Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17335297›Full record

Trial reportDrugs2007

Antianginal efficacy and safety of ivabradine compared with amlodipine in patients with stable effort angina pectoris: a 3-month randomised, double-blind, multicentre, noninferiority trial.

Witold Ruzyllo, Michal Tendera, Ian Ford, Kim M Fox

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Drugs, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
12.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

41 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 193 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Lasting reduction of heart transplant tachycardia with ivabradine is effective and well tolerated: results of 48-month study.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2012
    Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. ANMCO/GICR-IACPR/SICI-GISE Consensus Document: the clinical management of chronic ischaemic cardiomyopathy.European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 2017
    Article
  15. Frontiers in pharmacology · 2017
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. The Role of Ivabradine in the Management of Angina Pectoris.Cardiovascular drugs and therapy · 2016
    Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Witold RuzylloDepartment of Coronary Artery Disease and Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory, Institute of Cardiology, Warsaw, Poland. wruzyllo@ikard.pl
Michal Tendera
Ian Ford
Kim M Fox
Górnośląska Wyższa Szkoła Handlowa im. Wojciecha Korfantego · PLInstitute of Cardiology · PLRoyal Brompton Hospital · GBUniversity of Glasgow · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectiveCurrent medical therapies for the symptoms of angina pectoris aim to improve oxygen supply and reduce oxygen demand in the myocardium. Not all patients respond to current antianginal monotherapy, or even combination therapy, and a new class of antianginal drug that complements existing therapies would be useful. This study was undertaken to compare the antianginal and anti-ischaemic effects of the novel heart-rate-lowering agent ivabradine and of the calcium channel antagonist amlodipine. PATIENTS AND

methodsPatients with a >/=3-month history of chronic, stable effort-induced angina were randomised to receive ivabradine 7.5mg (n = 400) or 10mg (n = 391) twice daily or amlodipine 10mg once daily (n = 404) for a 3-month, double-blind period. Bicycle exercise tolerance tests were performed at baseline and monthly intervals. The primary efficacy criterion was the change from baseline in total exercise duration after 3 months of treatment. Secondary efficacy criteria included changes in time to angina onset and time to 1mm ST-segment depression, rate-pressure product at trough drug activity, as well as short-acting nitrate use and anginal attack frequency (as recorded in patient diaries).

resultsAt 3 months, total exercise duration was improved by 27.6 +/- 91.7, 21.7 +/- 94.5 and 31.2 +/- 92.0 seconds with ivabradine 7.5 and 10mg and amlodipine, respectively, both ivabradine groups were comparable to amlodipine (p-value for noninferiority < 0.001). Similar results were observed for time to angina onset and time to 1mm ST-segment depression. Heart rate decreased significantly by 11-13 beats/min at rest and by 12-15 beats/min at peak of exercise with ivabradine but not amlodipine, and rate-pressure product decreased more with ivabradine than amlodipine (p-value vs amlodipine <0.001, at rest and at peak of exercise). Anginal attack frequency and short-acting nitrate use decreased substantially in all treatment groups with no significant difference between treatment groups. The most frequent adverse events were visual symptoms and sinus bradycardia with ivabradine (0.8% and 0.4% withdrawals, respectively) and peripheral oedema with amlodipine (1.5% withdrawals).

conclusionsIn patients with stable angina, ivabradine has comparable efficacy to amlodipine in improving exercise tolerance, a superior effect on the reduction of rate-pressure product (a surrogate marker of myocardial oxygen consumption) and similar safety.

Indexed as

AgedAmlodipineAngina PectorisBenzazepinesBlood PressureCalcium Channel BlockersCardiotonic AgentsDouble-Blind MethodElectrocardiographyExercise ToleranceFemaleHeart RateHumansIvabradineMaleMiddle AgedAmlodipineBenzazepinesCalcium Channel BlockersCardiotonic AgentsIvabradineNitrates

Identifiers

PMID17335297
OpenAlexW2022608906

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.