Dataset Information

Peripheral vasoconstriction induced by ?-adrenoceptor blockers: a systematic review and a network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Aim

Peripheral vasoconstriction has long been described as a vascular adverse effect of ?-adrenoceptor blockers. Whether ?-adrenoceptor blockers should be avoided in patients with peripheral vascular disease depends on pharmacological properties (e.g. preferential binding to ?1 -adrenoreceptors or intrinsic sympathomimetic activity). However, this has not been confirmed in experimental studies. We performed a network meta-analysis in order to assess the comparative risk of peripheral vasoconstriction of different ?-adrenoceptor blockers.

Method

We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including ?-adrenoceptor blockers that were published in core clinical journals in the Pubmed database. All RCTs reporting peripheral vasoconstriction as an adverse effect of ?-adrenoceptor blockers and controls were included. Sensitivity analyses were conducted including possibly confounding covariates (latitude, properties of the ?-adrenoceptor blockers, e.g. intrinsic sympathomimetic activity, vasodilation, drug indication, drug doses). The protocol and the detailed search strategy are available online (PROSPERO registry CRD42014014374).

Results

Among 2238 records screened, 38 studies including 57?026 patients were selected. Overall, peripheral vasoconstriction was reported in 7% of patients with ?-adrenoceptor blockers and 4.6% in the control groups (P < 0.001), with heterogeneity among drugs. Atenolol and propranolol had a significantly higher risk than placebo, whereas pindolol, acebutolol and oxprenolol had not.

Conclusion

Our results suggest that ?-adrenoceptor blockers have variable propensity to enhance peripheral vasoconstriction and that it is not related to preferential binding to ?1 -adrenoceptors. These findings challenge FDA and European recommendations regarding precautions and contra-indications of use of ?-adrenoceptor blockers and suggest that ?-adrenoceptor blockers with intrinsic sympathomimetic activity could be safely used in patients with peripheral vascular disease.

SUBMITTER: Khouri C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4972171 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Peripheral vasoconstriction induced by β-adrenoceptor blockers: a systematic review and a network meta-analysis.

Khouri Charles C Jouve Thomas T Blaise Sophie S Carpentier Patrick P Cracowski Jean-Luc JL Roustit Matthieu M

British journal of clinical pharmacology 20160531 2

<h4>Aim</h4>Peripheral vasoconstriction has long been described as a vascular adverse effect of β-adrenoceptor blockers. Whether β-adrenoceptor blockers should be avoided in patients with peripheral vascular disease depends on pharmacological properties (e.g. preferential binding to β1 -adrenoreceptors or intrinsic sympathomimetic activity). However, this has not been confirmed in experimental studies. We performed a network meta-analysis in order to assess the comparative risk of peripheral vas ...[more]

PMID: 27085011

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background Evidence comparing fibrin sealants (FSs) in surgery are limited. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of FSs, and manual compression in peripheral vascular surgery. Methods A systematic review of randomized trials was conducted in Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases within the last 15 years. Data were available to conduct a network meta-analysis (NMA) in peripheral vascular surgery. Fibrin sealant treatment arms were further broken-down and assessed by clotting time (i.e., 2-min [2C] or 1-min [1C]). The primary efficacy outcome was the proportion of patients achieving hemostasis by 4 min (T4). Treatment-related serious and non-serious adverse events (AEs) were qualitatively assessed. Results Five studies (n = 693), were included in the NMA. Results predicted VISTASEAL 2C, followed by EVICEL 1C, had the highest probability of achieving T4. Compared with manual compression, significant improvements in T4 were found with VISTASEAL 2C (relative risk [RR] = 2.67, 95% CrI: 2.13–3.34), EVICEL 1C (RR = 2.58, 95% CrI: 2.04–3.23), VISTASEAL 1C (RR = 2.00, 95% CrI: 1.45–2.65), and TISSEEL 2C (RR = 1.99, 95% CrI: 1.48–2.60). TISSEEL 1C was not significantly different than manual compression (RR = 1.40, 95% CrI: 0.70–2.33). Among FSs, VISTASEAL 2C was associated with a significant improvements in T4 compared with VISTASEAL 1C (RR = 1.33, 95% CrI: 1.02–1.82), TISSEEL 2C (RR = 1.34, 95% CrI: 1.05–1.77), and TISSEEL 1C (RR = 1.90, 95% CrI: 1.18–3.74). Treatment-related serious and non-serious AE rates were typically lower than 2%. Conclusions In peripheral vascular surgeries, VISTASEAL 2C and EVICEL 1C were shown to have the highest probabilities for achieving rapid hemostasis among the treatments compared. Future studies should expand networks across surgery types as data become available. Highlights • Fibrin sealants can control perioperative bleeding, yet comparative evidence is limited.• This network meta-analysis compared fibrin sealants and compression in peripheral vascular surgery.• VISTASEAL and EVICEL had the highest probability of achieving hemostasis by 4 min.• These results show differences exist between fibrin sealants in peripheral vascular surgery.

Project description:Objective To investigate the efficacy and safety of alpha blockers in the treatment of patients with ureteric stones.Design Systematic review and meta-analysis.Data sources Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Embase, LILACS, and Medline databases and scientific meeting abstracts to July 2016.Review methods Randomized controlled trials of alpha blockers compared with placebo or control for treatment of ureteric stones were eligible. : Two team members independently extracted data from each included study. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who passed their stone. Secondary outcomes were the time to passage; the number of pain episodes; and the proportions of patients who underwent surgery, required admission to hospital, and experienced an adverse event. Pooled risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the primary outcome with profile likelihood random effects models. Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias and the GRADE approach were used to evaluate the quality of evidence and summarize conclusions.Results 55 randomized controlled trials were included. There was moderate quality evidence that alpha blockers facilitate passage of ureteric stones (risk ratio 1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.39 to 1.61). Based on a priori subgroup analysis, there seemed to be no benefit to treatment with alpha blocker among patients with smaller ureteric stones (1.19, 1.00 to 1.48). Patients with larger stones treated with an alpha blocker, however, had a 57% higher risk of stone passage compared with controls (1.57, 1.17 to 2.27). The effect of alpha blockers was independent of stone location (1.48 (1.05 to 2.10) for upper or middle stones; 1.49 (1.38 to 1.63) for lower stones). Compared with controls, patients who received alpha blockers had significantly shorter times to stone passage (mean difference -3.79 days, -4.45 to -3.14; moderate quality evidence), fewer episodes of pain (-0.74 episodes, -1.28 to -0.21; low quality evidence), lower risks of surgical intervention (risk ratio 0.44, 0.37 to 0.52; moderate quality evidence), and lower risks of admission to hospital (0.37, 0.22 to 0.64; moderate quality evidence). The risk of a serious adverse event was similar between treatment and control groups (1.49, 0.24 to 9.35; low quality evidence).Conclusions Alpha blockers seem efficacious in the treatment of patients with ureteric stones who are amenable to conservative management. The greatest benefit might be among those with larger stones. These results support current guideline recommendations advocating a role for alpha blockers in patients with ureteric stones.Systematic review registration PROSPERO registration No CRD42015024169.

Project description:OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of different classes of antihypertensive treatments, including monotherapy and combination therapy, on survival and major renal outcomes in patients with diabetes. DESIGN: Systematic review and bayesian network meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials. DATA SOURCES: Electronic literature search of PubMed, Medline, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library for studies published up to December 2011. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised clinical trials of antihypertensive therapy (angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), ? blockers, ? blockers, calcium channel blockers, diuretics, and their combinations) in patients with diabetes with a follow-up of at least 12 months, reporting all cause mortality, requirement for dialysis, or doubling of serum creatinine levels. DATA EXTRACTION: Bayesian network meta-analysis combined direct and indirect evidence to estimate the relative effects between treatments as well as the probabilities of ranking for treatments based on their protective effects. RESULTS: 63 trials with 36,917 participants were identified, including 2400 deaths, 766 patients who required dialysis, and 1099 patients whose serum creatinine level had doubled. Compared with placebo, only ACE inhibitors significantly reduced the doubling of serum creatinine levels (odds ratio 0.58, 95% credible interval 0.32 to 0.90), and only ? blockers showed a significant difference in mortality (odds ratio 7.13, 95% credible interval 1.37 to 41.39). Comparisons among all treatments showed no statistical significance in the outcome of dialysis. Although the beneficial effects of ACE inhibitors compared with ARBs did not reach statistical significance, ACE inhibitors consistently showed higher probabilities of being in the superior ranking positions among all three outcomes. Although the protective effect of an ACE inhibitor plus calcium channel blocker compared with placebo was not statistically significant, the treatment ranking identified this combination therapy to have the greatest probability (73.9%) for being the best treatment on reducing mortality, followed by ACE inhibitor plus diuretic (12.5%), ACE inhibitors (2.0%), calcium channel blockers (1.2%), and ARBs (0.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses show the renoprotective effects and superiority of using ACE inhibitors in patients with diabetes, and available evidence is not able to show a better effect for ARBs compared with ACE inhibitors. Considering the cost of drugs, our findings support the use of ACE inhibitors as the first line antihypertensive agent in patients with diabetes. Calcium channel blockers might be the preferred treatment in combination with ACE inhibitors if adequate blood pressure control cannot be achieved by ACE inhibitors alone.