Nebivolol for the treatment of heart failure

Contrastive analysis on the safety of brand and generic nebivolol: a real-world pharmacovigilance study based on the FDA adverse event reporting system

Background: The equivalence of generic drugs to their brand-name counterparts is a controversial issue. Current literature indicates disparities between the generic nebivolol (GN) and the brand nebivolol (BN). Aim: The study is designed to investigate the safety difference between GN and BN and provide reference information for clinical practice. Methods: We reviewed adverse event (AE) reports that recorded nebivolol as the primary suspect drug in the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database from 2004 to 2022, conducted a disproportional analysis to detect signals for the GN and BN respectively, and compared the AE heterogeneity between them using the Breslow-Day test. Results: A total of 2613 AE reports of nebivolol were recorded in the FAERS database from 2004 to 2022, of which 2,200 were classified as BN, 346 as GN, and 67 unclassifiable AE reports were excluded. The signals of 37 AEs distributed in cardiac, gastrointestinal, psychiatric, and nervous systems were detected in disproportional analysis. 33 out of 37 AEs were positive signals, with 21 not previously listed on the drug label, indicating an unrecognized risk with nebivolol. In the heterogeneity analysis of AE signals between GN and BN, the GN generally showed a higher AE signal value than BN, especially 15 AEs distributed in the cardiac, neurological, and psychiatric systems that showed statistically significantly higher risk by taking GN. Conclusion: Our study shows some previously overlooked adverse effects of nebivolol. It suggests that the risk of GN's adverse effects may be higher than those in BN, which deserves further attention and investigation by healthcare professionals, regulators, and others.

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 use of medications in the secondary prevention of coronary artery disease in the Asian region

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular diseases, to which coronary artery disease (CAD) is a significant contributor, are a leading cause of long-term morbidity and mortality worldwide. In the years ahead, it is estimated that approximately half of the world's cardiovascular burden will occur in the Asian region. Currently there is a large gap in secondary prevention, with unrealized health gains resulting from underuse of evidence-based medications, including beta-blockers, angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), aspirin and other antiplatelet agents, and lipid-lowering drugs. Despite the almost universal recommendation for these drugs in unstable CAD, their under-prescription is well documented for patients with acute heart failure, non-obstructive CAD, and for secondary prevention of CAD.

OBJECTIVE

This article reviews the burden of CAD in Asian countries together with guidelines supporting evidence-based medication use from a secondary prevention perspective.

METHODS

The MEDLINE database was searched from 2000 to 2013, inclusive, for country-specific data related to CAD and supplemented with unpublished registry data.

RESULTS

In the post-discharge setting following hospital admission for acute coronary syndromes, medication prescription rates were low. Beta-blocker prescription rates ranged from 49% in China to 99% in Singapore, ACE-inhibitor/ARB prescription rates ranged from 28% in China to 96% in Singapore, and lipid-lowering therapy rates ranged from 47% in China to 97% in Singapore. Aspirin/antiplatelet drug prescription rates ranged from 86% in Indonesia to 99.5% in Singapore. Recommendations are provided to improve patient outcomes and reduce the disease burden in Asia.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite recommendations issued in international and national guidelines, use of CAD medications in Asia remains suboptimal. In the absence of clear contraindications, all patients with unstable CAD should receive these agents as secondary prevention. This averts the need to target drug use according to risk, with high-risk features paradoxically associated with under-prescribing of such drugs.

The evolving role of β-adrenergic receptor blockers in managing hypertension

β-Adrenergic blocking agents (or β-blockers) have been widely used for the treatment of hypertension for the past 50 years, and continue to be recommended as a mainstay of therapy in many national guidelines. They have also been used in a variety of cardiovascular conditions commonly complicating hypertension, including angina pectoris, myocardial infarction (MI), acute and chronic heart failure, as well as conditions like essential tremor and migraine. Moreover, they have played a primary role in controlling blood pressure in patients with these specific comorbidities and in reducing cardiovascular risk with regard to the composite outcome of death, stroke, and MI among patients younger than 60 years of age. However, in patients 60 years of age or older, β-blockers were not associated with significantly lower rates of MI, heart failure or death, and demonstrated higher rates of stroke compared with other first-line therapies. Consequently, the Canadian Hypertension Education Program recommends the use of β-blockers as first-line therapy in hypertensive patients younger than 60 years of age but not for those age 60 and older, with the exception of patients with concomitant β-blocker-requiring cardiac diseases. Several reports suggest that the lack of consistent outcome data may relate to the use of traditional β-blockers such as atenolol and their ability only to reduce cardiac output, without beneficial effect on peripheral vascular resistance. The present report will describe the clinically relevant mechanisms of action of β-blockers, their pharmacological differences, their metabolic effects, and their usefulness in patients with hypertension.