Evaluation of Clinical Outcomes of Selective Versus Nonselective Beta-Blockers Among Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction Receiving Sacubitril/Valsartan.

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Leonie Adjeroh, Khalid M Kamal, L Raymond Guo, Sudarshan Balla, Sijin Wen, Kazuhiko Kido
{"title":"Evaluation of Clinical Outcomes of Selective Versus Nonselective Beta-Blockers Among Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction Receiving Sacubitril/Valsartan.","authors":"Leonie Adjeroh, Khalid M Kamal, L Raymond Guo, Sudarshan Balla, Sijin Wen, Kazuhiko Kido","doi":"10.1177/10600280261493520","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Beta-blockers, selective (metoprolol succinate or bisoprolol) and nonselective (carvedilol), and angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs) are the first-line guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Concomitant use of carvedilol and ARNI (sacubitril/valsartan) may result in additive vasodilatory effects, which may increase the risk of hypotension and limit dose titration of sacubitril/valsartan.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study examines differences in clinical endpoints between selective and nonselective beta-blocker therapy among patients with HFrEF receiving sacubitril/valsartan.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study utilized TriNetX Research Collaborative real-world data. Patients receiving sacubitril/valsartan concomitantly with carvedilol were identified as the intervention cohort, while those receiving metoprolol succinate or bisoprolol served as controls. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization during the 3-year follow-up. Propensity score matching (PSM) balanced confounders. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to estimate event-free survival, and hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated using Cox proportional hazards models for time-to-event outcomes. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the robustness of the findings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 75 230 patients received carvedilol and 21 587 received metoprolol/bisoprolol. After PSM, 20 939 patients were included in each group. Carvedilol was associated with a higher risk of the primary composite endpoint compared with those taking metoprolol or bisoprolol (52.32% vs 46.29%; HR: 1.21; 95% CI, 1.17-1.24; <i>P</i> < .0001). Carvedilol was also linked to increased hospitalization risk (HR: 1.32; 95% CI, 1.28-1.36; <i>P</i> < .0001) but a modest reduction in mortality (HR: 0.92; 95% CI, 0.87-0.97; <i>P</i> = .0011). In addition, carvedilol was associated with higher risks of hypotension, end-stage renal disease, and bradycardia. Sensitivity analysis results were consistent for the primary endpoint.</p><p><strong>Conclusion and relevance: </strong>Our results suggest that carvedilol may be associated with a higher risk of the composite endpoint, health care utilization, and adverse events but lower all-cause mortality compared with metoprolol or bisoprolol in patients with HFrEF taking sacubitril/valsartan.</p>","PeriodicalId":7933,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Pharmacotherapy","volume":" ","pages":"10600280261493520"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Pharmacotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10600280261493520","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Beta-blockers, selective (metoprolol succinate or bisoprolol) and nonselective (carvedilol), and angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs) are the first-line guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Concomitant use of carvedilol and ARNI (sacubitril/valsartan) may result in additive vasodilatory effects, which may increase the risk of hypotension and limit dose titration of sacubitril/valsartan.

Objective: This study examines differences in clinical endpoints between selective and nonselective beta-blocker therapy among patients with HFrEF receiving sacubitril/valsartan.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study utilized TriNetX Research Collaborative real-world data. Patients receiving sacubitril/valsartan concomitantly with carvedilol were identified as the intervention cohort, while those receiving metoprolol succinate or bisoprolol served as controls. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization during the 3-year follow-up. Propensity score matching (PSM) balanced confounders. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to estimate event-free survival, and hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated using Cox proportional hazards models for time-to-event outcomes. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the robustness of the findings.

Results: Overall, 75 230 patients received carvedilol and 21 587 received metoprolol/bisoprolol. After PSM, 20 939 patients were included in each group. Carvedilol was associated with a higher risk of the primary composite endpoint compared with those taking metoprolol or bisoprolol (52.32% vs 46.29%; HR: 1.21; 95% CI, 1.17-1.24; P < .0001). Carvedilol was also linked to increased hospitalization risk (HR: 1.32; 95% CI, 1.28-1.36; P < .0001) but a modest reduction in mortality (HR: 0.92; 95% CI, 0.87-0.97; P = .0011). In addition, carvedilol was associated with higher risks of hypotension, end-stage renal disease, and bradycardia. Sensitivity analysis results were consistent for the primary endpoint.

Conclusion and relevance: Our results suggest that carvedilol may be associated with a higher risk of the composite endpoint, health care utilization, and adverse events but lower all-cause mortality compared with metoprolol or bisoprolol in patients with HFrEF taking sacubitril/valsartan.

选择性与非选择性β -受体阻滞剂在接受苏比里尔/缬沙坦治疗的心力衰竭伴射血分数降低患者中的临床效果评价
背景:β受体阻滞剂、选择性(琥珀酸美托洛尔或比索洛尔)和非选择性(卡维地洛)以及血管紧张素受体-奈普利素抑制剂(ARNIs)是治疗心力衰竭伴射血分数降低(HFrEF)的一线药物。同时使用卡维地洛和ARNI (sacubitril/缬沙坦)可能导致累加性血管扩张作用,这可能增加低血压的风险和限制sacubitril/缬沙坦的剂量滴定。目的:本研究探讨在接受苏比里尔/缬沙坦治疗的HFrEF患者中,选择性和非选择性β受体阻滞剂治疗在临床终点上的差异。方法:本回顾性队列研究利用TriNetX研究协作的真实世界数据。同时服用沙比里尔/缬沙坦和卡维地洛的患者被确定为干预组,而服用琥珀酸美托洛尔或比索洛尔的患者作为对照组。主要终点是3年随访期间的全因死亡率或全因住院率。倾向评分匹配(PSM)平衡混杂因素。Kaplan-Meier分析用于估计无事件生存期,使用Cox比例风险模型计算事件发生时间结局的风险比(hr)。进行敏感性分析以评价研究结果的稳健性。结果:总体而言,75 230例患者使用卡维地洛,21 587例患者使用美托洛尔/比索洛尔。经PSM治疗后,每组20 939例。与服用美托洛尔或比索洛尔的患者相比,卡维地洛与主要复合终点的风险更高(52.32% vs 46.29%; HR: 1.21; 95% CI, 1.17-1.24; P < 0.0001)。卡维地洛也与住院风险增加相关(相对危险度:1.32;95% CI, 1.28-1.36; P < 0.0001),但死亡率略有降低(相对危险度:0.92;95% CI, 0.87-0.97; P = 0.0011)。此外,卡维地洛与低血压、终末期肾病和心动过缓的高风险相关。主要终点的敏感性分析结果一致。结论和相关性:我们的研究结果表明,与美托洛尔或比索洛尔相比,卡维地洛可能与服用沙比里尔/缬沙坦的HFrEF患者的复合终点、医疗保健利用和不良事件的高风险相关,但全因死亡率较低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
166
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Annals of Pharmacotherapy (AOP) is a peer-reviewed journal that advances pharmacotherapy throughout the world by publishing high-quality research and review articles to achieve the most desired health outcomes.The articles provide cutting-edge information about the most efficient, safe and cost-effective pharmacotherapy for the treatment and prevention of various illnesses. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Average time from submission to first decision: 14 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书