Efficacy and tolerability of nebivolol compared with other antihypertensive drugs: a meta-analysis

Posttreatment pulse rate reduction and not baseline pulse rate as an indicator of blood pressure response to nebivolol: a subanalysis from the real-world BENEFIT-KOREA study

Background

This subanalysis of BENEFIT-KOREA cohort assessed the impact of baseline pulse rate (PR) and posttreatment PR reduction on the blood pressure (BP)-lowering efficacy of nebivolol in patients with hypertension.

Methods

South Korean patients with hypertension were enrolled in the BENEFIT-KOREA study; 3,011 patients received nebivolol as monotherapy/add-on therapy. Time-averaged BP, calculated by sum of the product of BPs at weeks 12 and 24 corrected for number of participants at these timepoints, was evaluated with/without adjustment for baseline BP. Change in BP in baseline PR groups of < 70, 70-79, and ≥ 80 beats/min and posttreatment PR reduction groups of < 1, 1-9, and ≥ 10 beats/min at 24 weeks were evaluated.

Results

The unadjusted time-averaged systolic BP (SBP) at 24 weeks was not significantly different within baseline PR groups or posttreatment PR reduction groups, but the unadjusted time-averaged diastolic BP (DBP) was significantly different within both baseline PR (P < 0.001) and posttreatment PR reduction groups (P < 0.001). Significant differences were observed in adjusted time-averaged SBP (≥ 10 beats/min group: β, -3.4148; P = 0.006) and time-averaged DBP (≥ 10 beats/min: β, -4.5781; P < 0.001) only within the posttreatment PR reduction groups. The majority of adverse events reported with nebivolol were mild.

Conclusions

The efficacy of nebivolol for BP reduction seems to be indicated not by baseline PR but by posttreatment PR reduction. These findings suggest the presence of other mechanisms in addition to sympathetic inhibition which potentially weaken the relationship between baseline PR and BP reduction.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03847350.

Beta-Blockers and Hypertension: Some Questions and Answers

INTRODUCTION

International guidelines have removed b-blockers from first-line treatment of hypertension, limiting their use to patients with compelling indications. The position of guidelines stems from the results of studies performed with the 1st and 2nd generation of b-blockers, which concluded that these drugs have lower cardiovascular protection, compared with other antihypertensive agents.

AIM

The aim of our mini review is to answer to some questions about the effect of b-blockers on hypertension and cardiovascular protection and if these effects are different from those of other antihypertensive drugs, particularly in young and elderly patients.

METHODS

We evaluated the relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses, which reported the effectiveness of b-blockers on blood pressure and cardiovascular outcomes, compared with placebo/no treatment and with other antihypertensive agents.

RESULTS

Beta-blockers, decreased high blood pressure with no significant difference from other common antihypertensive agents. Moreover b-blockers, compared with placebo, lowered the risk of major cardiovascular outcomes, while, compared with other drug classes, the reported results are very heterogeneous. Therefore it is difficult, globally, to find a difference between b-blockers and other drug classes.

CONCLUSIONS

Rather than looking for differences in the cardiovascular protective effect between b-blockers and other antihypertensive agents, we have to consider the different pathophysiology of hypertension in young [sympathetic hyperactivity] and elderly patients [arterial stiffness, high aortic systolic pressure]. Considering these aspects, non-vasodilating b-blockers are preferred, as first-line, in young/middle aged hypertensive subjects, while vasodilating b-blockers, are most appropriate, in elderly patients, for the favourable hemodynamic profile.

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.

Efficacy and safety of nebivolol in Korean patients with hypertension by age and sex: a subanalysis from the BENEFIT-KOREA study

BACKGROUND

BENEFIT-KOREA (BEnefits after 24 weeks of NEbivolol administration For essential hypertensIon patients wiTh various comorbidities and treatment environments in Korea) study, an observational study in South Korea, demonstrated the efficacy and safety of nebivolol in Asian patients with essential hypertension with and without comorbidities in real-world settings. We present a subanalysis of the efficacy and safety of nebivolol across age and sex in the BENEFIT-KOREA cohort.

METHODS

Adult South Korean patients with essential hypertension participated in the prospective, single-arm, open, observational BENEFIT-KOREA study; 3011 patients received nebivolol as monotherapy or add-on therapy. Changes in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and pulse rate at 12 and 24 weeks were evaluated. Participants were divided into three age groups-young males and females: < 50 years; middle-aged males and females: ≥50 years to < 70 years; and older males and females: ≥70 years.

RESULTS

The mean age of study participants was 63.5 ± 12.9 years; majority were between 50 and 69 years of age and 40.4% were females. A significant decrease was observed in mean SBP, DBP, and pulse rate from baseline at 12 and 24 weeks in males and females across all age groups analyzed (all P < 0.001 vs. baseline), with no significant difference in mean reduction in SBP and DBP from baseline between sex within the age groups. Majority of reported adverse events were mild. The incidence of adverse events was lower in young participants versus middle-aged and older participants.

CONCLUSIONS

Our subanalysis from the real-world BENEFIT-KOREA study in Asian patients with essential hypertension demonstrated the efficacy and safety of once-daily nebivolol across age groups with no between-sex differences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Name of the registry: clinicaltrials.gov.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03847350 . Date of registration: February 20, 2019 retrospectively registered.

Efficacy and safety of nebivolol in hypertensive patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Purpose

Our meta-analysis was undertaken to evaluate the efficacy and safety of nebivolol compared with other second-generation β blockers for hypertensive patients.

Methods

We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Clinical Trials.gov databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The efficacy endpoints included systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), reduction of SBP and DBP, heart rate (HR), and adverse events (AEs).

Findings

Eight RCTs with 1514 patients met the inclusion criteria. HR was significantly lower in patients receiving other second-generation β blockers compared with patients receiving nebivolol. There was no difference the reduction of blood pressure (SBP and DBP) or the reduction of SBP or DBP between the groups. The incidence of AEs was lower in patients taking nebivolol compared with patients taking other second-generation β blockers.

Conclusions

No significant difference was demonstrated between nebivolol and other second-generation β blockers in the reduction of blood pressure, SBP, and DBP. The tolerability of nebivolol was significantly better compared with other second-generation β blockers, and nebivolol was also associated with a stable HR and a lower risk of AEs compared with other second-generation β blockers.

Misconceptions and Facts About Beta-Blockers

Beta-blockers are commonly used medications, and they have been traditionally considered "cardioprotective." Their clinical use appears to be more widespread than the available evidence base supporting their role in cardioprotection. Beta-blockers counteract neurohumoral activation in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and offer both symptomatic improvement and reduction in adverse events. On the other hand, the use of beta-blockers in uncomplicated hypertension results in suboptimal outcomes compared to the established first-line antihypertensive agents. Providers at all levels should be familiar with common misconceptions regarding beta-blocker use in routine clinical practice.

Risk of Hospitalization for Cardiovascular Events with β-Blockers in Hypertensive Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

β-Blockers are a heterogenous class of drugs that are no longer recommended for initial antihypertension monotherapy due to unfavorable long-term cardiovascular events observed with non-vasodilatory β-blockers. However, the comparative cardiovascular event risk between the vasodilatory β1-selective antagonist/β3 agonist nebivolol and non-vasodilatory β1-blockers, atenolol and metoprolol, is unknown.

METHODS

Incident nebivolol, atenolol, or metoprolol monotherapy users with hypertension were identified using US claims data (2007-2014). The first β-blocker claim on/after 1/1/2008 defined the index drug/date. Hypertensive patients without pre-index cardiovascular history were followed until index drug discontinuation (> 90 day supply gap), use of other β-blockers, or end of continuous plan enrollment. Patients were pair-wise propensity score-matched using logistic regression, adjusted for baseline demographics, Charlson Comorbidity Index score, comorbid chronic pulmonary disease, rheumatic disease, renal disease, and diabetes, and use of other antihypertensive drugs during baseline. Time to first hospital claim for a cardiovascular event was assessed via Cox proportional hazards regression, adjusted for the variables above.

RESULTS

Inclusion criteria were met by 81,402 patients (n = 27,134 in each matched treatment cohort), with no between-cohort differences in baseline characteristics, comorbid conditions, or average follow-up duration. Atenolol and metoprolol cohorts had greater risk of hospitalization for a composite event (myocardial infarction, angina, congestive heart failure, stroke) than nebivolol users (adjusted hazard ratios [95% confidence interval] atenolol: 1.68 [1.29, 2.17]; metoprolol: 2.05 [1.59, 2.63]; P < 0.001, both). Risks of most individual cardiovascular events were also lower with nebivolol, including myocardial infarction and angina versus atenolol, and myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, and angina versus metoprolol (P < 0.05, all).

CONCLUSIONS

Nebivolol was associated with significantly lower risk of hospitalization due to composite cardiovascular events than atenolol or metoprolol in this large retrospective cohort study of monotherapy with three different β1-selective blockers in hypertensive patients.

FUNDING

Allergan plc, Madison, NJ, USA.

A retrospective study evaluating the tolerability and effectiveness of adjunctive antihypertensive drugs in patients with inadequate response to initial treatment

Real‐world tolerability and effectiveness of nebivolol as first add‐on therapy were compared with hydrochlorothiazide, metoprolol, and amlodipine. Medical records of hypertensive adults initiating nebivolol, hydrochlorothiazide, metoprolol, or amlodipine as first add‐on therapy between December 16, 2010 and July 21, 2011 were retrospectively abstracted (N = 1600; 400/treatment). Outcomes included medication‐related side‐effect rates and blood pressure (BP) reduction and control. Compared with nebivolol, metoprolol and amlodipine had significantly higher side‐effect rates (incidence rate ratio [95% CI]: 1.82 [1.14‐2.92] and 2.67 [1.69‐4.21]), respectively); the hydrochlorothiazide‐nebivolol rate ratio was not significant (1.61 [0.95‐2.71]). All treatments reduced BP at 2 months. Metoprolol, amlodipine, and hydrochlorothiazide were associated with significantly lower odds of achieving 2‐month BP control than nebivolol (odds ratios [95% CI]: 0.34 [0.23‐0.51], 0.51 [0.35‐0.75] and 0.66 [0.44‐0.99], respectively). In a real‐world setting, nebivolol as first add‐on therapy was associated with fewer side effects than metoprolol or amlodipine and with a higher BP control rate than hydrochlorothiazide, metoprolol, or amlodipine.

Sustained release biodegradable solid lipid microparticles: Formulation, evaluation and statistical optimization by response surface methodology

For preparing nebivolol loaded solid lipid microparticles (SLMs) by the solvent evaporation microencapsulation process from carnauba wax and glyceryl monostearate, central composite design was used to study the impact of independent variables on yield (Y1), entrapment efficiency (Y2) and drug release (Y3). SLMs having a 10-40 μm size range, with good rheological behavior and spherical smooth surfaces, were produced. Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, differential scanning calorimetry and X-ray diffractometry pointed to compatibility between formulation components and the zeta-potential study confirmed better stability due to the presence of negative charge (-20 to -40 mV). The obtained outcomes for Y1 (29-86 %), Y2 (45-83 %) and Y3 (49-86 %) were analyzed by polynomial equations and the suggested quadratic model were validated. Nebivolol release from SLMs at pH 1.2 and 6.8 was significantly (p < 0.05) affected by lipid concentration. The release mechanism followed Higuchi and zero order models, while n > 0.85 value (Korsmeyer- Peppas) suggested slow erosion along with diffusion. The optimized SLMs have the potential to improve nebivolol oral bioavailability.

Nebivolol, But Not Metoprolol, Treatment Improves Endothelial Fibrinolytic Capacity in Adults With Elevated Blood Pressure

BACKGROUND

Vascular endothelial fibrinolytic function is impaired in adults with prehypertension and hypertension and plays a mechanistic role in the development of atherothrombotic events. The influence of β-blockers on endothelial fibrinolysis is unknown. This study compared the effects of chronic nebivolol and metoprolol treatment on endothelial tissue-type plasminogen activator (t-PA) release in adults with elevated blood pressure (BP).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Forty-four middle-aged adults (36% women) with elevated BP completed a 3-month, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial comparing nebivolol (5 mg/d), metoprolol succinate (100 mg/d), and placebo. Net endothelial t-PA release was determined in vivo in response to intrabrachial infusions of bradykinin and sodium nitroprusside before and after each intervention. In a subset, the dose-response curves to bradykinin and sodium nitroprusside were repeated with a coinfusion of the antioxidant vitamin C. At baseline, resting BP and endothelial t-PA release were comparable between the 3 groups. BP decreased to a similar extent (≈10 mm Hg) in the nebivolol- and metoprolol-treated groups. There was a substantial increase (≈30%; P<0.05) in the capacity of the endothelium to release t-PA following chronic treatment with nebivolol but not metoprolol or placebo. Mitigating oxidant stress with vitamin C coinfusion potentiated t-PA release (90%; P<0.05) at baseline in all groups. However, after the intervention, t-PA release was unchanged by vitamin C coinfusion in the nebivolol group only.

CONCLUSIONS

Nebivolol but not metoprolol improves endothelial t-PA release in adults with elevated BP. This may be an important vascular benefit of nebivolol.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01595516.

Additivity of nebivolol/valsartan single-pill combinations versus other single-pill combinations for hypertension

The single‐pill combination (SPC) comprising nebivolol (5 mg), a vasodilatory β₁‐selective antagonist/β₃‐agonist, and valsartan (80 mg), a renin‐angiotensin‐aldosterone system inhibitor, is the only Food and Drug Administration–approved β‐blocker/renin‐angiotensin‐aldosterone system inhibitor SPC for hypertension. Additive effects of four nebivolol/valsartan SPC doses (5 mg/80 mg, 5/160 mg, 10/160 mg, 10/320 mg nebivolol/valsartan) were compared with five Food and Drug Administration–approved non–β‐blocker/renin‐angiotensin‐aldosterone system inhibitor SPCs (aliskiren/hydrochlorothiazide, aliskiren/amlodipine, valsartan/amlodipine, aliskiren/valsartan, and telmisartan/amlodipine). Additivity is the ratio of placebo‐adjusted SPC blood pressure (BP) reduction to the placebo‐adjusted monotherapy component BP reduction sums. A weighted average of comparator scores was calculated and compared vs nebivolol/valsartan. Additivity ratio scores for nebivolol/valsartan SPCs (diastolic BP range: 0.735–0.866; systolic BP range: 0.717–0.822) were similar to the comparator weighted average (diastolic BP: 0.837; systolic BP: 0.825). Among the nebivolol/valsartan SPCs, 5/80 mg had the greatest additivity (diastolic BP: 0.866; systolic BP: 0.822). BP reduction contributions with monotherapy were similar for nebivolol/valsartan 5/80 mg SPC. Additivity scores for nebivolol/valsartan and select non–β‐blocker/renin‐angiotensin‐aldosterone system inhibitor SPCs were comparable.

Protective effects of nebivolol from oxidative stress to prevent hypertension-related target organ damage

Hypertension is one of the leading risk factors for morbidity and mortality in patients with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases and renal impairment. It also leads to target organ damage (TOD), which worsens organ function and the patient's clinical status. Reactive oxygen species (ROS)-mediated oxidative stress may contribute significantly to TOD in patients with hypertension. NO (nitric oxide) is a paracrine factor derived from endothelial cells that has been shown to alleviate ROS-mediated oxidative damage. Nebivolol is a third-generation β-blocker with vasodilator activity, both actions contributing to decreased blood pressure in hypertensive patients. Its vasodilatory function is mediated by the endothelial l-arginine NO pathway. Nebivolol increases the bioavailability of NO in the vasculature. Its efficacy and safety profile is comparable to other commonly used antihypertensive agents. In this article, we review the current literature to understand TOD secondary to oxidative stress in patients with hypertension and the role of nebivolol in its prevention. A better understanding of the underlying mechanisms by which nebivolol reduces ROS-mediated TOD will not only help in the development of targeted therapies but may also improve health outcomes in hypertensive patients.

Real role of β-blockers in regression of left ventricular mass in hypertension patients: Bayesian network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) is commonly present in patients with hypertension (HT). According to the expert consensus document from American, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) were recommended as 1st-line therapeutic drugs. However, none noticed the different efficacy between fat-soluble and selective β1-receptor blockers (FS-β-B) and other β-blockers on regression of LVH before. The aim of this analysis was to compare the efficacy of FS-β-B with the other 4 different classes of antihypertensive drugs (ACEI, ARBs, calcium channel blockers [CCBs], and diuretics) on regression of LVH.

METHODS

Relative trials were identified in the PubMed, Web of Science, OVID EBM Reviews and Cochrane databases, and the relevant papers were examined. We performed both traditional and Bayesian meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about the regression of LVH. Sensitivity analysis and regression analysis were performed to explore possible sources of heterogeneity. Inconsistency analysis was performed to check whether the analysis of the trials in the network was indeed consistent.

RESULTS

A total of 41 RCTs involving 2566 patients with HT and LVH were included in this analysis. Bayesian network meta-analysis indicated no statistically significant differences between these groups: FS-β-B and ACEI (MD, -7.09; 95% CI, -14.99, 1.27); FS-β-B and ARB (MD, -2.66; 95% Cl, -12.02, 6.31). Although FS-β-B showed greater efficacy when compared with diuretic (MD, 13.04; 95% CI, 3.38, 22.59) or CCB (MD, 10.90; 95% CI, 1.98, 19.49). The probabilities of being among the most efficacious treatments were: FS-β-B (72%), ARB (27%), ACEI (0.01%), CCB (0.00%), and diuretic (0.00%).

CONCLUSION

Evidence from our analysis reveals that FS-β-B have potential to become 1st-line therapeutic drugs in HT and LVH patients. However, the real efficacy of FS-β-B on regression of LVH should be confirmed by further large, high quality trials considering the limitation of the study number.

Rhabdomyolysis in a patient taking nebivolol

β Blockers such as propranolol and labetalol are known to induce toxic myopathy because of their partial β₂ adrenoceptor agonistic effect. Nebivolol has the highest β₁ receptor affinity among β blockers, and it has never been reported to induce rhabdomyolysis until now. We report a patient who developed rhabdomyolysis after changing medication to nebivolol. A 75-year-old woman was admitted to our hospital because of generalized weakness originating 2 weeks before visiting. Approximately 1 month before her admission, her medication was changed from carvedilol 12.5 mg to nebivolol 5 mg. Over this time span, she had no other lifestyle changes causing rhabdomyolysis. Her blood chemistry and whole body bone scan indicated rhabdomyolysis. We considered newly prescribed nebivolol as a causal agent. She was prescribed carvedilol 12.5 mg, which she was previously taking, instead of nebivolol. She was treated by hydration and urine alkalization. She had fully recovered and was discharged.

A Single-Center, Open-Label, 3-Way Crossover Trial to Determine the Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Interaction Between Nebivolol and Valsartan in Healthy Volunteers at Steady State

Combining different classes of antihypertensives is more effective for reducing blood pressure (BP) than increasing the dose of monotherapies. The aims of this phase I study were to investigate pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions between nebivolol, a vasodilatory β1-selective blocker, and valsartan, an angiotensin II receptor blocker, and to assess safety and tolerability of the combination. This was a single-center, randomized, open-label, multiple-dose, 3-way crossover trial in 30 healthy adults aged 18-45 years. Participants were randomized into 1 of 6 treatment sequences (1:1:1:1:1:1) consisting of three 7-day treatment periods followed by a 7-day washout. Once-daily oral treatments comprised nebivolol (20 mg), valsartan (320 mg), and nebivolol-valsartan combination (20/320 mg). Outcomes included AUC0-τ,ss, Cmax,ss, Tmax,ss, changes in BP, pulse rate, plasma angiotensin II, plasma renin activity, 24-hour urinary aldosterone, and adverse events. Steady-state pharmacokinetic interactions were observed but deemed not clinically significant. Systolic and diastolic BP reduction was significantly greater with nebivolol-valsartan combination than with either monotherapy. The mean pulse rate associated with nebivolol and nebivolol-valsartan treatments was consistently lower than that associated with valsartan monotherapy. A sharp increase in mean day 7 plasma renin activity and plasma angiotensin II that occurred in valsartan-treated participants was significantly attenuated with concomitant nebivolol administration. Mean 24-hour urine aldosterone at day 7 was substantially decreased after combined treatment, as compared with either monotherapy. All treatments were safe and well tolerated. In conclusion, nebivolol and valsartan coadministration led to greater reductions in BP compared with either monotherapy; nebivolol and valsartan lower BP through complementary mechanisms.

Hypertension treatment in the Asia-Pacific: the role of and treatment strategies with nebivolol

Hypertension is a common disease, and hypertensive patients are at increased risk of cardiovascular events. The prevalence and socioeconomic burden of hypertension in the Asia-Pacific region are predicted to increase in the coming decades. Effective blood pressure lowering reduces overall cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients, yet doubt has been raised regarding the use of (mainly older generation) β-blockers as initial therapy in hypertension. Consequently, several international treatment guidelines do not recommend β-blockers for the treatment of hypertension. However, in contrast to first-generation and second-generation β-blockers, the third-generation, vasodilating β-blocker nebivolol has a considerably better metabolic, haemodynamic and side effect profile. In addition to providing effective blood pressure control similar to other β-blockers and drugs from other antihypertensive classes, nebivolol exerts a dual mechanism for increasing the bioavailability of the naturally occurring vasodilator nitric oxide. The clinical benefits and significance of enhancing nitric oxide levels in hypertensive patients have been shown in direct comparisons of nebivolol with other β-blockers. While β-blockers generally provide comparable blood pressure reductions, only nebivolol demonstrated enhanced vasodilation and blood flow by increasing the expression of endothelial nitric oxide synthase and therefore increasing nitric oxide release from the endothelium. In contrast to other β-blockers, therefore, it has been suggested that nebivolol has beneficial effects in several hypertensive subgroups due to its vasodilating properties. Considering the existing data, it may be timely for treatment guidelines to recommend third-generation vasodilating β-blockers as a first-line option for the pharmacotherapy of hypertension.

Pathophysiological Mechanisms and Correlates of Therapeutic Pharmacological Interventions in Essential Arterial Hypertension

Treating arterial hypertension (HT) remains a hard task. The hypertensive patient is often a subject with several comorbidities and metabolic abnormalities. Clinicians everyday have to choose the right drug for the single patient among the different classes of antihypertensives. Apart from lowering blood pressure, a main therapeutic target should be that of counteracting all the possible pathophysiological mechanisms involved in HT itself and in existing/potential comorbidities. All the ancillary positive and negative effects of the administered drugs should be considered: in particular, since hypertensive patients are often glucose intolerant/diabetic, carrier of serum lipids disorder, have already developed atherosclerotic diseases and endothelial dysfunction, they should not be treated with drugs negatively interfering with these conditions but with molecules that, if possible, improve them. The main pathophysiological mechanisms and correlates of therapeutic pharmacological interventions in essential HT are reviewed here.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of nebivolol and metoprolol in essential hypertension: a pharmacoeconomic comparison of antihypertensive efficacy of beta blockers

OBJECTIVE

To estimate and compare the cost-effectiveness and safety of nebivolol with sustained-release metoprolol in reducing blood pressure by 1 mm of Hg per day in hypertensive patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized, open label, observational analysis of cost-effectiveness, in a questionnaire-based fashion to compare the cost of nebivolol (2.5 mg, 5 mg, 10 mg) and sustained released metoprolol succinate (25 mg, 50 mg, 100 mg) in hypertensive patients using either of the two drugs. A total of 60 newly detected drug naïve hypertensive patients were considered for the comparison, of which 30 patients were prescribed nebivolol and the other 30 were prescribed metoprolol succinate as per the recommended dosage. Based on the data, statistical analysis was carried out using GraphPad Prism 5 and MS Excel Spreadsheet 2007.

RESULT

The cost of reducing 1 mm of Hg blood pressure per day with nebivolol was 0.60, 0.70, and 1.06 INR, whereas that of metoprolol succinate was 0.93, 1.18, and 1.25 INR at their respective equivalent doses, hence significantly lower with the nebivolol group as compared to the metoprolol group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

This pharmacoeconomic analysis shows that nebivolol is more cost-effective as compared to metoprolol when the cost per reduction in blood pressure per day is considered. This may affect the patients economically during their long-term use of these molecules for the treatment of hypertension.

Economic impact of switching from metoprolol to nebivolol for hypertension treatment: a retrospective database analysis

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the real-world economic impact of switching hypertensive patients from metoprolol, a commonly prescribed, generic, non-vasodilatory β1-blocker, to nebivolol, a branded-protected vasodilatory β1-blocker.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis with a pre-post study design was conducted using the MarketScan database (2007-2011). Hypertensive patients continuously treated with metoprolol for ≥6 months (pre-period) and then switched to nebivolol for ≥6 months (post-period) were identified. The index date for switching was defined as the first nebivolol dispensing date. Data were collected for the two 6-month periods pre- and post-switching. Monthly healthcare resource utilization and healthcare costs pre- and post-switching were calculated and compared using Wilcoxon test and paired t-test. Medical costs at different years were inflated to the 2011 dollar.

RESULTS

In total, 2259 patients (mean age: 60 years; male: 52%; cardiovascular [CV] disease: 37%) met the selection criteria. Switching to nebivolol was associated with statistically significant reductions in the number of all-cause hospitalization (-33%; p < 0.01), CV-related hospitalizations (-60%; p < 0.01), and outpatient visits (-7%; p < 0.01). Monthly inpatient costs were reduced by $111 (p < 0.01), while monthly drug costs increased by $52 (p < 0.01). No statistically significant differences were found in overall costs and costs of outpatient or ER visits. Sensitivity analyses, conducted using various lengths of medication exposure, controlling for spill-over effect or excluding patients with compelling indications for metoprolol, all found some level of reduction in resource utilization and no significant difference in overall healthcare costs.

CONCLUSIONS

This real-world study suggests that switching from metoprolol to nebivolol is associated with an increase in medication costs and significant reductions in hospitalizations and outpatient visits upon switching, resulting in an overall neutral effect on healthcare costs. These results may be interpreted with caution due to lack of a comparator group and confounding control caused by design and limitations inherent in insurance claims data.

Real-world adherence and persistence associated with nebivolol or hydrochlorothiazide as add-on treatment for hypertension

OBJECTIVE

To compare adherence and persistence associated with nebivolol and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) as add-on hypertension treatments.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Adults with ≥1 hypertension diagnosis (ICD-9-CM 401-405) who used nebivolol or HCTZ as their first add-on antihypertensive therapy between 1/1/2008 and 9/30/2010 were identified from a large claims database. Patients had continuous enrollment for ≥1 year preceding (baseline period) and following (study period) the first qualifying prescription fill, and did not use nebivolol or HCTZ during the baseline period. A random sample of HCTZ patients meeting selection criteria were selected in a 3:1 ratio to nebivolol patients.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The probability of receiving each drug, adjusted for baseline patient demographics, significantly different comorbidities, and costs was estimated using a logistic model. Inverse propensity score weights were used to balance confounding factors for between-cohort comparisons. Adherence (estimated using the medication possession ratio [MPR]) and persistence (estimated as days from initiation to the first >30 day gap in the index drug supply) at 6, 9, and 12 months were compared using weighted t tests.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics of nebivolol (n = 722) and HCTZ (n = 2166) patients were well balanced after weighting. At 12 months, nebivolol patients had a significantly higher MPR than HCTZ patients (0.76 vs. 0.70, P < 0.001), and medication persistence was 28 days longer (273 vs. 245 days, P < 0.001). Between-group differences were also significant at 6 and 9 months.

CONCLUSIONS

When used as an add-on therapy for hypertension, nebivolol was associated with significantly higher rates of adherence and persistence compared with HCTZ, after adjusting for baseline differences between treatment groups. These results may be impacted by limitations inherent in insurance claims data, such as the lack of clinical information.

Nebivolol: vasodilator properties and evidence for relevance in treatment of cardiovascular disease

β-adrenergic blocking agents, a pharmacologically diverse class of cardiovascular medications, are recommended as first-line treatment for patients with hypertension and concomitant structural heart disease, and for angina and heart failure. Many within-class differences exist, from pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics to ancillary effects, such as intrinsic sympathomimetic activity, antiarrhythmic activity, α-1 adrenergic receptor blockade affinity, and direct vasodilation. Nebivolol is a third-generation, β1 selective, long acting β-blocker, which causes direct vasodilation via endothelium-dependent nitric oxide stimulation. The vasodilatory actions of nebivolol might result in clinical effects with some distinct properties. Differences from other β-blockers might include improvement of endothelial function, enhancement of forward flow in muscular resistance arteries, maintenance of exercise tolerance, and overall improved tolerability, side effect profile, and adherence. Nebivolol has been shown to be a clinically effective β-blocker for treatment as initial or add-on therapy for systemic hypertension, as an antianginal agent, and as therapy for patients with heart failure. These properties position nebivolol as a treatment option for patients with hypertension and/or structural heart disease, although its precise role in the therapeutic armamentarium remains to be clarified.

Efficacy and tolerability of nebivolol: does age matter? A retrospective analysis of three randomized, placebo-controlled trials in stage I-II hypertension

OBJECTIVES

This retrospective analysis examined the efficacy and tolerability of nebivolol, a ß(1)-selective, vasodilatory β-blocker, in four different age groups of patients with hypertension.

METHODS

Data were pooled from three 12-week, randomized, placebo-controlled trials (placebo, n = 205; nebivolol [1.25-30/40 mg/day], n = 1811) and stratified into age quartiles (Group 1: 22-46 years; Group 2: 47-53 years; Group 3: 54-62 years; Group 4: 63-84 years). Only patients treated with placebo and the three commonly used nebivolol dosages (5, 10, and 20 mg/day) are presented. Baseline-to-endpoint changes in trough sitting diastolic blood pressure (DBP), systolic blood pressure (SBP), and heart rate (HR) were analyzed for each age quartile using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. Tolerability was assessed by means of adverse event (AE) rates.

RESULTS

The analysis comprised 205 placebo-treated patients and 1380 patients treated with nebivolol dosages of 5, 10, or 20 mg/day. Older age was associated with higher SBP values at baseline. In all age groups, each of the three most frequently used nebivolol dosages significantly reduced DBP, compared with placebo (-9.1 to -11.8 mmHg versus -3.4 to -5.9 mmHg; p ≤ 0.008 overall). For SBP, a statistically significant effect versus placebo was observed for all dosages and age groups except for 5 and 10 mg/day in Group 4. Within each group, treatment with nebivolol (all three dosages) and placebo resulted in similar AE rates (nebivolol: 26.1-36.6%; placebo: 36.2-42.6%) and AE-related discontinuation rates (1.8-3.8% versus 0-4.3%). In each age group, there were no significant nebivolol-placebo differences in the rates of patients who experienced clinically significant changes or abnormal endpoint levels of metabolic parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

This retrospective analysis suggests that nebivolol monotherapy is efficacious and well tolerated across various age groups, with the efficacy in reducing SBP somewhat diminishing in patients over 62 years of age.

Persistence with nebivolol in the treatment of hypertension: a retrospective claims analysis

OBJECTIVE

Examine drug persistence by evaluating the hazard of discontinuation and of switching to different antihypertensive drugs in patients initiating treatment with a recently approved β-blocker, nebivolol, versus other β-blockers.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis included all patients diagnosed with hypertension in the MarketScan Database (January 2007 - December 2008) with at least two medical claims and no prior β-blocker prescriptions within 6 months of the initial prescription date. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard models (adjusted for baseline differences in demographics, previous use of other antihypertensive medications, initial doses and supply of medication, and number of distinct prescriptions at baseline) were used to assess the hazard of discontinuation, defined as the first prescription gap of ≥30 days, and to assess the hazard of switching to another antihypertensive drug, defined as a prescription fill for another antihypertensive drug within 15 days before and 30 days after discontinuation of the initial β-blocker.

RESULTS

Of the 173,200 patients included in the study population, the adjusted hazard of discontinuation for nebivolol-initiated patients was 8-20% lower than that of patients who initiated treatment with atenolol (hazard ratio [HR] 0.82, p < 0.001), metoprolol (HR 0.91, p < 0.001), carvedilol (HR 0.92, p < 0.001), or other β-blockers (HR 0.80, p < 0.001). The adjusted hazard of nebivolol-treated patients switching to a different antihypertensive medication was 12-22% lower than that of the other four β-blocker cohorts (atenolol: HR 0.80, p < 0.001; metoprolol: HR 0.86, p < 0.001; carvedilol: HR 0.88, p < 0.001; other β-blockers: HR 0.78, p < 0.001). Sensitivity analyses defined discontinuation as prescription gaps of ≥45 days and ≥60 days and showed a lower hazard of discontinuation among patients initiating nebivolol than among patients initiating all other drug cohorts (p < 0.001).

LIMITATIONS

Comparisons of non-randomized treatment groups may be confounded by unobserved differences in patients' baseline characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

Initiation with nebivolol was associated with greater persistence than initiation with atenolol, carvedilol, metoprolol, or other β-blockers.

Nebivolol: impact on cardiac and endothelial function and clinical utility

Endothelial dysfunction is a systemic pathological state of the endothelium characterized by a reduction in the bioavailability of vasodilators, essentially nitric oxide, leading to impaired endothelium-dependent vasodilation, as well as disarrangement in vascular wall metabolism and function. One of the key factors in endothelial dysfunction is overproduction of reactive oxygen species which participate in the development of hypertension, atherosclerosis, diabetes, cardiac hypertrophy, heart failure, ischemia-reperfusion injury, and stroke. Because impaired endothelial activity is believed to have a major causal role in the pathophysiology of vascular disease, hypertension, and heart failure, therapeutic agents which modify this condition are of clinical interest. Nebivolol is a third-generation β-blocker with high selectivity for β1-adrenergic receptors and causes vasodilation by interaction with the endothelial L-arginine/ nitric oxide pathway. This dual mechanism of action underscores several hemodynamic qualities of nebivolol, which include reductions in heart rate and blood pressure and improvements in systolic and diastolic function. Although nebivolol reduces blood pressure to a degree similar to that of conventional β-blockers and other types of antihypertensive drugs, it may have advantages in populations with difficult-to-treat hypertension, such as patients with heart failure along with other comorbidities, like diabetes and obesity, and elderly patients in whom nitric oxide-mediated endothelial dysfunction may be more pronounced. Furthermore, recent data indicate that nebivolol appears to be a cost-effective treatment for elderly patients with heart failure compared with standard care. Thus, nebivolol is an effective and well tolerated agent with benefits above those of traditional β-blockers due to its influence on nitric oxide release, which give it singular hemodynamic effects, cardioprotective activity, and a good tolerability profile. This paper reviews the pharmacology structure and properties of nebivolol, focusing on endothelial dysfunction, clinical utility, comparative efficacy, side effects, and quality of life in general with respect to the other antihypertensive agents.

Heart rate reduction as a therapeutic goal: focus on primary prevention

Recently published studies have demonstrated a direct link between heart rate (HR) and prognosis across various populations and clinical groups, including elderly people, patients with arterial hypertension, myocardial infarction, and coronary artery stenting, overweight patients, or even young people with relatively low cardiovascular risk levels. HR is considered as an additional independent risk factor (RF) of cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, thus far, pharmaceutical HR reduction has been demonstrated to improve prognosis only in patients with coronary heart disease or chronic heart failure. The results in CVD-free patients have been contradictory. The review discusses the potential of different HR-reducing therapeutic regimens, as a part of primary CVD prevention.

Beta-blockers in hypertension

Beta blockers have been used in the treatment of cardiovascular conditions for decades. Despite a long history and status as a guideline-recommended treatment option for hypertension, recent meta-analyses have brought into question whether β blockers are still an appropriate therapy given outcomes data from other antihypertensive drug classes. However, β blockers are a heterogenous class of agents with diverse pharmacologic and physiologic properties. Much of the unfavorable data revealed in the recent meta-analyses were gleaned from studies involving nonvasodilating, traditional β blockers, such as atenolol. However, findings with traditional β blockers may not be extrapolated to other members of the class, particularly those agents with vasodilatory activity. Vasodilatory β blockers (i.e., carvedilol and nebivolol) reduce blood pressure in large part through reducing systemic vascular resistance rather than by decreasing cardiac output, as is observed with traditional β blockers. Vasodilating ability may also ameliorate some of the concerns associated with traditional β blockade, such as the adverse effects on metabolic and lipid parameters, including an increased risk for new-onset diabetes. Furthermore, vasodilating ability is physiologically relevant and important in treating a condition with common co-morbidities involving metabolic and lipid abnormalities such as hypertension. In patients with hypertension and diabetes or coronary artery disease, vasodilating β blockers provide effective blood pressure control with neutral or beneficial effects on important parameters for the co-morbid disease. In conclusion, it is time for a reexamination of the clinical evidence for the use of β blockers in hypertension, recognizing that there are patients for whom β blockers, particularly those with vasodilatory actions, are an appropriate treatment option.

Optimal use of beta-blockers in high-risk hypertension: a guide to dosing equivalence

Hypertension is the number one diagnosis made by primary care physicians, placing them in a unique position to prescribe the antihypertensive agent best suited to the individual patient. In individuals with diabetes mellitus, blood pressure (BP) levels >130/80 mmHg confer an even higher risk for cardiovascular and renal disease, and these patients will benefit from aggressive antihypertensive treatment using a combination of agents. β-blockers are playing an increasingly important role in the management of hypertension in high-risk patients. β-blockers are a heterogeneous class of agents, and this review presents the differences between β-blockers and provides evidence-based protocols to assist in understanding dose equivalence in the selection of an optimal regimen in patients with complex needs. The clinical benefits provided by β-blockers are only effective if patients adhere to medication treatment long term. β-blockers with proven efficacy, once-daily dosing, and lower side effect profiles may become instrumental in the treatment of hypertensive diabetic and nondiabetic patients.

The selective beta1-adrenoceptor antagonist nebivolol is a potential oestrogen receptor agonist with neuroprotective abilities

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Nebivolol, a selective beta(1)-adrenoceptor antagonist mediating rapid vasodilating effects, is used clinically to treat hypertension. Recently, it was reported that nebivolol also acts as an oestrogen receptor (ER) agonist. To investigate the neuroprotective potential of oestrogens, we assessed the oestrogenic effects of nebivolol in several in vitro neuronal models.

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

Human neuroepithelioma SK-N-MC cells stably transfected with human ER alpha and beta, and mouse N2A neuroblastoma cells expressing human APP695(SWE)[N2Aswe, stably transfected with the Swedish mutation form of the Alzheimer-associated amyloid precursor protein (APPswe, K670M/N671L)] were incubated with different concentrations of nebivolol and 17beta-oestradiol (E2) for 24-48 h. ER activation was detected in a specific reporter assay, and ER-dependent gene expression was measured by quantitative real-time PCR (qRT PCR). Furthermore, cell survival rates were determined, and oxidative stress was induced by hydrogen peroxide and paraquat. Amyloid beta protein precursor (APP) processing was investigated, and the cleavage fragments sAPPalpha and Abeta were quantified via alpha-, beta- and gamma-secretase activity assays. Alterations of secretase expression levels were determined by qRT PCR.

KEY RESULTS

Nebivolol induces oestrogen-dependent gene transcription, and protects neuronal cells against oxidative stress even at low and physiological concentrations (10(-8) M). Moreover, nebivolol modulates processing of APP in mouse neuronal N2Aswe cells by increasing alpha-secretase activity, ultimately leading to enhanced release of soluble non-amyloidogenic sAPPalpha.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

We showed that nebivolol acts as ER agonist in neuronal cell lines, and suggest oestrogen-like neuroprotective effects mediated by nebivolol.

Neither K + Channels Nor PI3K/Akt Mediates the Vasodilative Effect of Nebivolol on Different Types of Rat Arteries

Purpose: Nebivolol is a highly selective β1-adrenoceptor blocker with additional vasodilating properties. It has been shown that the nebivolol-induced vasorelaxation is nitric oxide (NO) dependent. The serine/ threonine protein kinase Akt phosphorylates endothelial cell NO synthase (eNOS) and enhances the ability of eNOS to generate NO. Previous studies have shown that the release of NO from the endothelium may be ascribed to the modulation of different types of K + channels. The current study was designed to determine whether K + channels or phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase (PI3K)/Akt may affect vasorelaxation induced by nebivolol in different rat arteries.

Methods: Rings of the rat aorta, carotid artery, femoral artery, and renal artery were suspended for isometric force recording. During contraction by KCl (60 mmol/L) or phenylephrine (PE; 10—6 mol/L; femoral artery and renal artery were precontracted by 10—5 mol/L), the effect of nebivolol (10—7-10— 5 mol/L) was obtained in the presence of different potassium channel, PI3K/Akt, or NOS inhibitors. Results: Nebivolol (10— 7-10—5 mol/L) relaxed precontractions induced by KCl and PE in different rat arteries, which was inhibited by the presence of the NOS inhibitor NG-nitro-L-arginine methyl ester (L-NAME; 100 μmol/ L). The effect of nebivolol was concentration dependent. The exposure of the vessel rings to a selective inhibitor of PI3K wortmannin (5 × 10—7 mol/L) or a selective inhibitor of Akt (1L-6-hydroxymethyl-chiro-inositol 2-(R)-2-Omethyl-3-O-octadecylcarbonate, 10—5 mol/L) did not influence nebivolol-induced vasorelaxation. Similarly, K+ channels blockers, iberiotoxin (100 nmol/L), glibenclamide (0.1 mmol/L), 4-aminopyridine (1 mmol/L), or BaCl 2 (1 mmol/L) had no influence on the relaxation of nebivolol in arteries precontracted by PE. Conclusion: Nebivolol produced a concentration-dependent vasodilation in different rat arteries precontracted by PE or KCl. In the isolated rat aorta, carotid artery, femoral artery, and renal artery, neither K+ channels nor PI3K/Akt pathway was involved in the relaxation induced by nebivolol.

Nitric oxide mechanisms of nebivolol

β-blockers are among the most widely used drugs in the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease, although they are associated with increased peripheral resistance. Third-generation β-blockers avoid this adverse effect by inducing vasodilation through different mechanisms. In particular, nebivolol, a highly selective blocker of β1-adrenergic receptors, is the only β-blocker known to induce vascular production of nitric oxide, the main endothelial vasodilator. The specific mechanism of nebivolol is particularly relevant in hypertension, where nitric oxide dysfunction occurs. Indeed, nebivolol is able to reverse endothelial dysfunction. Nebivolol induces nitric oxide production via activation of β3-adrenergic receptors, which can explain the good metabolic profile observed after treatment with this drug. Moreover, nebivolol can also stimulate the β3-adrenergic receptor-mediated production of nitric oxide in the heart, and this stimulation can result in a greater protection against heart failure. In conclusion, nebivolol has a unique profile among antihypertensive drugs, adding to a very high selectivity against β1 adrenergic receptors, and an agonist action on β3 receptors and nitric oxide (NO), which has led to clinically significant improvements in hypertensive patients.

Are tolerability concerns a class effect of beta-blockers in treating patients with hypertension?

Beta-blockers (beta-blockers) have demonstrated their value across the cardiovascular disease spectrum. Beta-blockers effectively lower blood pressure in patients with hypertension and provide symptomatic or mortality benefits in patients with heart failure and in post-myocardial infarction patients. However, despite their utility, beta-blockers remain underused. There have been recent concerns that beta-blockers as a class are not as effective as once thought in uncomplicated hypertension due to a relatively weak effect on reduction of stroke and the absence of an effect on coronary heart disease when compared with placebo or no treatment. Underuse can, in part, be related to tolerability concerns. Beta-blockers have been traditionally associated with side effects including depression, fatigue, sexual dysfunction, and cold extremities, which limit their acceptance by patients and physicians and may lead to discontinuation of therapy. Because of inherent heterogeneity of the beta-blocker class in terms of adrenergic receptor selectivity, intrinsic sympathomimetic activity, and vasodilatory activity, these agents vary in tolerability profile. Recently, more attention has been focused on the third-generation vasodilatory beta-blockers (ie, carvedilol, labetalol, and nebivolol), with the recognition that these agents may diverge in meaningful ways from the traditional beta-blockers. By examining the differences among members of the beta-blocker class, it may be possible to determine whether and which tolerability issues are indeed a class effect of beta-blockers or whether these agents should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Nebivolol: a highly selective beta1-adrenergic receptor blocker that causes vasodilation by increasing nitric oxide

Nebivolol (Bystolic) is a cardioselective beta 1 (beta(1))-adrenergic receptor blocker with endothelium-dependent vasodilating properties. The endothelium-dependent relaxation induced by nebivolol is blocked by inhibitors of nitric oxide synthase (NOS) and guanylate cyclase. Nebivolol also increases in vitro and in vivo nitric oxide (NO), which is an essential signaling molecule involved in the maintenance of cardiovascular homeostasis. This review summarizes the data involving nebivolol and NO bioavailability. Endothelium-dependent relaxation of blood vessels, which is impaired in hypertensive animals and humans, is reversed by nebivolol treatment. Animals exhibiting endothelial dysfunction also show an improvement in NO-cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP) signaling and an increase in NO bioavailability when treated with nebivolol. When blood vessel and cultured endothelial cells from hypertensive animals are treated with nebivolol, there is a decrease in superoxide production and an increase in the expression and activity of endothelial NOS (eNOS). As a result of the increased bioavailability of NO, nebivolol also increases in vivo arterial distensibility, glomerular filtration rate, and renal plasma flow. In normotensive volunteers, nebivolol infusion increases the forearm blood flow, an effect that is blocked by inhibitors of NOS and restored by the NOS substrate, L-arginine. In hypertensive patients, chronic treatment with nebivolol improves endothelium-dependent vasodilation induced by acetylcholine and shear stress and reverses endothelium-dependent vasoconstriction. Furthermore, nebivolol displays distinct hemodynamic properties in patients that include improvements in stroke volume and a decrease in peripheral vascular resistance. These studies demonstrate that nebivolol produces endothelium-dependent vasodilation by increasing NO release, decreasing oxidative stress to increase NO bioavailability, or both. The NO-dependent vasodilatory action of nebivolol, coupled with its high beta(1)-adrenergic receptor selectivity, is unique among the clinically available beta-blockers and contributes to its efficacy and improved tolerability (e.g., less fatigue and sexual dysfunction) as an antihypertensive agent.