB, TNF-α and c-fos. Metoprolol and bisoprolol partly reversed the above changes, while combined use of metoprolol or bisoprolol with PKC inhibitor or NF-κB inhibitor further ameliorated the hypertrophic response mentioned above to lower levels compared with using metroprolol or bisoprolol alone. In conclusion, metoprolol and bisoprolol could prevent hypertrophy of cardiomyocytes cultured in high glucose by the inhibition of the total and phospho-PKC-α, which could further influence the PKC-α/NF-κB/c-fos signaling pathway.

Selective ß1-Blockers Are Not Associated With New-onset Diabetes Mellitus in Hypertensive Patients

BACKGROUND

Although ß-blockers are known to increase new-onset diabetes mellitus (DM), previous evidence have been controversial. It has been suggested that newer vasodilatory ß-blockers yield better glycemic control than older nonselective agents. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diabetogenicity of currently used newer ß-blockers based on ß1 receptor selectivity in a series of Asian population.

METHODS

We investigated a total of 65,686 hypertensive patients without DM from 2004 to 2014. Patients with hemoglobin (Hb) A1c ≤6.0%, fasting blood glucose ≤110 mg/dL, and no history of diabetes or diabetic treatment were enrolled for analysis. Patients were divided into the ß-blockers group and non-ß-blockers group. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis using a logistic regression model was performed to adjust for potential confounders. The primary end point was the cumulative incidence of new-onset DM, defined as a fasting blood glucose ≥126 mg/dL or HbA1c ≥6.5%, and major adverse cardiac and cerebral events (MACCE), defined as a composite of total death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and cerebrovascular accidents. We investigated predictors of new-onset DM and MACCE based on 2 models, including clinical risk factors and co-medications, respectively.

RESULTS

Mean follow-up duration was 30.91 ± 23.14 months in the entire group before adjustment. The ß-blockers group had a significantly higher incidence of new-onset DM and MACCE than the non-ß-blockers group. After PSM, analysis of a total of 2284 patients (1142 pairs, C-statistic = 0.752) showed no difference between the 2 groups in new-onset DM or MACCE. In multivariate analysis after PSM, baseline HbA1c, stroke, heart failure, nonselective ß-blockers, and age were independent predictors of new-onset DM. Selective ß1-blockers did not increase new-onset DM after adjustment for other antihypertensive medication and statins.

CONCLUSIONS

In the era of newer ß-blockers, selective ß1-blockers were not associated with new-onset DM. More evidence is needed to verify this relationship and the underlying mechanisms.

THE IMPACT OF CARDIOVASCULAR DRUGS ON GLYCEMIC CONTROL: A REVIEW

OBJECTIVE

The prevalence of diabetes mellitus (DM) is steadily rising in the U.S., both in the general population and among those with cardiovascular disease (CVD). Understanding how to treat a patient with both conditions is becoming increasingly important. With multiple therapeutic options for CVD management, some medications will invariably impact glycemia in this group of patients. The concept of "DM-friendly" management of CVD is based on a treatment approach of selecting medications that do not impair glycemic control and provide equivalent cardioprotective effects. This article reviews the glycemic effects of various classes of medications commonly used to treat CVD.

METHODS

Data sources were all PubMed- and Google Scholar-referenced articles in English-language peer-reviewed journals from 1980 through April 2016. Studies selected could include observational studies or prospective clinical trials. Prospective clinical trials included in this review focused on investigating the association of the medication of interest with glycemic outcomes. Meta-analyses and systematic reviews were also included.

RESULTS

The data on glycemic effects were lacking for many of the medication classes and individual medications examined. However, in our review, certain beta-blockers and renin angiotensin aldosterone system inhibitors, and select calcium channel blockers were consistently shown to have favorable glycometabolic profiles when compared with other commonly used cardiovascular therapies.

CONCLUSION

Several commonly prescribed medications for the treatment of CVD, such as certain beta-blockers and renin angiotensin aldosterone system inhibiting agents, are associated with favorable glycometabolic effects. As clinicians are more often faced with the challenge of treating patients with DM and concomitant CVD, consideration of how common cardiovascular medications may affect glycemia should be incorporated into the clinical decision making process.

ABBREVIATIONS

A1C = hemoglobin A1C ACE = angiotensin-converting enzyme ARB = angiotensin II receptor blocker CCB = calcium channel blocker CI = confidence interval CVD = cardiovascular disease DM = diabetes mellitus MI = myocardial infarction RR = relative risk.

Ivabradine and metoprolol differentially affect cardiac glucose metabolism despite similar heart rate reduction in a mouse model of dyslipidemia

While heart rate reduction (HRR) is a target for the management of patients with heart disease, contradictory results were reported using ivabradine, which selectively inhibits the pacemaker I_f current, vs. β-blockers like metoprolol. This study aimed at testing whether similar HRR with ivabradine vs. metoprolol differentially modulates cardiac energy substrate metabolism, a factor determinant for cardiac function, in a mouse model of dyslipidemia (hApoB^+/+;LDLR^-/-). Following a longitudinal study design, we used 3- and 6-mo-old mice, untreated or treated for 3 mo with ivabradine or metoprolol. Cardiac function was evaluated in vivo and ex vivo in working hearts perfused with ¹³C-labeled substrates to assess substrate fluxes through energy metabolic pathways. Compared with 3-mo-old, 6-mo-old dyslipidemic mice had similar cardiac hemodynamics in vivo but impaired (P < 0.001) contractile function (aortic flow: -45%; cardiac output: -34%; stroke volume: -35%) and glycolysis (-24%) ex vivo. Despite inducing a similar 10% HRR, ivabradine-treated hearts displayed significantly higher stroke volume values and glycolysis vs. their metoprolol-treated counterparts ex vivo, values for the ivabradine group being often not significantly different from 3-mo-old mice. Further analyses highlighted additional significant cardiac alterations with disease progression, namely in the total tissue level of proteins modified by O-linked N-acetylglucosamine (O-GlcNAc), whose formation is governed by glucose metabolism via the hexosamine biosynthetic pathway, which showed a similar pattern with ivabradine vs. metoprolol treatment. Collectively, our results emphasize the implication of alterations in cardiac glucose metabolism and signaling linked to disease progression in our mouse model. Despite similar HRR, ivabradine, but not metoprolol, preserved cardiac function and glucose metabolism during disease progression.

Effects of Carvedilol Compared to Nebivolol on Insulin Resistance and Lipid Profile in Patients With Essential Hypertension

Background and aim:

Beta-blockers have unfavorable effects on metabolic parameters in hypertensive treatment. New generation beta-blockers with vasodilatory capabilities are superior to traditional beta-blockers, but studies examining their effects on metabolic parameters are still lacking. This study aimed to compare the effects of 2 new generation beta-blockers, carvedilol and nebivolol, on insulin resistance (IR) and lipid profiles in patients with essential hypertension.

Methods:

This was a prospective, randomized, open-label, single-center clinical trial. A total of 80 patients were randomized into 2 groups: the carvedilol group (n = 40, 25 mg of carvedilol daily) and the nebivolol group (n = 40, 5 mg of nebivolol daily). Follow-up was performed for 4 months. Fasting plasma glucose, insulin levels, and the lipid profile (high-density lipoprotein [HDL], low-density lipoprotein [LDL], total cholesterol, triglyceride, apolipoprotein AI, and apolipoprotein B levels) were measured and IR was calculated by the homeostasis model assessment (HOMA) index. These variables were compared before and 4 months after treatment.

Results:

Blood pressure and heart rate were significantly and similarly reduced in the carvedilol and nebivolol groups after treatment compared to those before treatment (both P < .001). Serum glucose ( P < .001), insulin ( P < .01), HOMA-IR (P < .01), HDL ( P < .001), LDL ( P < .001), total cholesterol ( P < .001), and apolipoprotein B ( P < .05) levels decreased in a similar manner in the carvedilol and nebivolol groups after treatment compared to those before treatment. Serum triglyceride and apolipoprotein AI levels did not change after treatment with both drugs.

Conclusion:

New generation beta-blockers, carvedilol and nebivolol, efficiently and similarly decrease blood pressure. They have similar favorable effects on glucose, insulin, IR, and the lipid profile.

Novel treatment approaches in hypertensive type 2 diabetic patients

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and hypertension represent two common conditions worldwide. Their frequent association with cardiovascular diseases makes management of hypertensive patients with T2DM an important clinical priority. Carvedilol and renal denervation are two promising choices to reduce plasma glucose levels and blood pressure in hypertensive patients with T2DM to reduce future complications and improve clinical outcomes and prognosis. Pathophysiological mechanisms of both options are under investigation, but one of the most accepted is an attenuation in sympathetic nervous system activity which lowers blood pressure and improves insulin sensitivity. Choice of these therapeutic approaches should be individualized based on specific characteristics of each patient. Further investigations are needed to determine when to consider their use in clinical practice.

The current status of beta blockers' use in the management of hypertension

The invention of beta (β)-blockers culminated in a new era in the treatment of cardiovascular diseases (CD), and changed the course of pharmacology research for years to come. Since the introduction of propranolol into clinical practice in 1964, β-blockers enjoyed a special place in the clinicians' armamentarium against CDs, especially for patients with ischemic heart diseases, and are still one of the most extensively used therapeutic drugs in both cardiac and non-cardiac ailments. Current uses of β-blockers in CDs include ischemic heart diseases, hypertension, cardiac arrhythmias, and heart failure. Other substantial non-cardiac uses include glaucoma, migraine, situational anxiety, benign essential tremors, and cardiac symptoms of thyrotoxicosis. This review covers some of the evolutionary changes of clinical uses of β-blockers, the rationale for their use, some recent controversies surrounding their use for treatment of hypertension, and advantages of newer additions to the group. 

The glycemic effects of antihypertensive medications

Older antihypertensive medications are believed to be associated with metabolic disturbances, especially raised glucose levels. Owing to this, many physicians shun their use. Newer antihypertensive medications are metabolically neutral or metabolically favorable; therefore, they are looked upon favorably and are chosen as primary medications for the treatment of hypertension. Here we review the literature on the glucose effects of older and newer antihypertensive medications. We also consider what, if any, impact these metabolic effects have on cardiovascular disease outcomes. We show that the diabetogenic effects of thiazide diuretics and beta blockers are small relative to the glucose effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and calcium channel blockers, and that over time, the glucose differences between older and newer medications diminish. Importantly, we show that the diabetogenic effects of older antihypertensive medications do not translate into increased cardiovascular disease risk.

Choice of anti-hypertensive agents in diabetic subjects

Hypertension is an extremely common co-morbid condition in diabetes leading to acceleration in micro-vascular and macro-vascular complications. The use of anti-hypertensives in diabetic patients should be considered in the context of preventing the development of complications. Various factors contribute to the pathophysiology of diabetes in hypertension. With the advancements in technology, the understanding of the pathophysiological mechanisms has increased, and this can contribute in providing evidence for beneficial role of certain anti-hypertensives. Many clinical trials have been carried out for use of diuretics, beta blockers, calcium channel blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers. The present review gives an overview of pathophysiological mechanisms of hypertension and diabetes in addition to the details of clinical trials of anti-hypertensives in diabetic patients. This is an attempt to provide some evidences for the clinicians, which may serve as a guide for use of anti-hypertensives in clinical practice.

Use of carvedilol in hypertension: an update

β-blockers are effective antihypertensive agents and, together with diuretics, have been the cornerstone of pioneering studies showing their benefits on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality as a consequence of blood pressure reduction in patients with hypertension. However, evidence from recent meta-analyses have demonstrated no benefit afforded by atenolol compared with placebo in risk of mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and a higher risk of mortality and stroke with atenolol/propranolol compared with other antihypertensive drug classes. Thus, the effect of these agents on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertensive patients, especially their use in uncomplicated hypertension, has remained largely controversial. However, it is recognized that the clinical studies used in these meta-analyses were mainly based on the older second-generation β-blockers, such as atenolol and metoprolol. Actually, considerable heterogeneity in, eg, pharmacokinetic, pharmacological, and physicochemical properties exists across the different classes of β-blockers, particularly between the second-generation and newer third-generation agents. Carvedilol is a vasodilating noncardioselective third-generation β-blocker, without the negative hemodynamic and metabolic effects of traditional β-blockers, which can be used as a cardioprotective agent. Compared with conventional β-blockers, carvedilol maintains cardiac output, has a reduced prolonged effect on heart rate, and reduces blood pressure by decreasing vascular resistance. Studies have also shown that carvedilol exhibits favorable effects on metabolic parameters, eg, glycemic control, insulin sensitivity, and lipid metabolism, suggesting that it could be considered in the treatment of patients with metabolic syndrome or diabetes. The present report provides an overview of the main clinical studies concerning carvedilol administered as either monotherapy or in combination with another antihypertensive or more frequently a diuretic agent, with particular focus on the additional benefits beyond blood pressure reduction.

Beta blocker use in subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus and systolic heart failure does not worsen glycaemic control

Background

The prognostic benefits of beta-blockers (BB) in patients with systolic heart failure (SHF) are known but despite this, in patients with diabetes they are underutilized. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of beta-blockers (BB) on glycaemic control in patients with Type 2 Diabetes (T2DM) and systolic heart failure (SHF) stratified to beta-1 selective (Bisoprolol) vs. nonselective BB (Carvedilol).

Methods

This observational, cohort study was conducted in patients with T2DM and SHF attending an Australian tertiary teaching hospital's heart failure services. The primary endpoint was glycaemic control measured by glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) at initiation and top dose of BB. Secondary endpoints included microalbuminuria, changes in lipid profile and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR).

Results

125 patients were assessed. Both groups were well matched for gender, NYHA class and use of guideline validated heart failure and diabetic medications. The mean treatment duration was 1.9 ± 1.1 years with carvedilol and 1.4 ± 1.0 years with bisoprolol (p = ns). The carvedilol group achieved a reduction in HbA1c (7.8 ± 0.21% to 7.3 ± 0.17%, p = 0.02) whereas the bisoprolol group showed no change in HbA1c (7.0 ± 0.20% to 6.9 ± 0.23%, p = 0.92). There was no significant difference in the change in HbA1c from baseline to peak BB dose in the carvedilol group compared to the bisoprolol group. There was a similar deterioration in eGFR, but no significant changes in lipid profile or microalbuminuria in both groups (p = ns).

Conclusion

BB use did not worsen glycaemic control, lipid profile or albuminuria status in subjects with SHF and T2DM. Carvedilol significantly improved glycemic control in subjects with SHF and T2DM and this improvement was non significantly better than that obtained with bisoprolol. BB's should not be withheld from patients with T2DM and SHF.

Endothelial function is unaffected by changing between carvedilol and metoprolol in patients with heart failure--a randomized study

Background

Carvedilol has been shown to be superior to metoprolol tartrate to improve clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF), yet the mechanisms responsible for these differences remain unclear. We examined if there were differences in endothelial function, insulin stimulated endothelial function, 24 hour ambulatory blood pressure and heart rate during treatment with carvedilol, metoprolol tartrate and metoprolol succinate in patients with HF.

Methods

Twenty-seven patients with mild HF, all initially treated with carvedilol, were randomized to a two-month treatment with carvedilol, metoprolol tartrate or metoprolol succinate. Venous occlusion plethysmography, 24-hour blood pressure and heart rate measurements were done before and after a two-month treatment period.

Results

Endothelium-dependent vasodilatation was not affected by changing from carvedilol to either metoprolol tartrate or metoprolol succinate. The relative forearm blood flow at the highest dose of serotonin was 2.42 ± 0.33 in the carvedilol group at baseline and 2.14 ± 0.24 after two months continuation of carvedilol (P = 0.34); 2.57 ± 0.33 before metoprolol tartrate treatment and 2.42 ± 0.55 after treatment (p = 0.74) and in the metoprolol succinate group 1.82 ± 0.29 and 2.10 ± 0.37 before and after treatment, respectively (p = 0.27). Diurnal blood pressures as well as heart rate were also unchanged by changing from carvedilol to metoprolol tartrate or metoprolol succinate.

Conclusion

Endothelial function remained unchanged when switching the beta blocker treatment from carvedilol to either metoprolol tartrate or metoprolol succinate in this study, where blood pressure and heart rate also remained unchanged in patients with mild HF.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials NCT00497003