ArticleCardiology and therapy2019
Effectiveness and Impact on Adherence of a New Fixed-Dose Combination of Ivabradine and Metoprolol in a Wide Range of Stable Angina Patients in Real-Life Practice.
Article in Cardiology and therapy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association Between Medication Adherence and Symptom Control in Patients With Chronic Stable Angina.Cureus · 2026Article
- Expert Consensus on Ivabradine-based Therapy for Heart Rate Management in Chronic Coronary Syndrome and Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction in India.Current cardiology reviews · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe antianginal effectiveness of ivabradine administration in addition to beta-blockers has been shown in patients with stable angina. The first fixed-dose combination (FDC) of ivabradine and metoprolol is now available and its evaluation in various stable angina patient populations relevant to clinical practice would be useful.
methodsIn this 4-month, prospective, multicenter, observational study, the effectiveness and tolerability of the metoprolol/ivabradine FDC was assessed in patient subgroups specified according to age, coronary artery disease (CAD) duration, Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) class, co-morbidities, and previous myocardial infarction (MI) or revascularization. Heart rate (HR), angina attack frequency, short-acting nitrate (SAN) consumption, functional status, and medication adherence were documented at baseline and after 4 months of follow-up.
resultsA total of 747 stable angina patients were included and divided into subgroups. At 4 months, a significant decrease in HR, angina attack frequency, and SAN consumption per week was consistently observed across all patient subgroups. The proportion of CCS class I patients increased significantly from baseline to month 4. In all patient subgroups, at 4 months, a significant increase was observed in the proportion of patients with self-reported complete adherence. Complete adherence at the final visit was found to decrease with an increasing number of medications. Physicians evaluated the effectiveness and tolerability of the FDC as 'very good' and 'good' for more than 96% of patients in all analyzed patient subgroups.
conclusionsTreatment with metoprolol/ivabradine FDC significantly improved angina symptoms and adherence, with an excellent tolerability profile, in stable angina patient subgroups relevant to real-life clinical practice, regardless of age, CAD duration, CCS class, comorbidities, previous MI, or history of revascularization.
trial registrationISRCTN51906157.
fundingThis study was sponsored by Servier Deutschland GmbH. Editorial assistance and the Rapid Service Fee were funded by Servier, France. Plain language summary available for this article.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.