ReviewHeart failure reviews2004
Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of beta blockers in heart failure.
Review in Heart failure reviews, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Revisiting perioperative beta blockade: for what it's worth.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2025Article
- A cross-sectional study on metoprolol concentrations in various biological samples and their inter-correlations.BMC pharmacology & toxicology · 2024Article
- Editorial: Repurposing β-blockers for non-cardiovascular diseases.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
- Effectiveness and safety of four different beta-blockers in patients with chronic heart failure.MedComm · 2023Article
- Sex-Based Difference in the Effect of Metoprolol on Heart Rate and Bradycardia in a Population-Based Setting.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Carboxylic Acid Counterions in FDA-Approved Pharmaceutical Salts.Pharmaceutical research · 2021Review
- Pharmacokinetic variability of beta-adrenergic blocking agents used in cardiology.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2019Review
- New advances in beta-blocker therapy in heart failure.Frontiers in physiology · 2013Review
- Molecular determinants of local anesthetic action of beta-blocking drugs: Implications for therapeutic management of long QT syndrome variant 3.Journal of molecular and cellular cardiology · 2010Article
- Preparation and evaluation of self-nanoemulsifying tablets of carvedilol.AAPS PharmSciTech · 2009Article
- Pediatric heart failure therapy with beta-adrenoceptor antagonists.Paediatric drugs · 2008Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although beta-blockers have been used for nearly three decades in the management of heart failure, only recent randomized clinical trials have demonstrated substantial benefit in reducing morbidity and mortality. Carvedilol, metoprolol succinate and bisprolol have evidence supporting their use in heart failure while other beta blockers either lack evidence supporting their use or have not been shown to be useful in heart failure. The only currently approved beta-blockers in the U.S. for heart failure are metoprolol succinate and carvedilol.Beta-blockers differ in their pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties. It should not be assumed that potential benefit in heart failure is a class effect since differences in the half-life, volume of distribution, protein binding, and route of elimination may give rise to differences in duration of beta blockade and potential drug interactions. Furthermore, pharmacodynamic differences exist because of selectivity for beta(1), beta(2) or alpha(1) adrenoreceptor blockade among the beta-blockers. Receptor kinetics also differ among the beta-blockers and this may influence the extent and duration of beta and alpha blockade across the category. Carvedilol is an inherently long-acting beta-blocker while the duration of beta blockade for metoprolol is dependent on the salt and formulation, which is used. Metoprolol tartrate is a short-acting form of metoprolol while metoprolol succinate is a longer acting salt and the commercially available product is designed as a once daily formulation. A recently published trial, the Carvedilol or Metoprolol European Trial (COMET) tested carvedilol given twice daily versus metoprolol tartrate given twice daily in patients with chronic heart failure. Although carvedilol reduced all cause mortality when compared with metoprolol tartrate, extrapolation to similar findings with metoprolol succinate are not possible since the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects of these two formulations are different. Furthermore, the dosing of metoprolol tartrate in COMET may have been inadequate based on prior studies. Additional studies are needed to compare carvedilol directly to metoprolol succinate before concluding inequivalency exists for these two beta-blockers in heart failure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
15516861What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.