Safety and tolerability of β-blockers: importance of cardioselectivity

Cardioselective β-blockade is generally well tolerated in practice and contraindications to this therapy are uncommon. β-blockers are a diverse therapeutic class, and their individual tolerability profiles are influenced strongly by their pharmacodynamic effects across different adrenergic receptors. Bisoprolol, probably the β-blocker with the highest selectivity for blockade of β1- vs. β2-adrenoceptors, does not block β2-adrenoceptors to an appreciable extent at doses in therapeutic use. Side-effects often attributed to β-blockers, such as erectile dysfunction and adverse metabolic effects are uncommon with bisoprolol and other β-blockers used at doses which only block β1-adrenoceptors. Cautious use of a cardioselective β-blocker is not contraindicated in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma and the outcomes benefits of β-blockers in patients with coronary heart disease or heart failure are also apparent in patients with concurrent COPD. Starting with a low dose and titrating upwards carefully is important for optimising the tolerability of a β-blocker. Most people with hypertension will receive combination antihypertensive therapy in practice, and the low-dose combination therapy approach provides a useful strategy for optimising the efficacy and tolerability of a regimen that includes a β-blocker, compared with up-titrating an existing monotherapy.

Multifaceted Strategy Based on Automated Text Messaging After a Recent Heart Failure Admission: The MESSAGE-HF Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Readmissions after an index heart failure (HF) hospitalization are a major contemporary health care problem.

Objective

To evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of an intensive telemonitoring strategy in the vulnerable period after an HF hospitalization.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This randomized clinical trial was conducted in 30 HF clinics in Brazil. Patients with left ventricular ejection fraction less than 40% and access to mobile phones were enrolled up to 30 days after an HF admission. Data were collected from July 2019 to July 2022.

Intervention

Participants were randomly assigned to a telemonitoring strategy or standard care. The telemonitoring group received 4 daily short message service text messages to optimize self-care, active engagement, and early intervention. Red flags based on feedback messages triggered automatic diuretic adjustment and/or a telephone call from the health care team.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was change in N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) from baseline to 180 days. A hierarchical win-ratio analysis incorporating blindly adjudicated clinical events (cardiovascular deaths and HF hospitalization) and variation in NT-proBNP was also performed.

Results

Of 699 included patients, 460 (65.8%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 61.2 (14.5) years. A total of 352 patients were randomly assigned to the telemonitoring strategy and 347 to standard care. Satisfaction with the telemonitoring strategy was excellent (net promoting score at 180 days, 78.5). HF self-care increased significantly in the telemonitoring group compared with the standard care group (score difference at 30 days, -2.21; 95% CI, -3.67 to -0.74; P = .001; score difference at 180 days, -2.08; 95% CI, -3.59 to -0.57; P = .004). Variation of NT-proBNP was similar in the telemonitoring group compared with the standard care group (telemonitoring: baseline, 2593 pg/mL; 95% CI, 2314-2923; 180 days, 1313 pg/mL; 95% CI, 1117-1543; standard care: baseline, 2396 pg/mL; 95% CI, 2122-2721; 180 days, 1319 pg/mL; 95% CI, 1114-1564; ratio of change, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.77-1.11; P = .39). Hierarchical analysis of the composite outcome demonstrated a similar number of wins in both groups (telemonitoring, 49 883 of 122 144 comparisons [40.8%]; standard care, 48 034 of 122 144 comparisons [39.3%]; win ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.86-1.26).

Conclusions and Relevance

An intensive telemonitoring strategy applied in the vulnerable period after an HF admission was feasible, well-accepted, and increased scores of HF self-care but did not translate to reductions in NT-proBNP levels nor improvement in a composite hierarchical clinical outcome.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04062461.

Cardiovascular Complications in Patients with Heart Failure and COVID-19: CARDIO COVID 19-20 Registry

Since early 2020, different studies have shown an increased prevalence of COVID-19 and poorer prognosis in older adults with cardiovascular comorbidities. This study aimed to assess the impact of heart failure (HF) on cardiovascular complications, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, and in-hospital mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The CARDIO COVID 19-20 registry includes 3260 hospitalized patients with a COVID-19 serological diagnosis between May 2020 and June 2021 from Latin American countries. A history of HF was identified in 182 patients (5.6%). In patients with and without previous HF, the incidence of supraventricular arrhythmia was 16.5% vs. 6.3%, respectively (p = 0.001), and that of acute coronary syndrome was 7.1% vs. 2.7%, respectively (p = 0.001). Patients with a history of HF had higher rates of ICU admission (61.5% vs. 53.1%, respectively; p = 0.031) and in-hospital mortality (41.8% vs. 24.5%, respectively; p = 0.001) than patients without HF. Cardiovascular mortality at discharge (42.1% vs. 18.5%, respectively; p < 0.001) and at 30 days post-discharge (66.7% vs. 18.0%, respectively) was higher for patients with a history of HF than for patients without HF. In patients hospitalized with COVID-19, previous history of HF was associated with a more severe cardiovascular profile, with increased risk of cardiovascular complications, and poor in-hospital and 30-day outcomes.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on heart failure management: Global experience of the OPTIMIZE heart failure care network

During the COVID-19 pandemic, reductions in heart failure (HF) hospitalizations have been widely reported, and there is an urgent need to understand how HF care has been reorganized in countries with different infection levels, vaccination rates and healthcare services. The OPTIMIZE Heart Failure Care program has a global network of investigators in 42 countries, with first-hand experience of the impact of the pandemic on HF management in different care settings. The national coordinators were surveyed to assess: 1) the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic for continuity of HF care, from both a hospital and patient perspective; 2) the organizational changes enacted to ensure continued HF care; and 3) lessons learned for the future of HF care. Contributions were obtained from 37 national coordinators in 29 countries. We summarize their input, highlighting the issues raised and using the example of three very different settings (Italy, Brazil, and Taiwan) to illustrate the similarities and differences across the OPTIMIZE program.

Glucose-lowering Drugs and Hospitalization for Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Additive-effects Network Meta-analysis With More Than 500 000 Patient-years

BACKGROUND

Sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) prevent hospitalization resulting from heart failure (HHF). However, patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus use multiple antihyperglycemic drugs to achieve glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) targets. In these drug combinations, the risk of HHF is unpredictable and so is the parallel effect of glucose-lowering.

PURPOSE

To examine the impact of antihyperglycemic drugs and their association on HHF.

DATA SOURCES

Forty randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting HHF.

STUDY SELECTION

Published RCTs were the data source.

DATA EXTRACTION

Incidence rates of HHF.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Random additive-effects network meta-analysis showed that metformin (P = 0.55), sulfonylureas (P = 0.51), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor-agonist (P = 0.16), and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP4is; P = 0.54) were neutral on the risk of HHF. SGLT2is and SGLT2is + DPP4is reduced the risk of HHF with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.68 (95% CI, 0.60-0.76; P < 0.0001) and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.60-0.81; P < 0.0001), respectively. Increased risk of HHF was associated with thiazolidinediones (TZDs) as monotherapy or in combination with DPP4is (HR: 1.45; 95% CI, 1.18-1.78; P = 0.0004) and 1.49 (95% CI, 1.18-1.88; P = 0.0008), respectively. Regardless of the therapy, a 1% reduction in HbA1c reduced the risk of HHF by 31.3% (95% CI, 9-48; P = 0.009).

LIMITATIONS

There are no data to verify drug combinations available for clinical use and to discriminate the effect of drugs within each of the therapeutic classes.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of HHF is reduced by SGLT2is as monotherapy or in combination with DPP4is and increased by TZDs as monotherapy or in combination. Glucose-lowering provides an additive effect of reducing HHF.