β-blockers reduce bone resorption marker in early postmenopausal women

Background: There is evidence to suggest that β-blockers used in the management of cardiovascular disease may also modulate bone metabolism and reduce bone fragility.

Aim: The study aimed to determine the association between β-blocker use, serum markers of bone turnover and bone loss in early postmenopausal women.

Subjects and methods: In this observational study, we evaluated β-blocker exposure in association with serum levels of C-telopeptide and bone-specific alkaline phosphatase, and rates of bone loss. β-blocker use, concomitant therapy and lifestyle were documented for 197 women (50–59 years), 175 of whom had changes in whole body bone mineral density monitored over a 2–year period.

Results: Twenty-four β-blocker users were identified at baseline. After controlling for concomitant use of hormone therapy, C-telopeptide levels were 6.7% lower among β-blocker users (p = 0.02). No association was detected between bone-specific alkaline phosphatase and β-blocker use. Analysis of 15 β-blocker users and 152 non-users identified 2 years post-baseline showed that levels of C-telopeptide but not bone-specific alkaline phosphatase were predictors of adjusted rates of bone loss (p = 0.008 and p>0.05, respectively). Adjusted rates of bone loss were −0.001 ± 0.026 g cm−2 over 2 years for the users and −0.004 ± 0.025 g cm−2 over 2 years for non-users, but this difference was not significant.

Conclusion: β-blockers might suppress bone resorption with relative preservation of bone formation. A study with greater power is required to determine whether β-blocker use is associated with lower rates of bone loss.

β-Adrenergic blockers reduce the risk of fracture partly by increasing bone mineral density : Geelong Osteoporosis Study

This population-based study documented β-blocker use in 59/569 cases with incident fracture and 112/775 controls. OR for fracture associated with β-blocker use was 0.68 (95%CI, 0.49–0.96). β-Blockers were associated with higher BMD at the total hip (2.5%) and UD forearm (3.6%) after adjusting for age, anthropometry, and thiazide use. β-Blocker use is associated with reduced fracture risk and higher BMD.

Introduction: Animal data suggests that bone formation is under β-adrenergic control and that β-blockers stimulate bone formation and/or inhibit bone resorption.

Materials and Methods: We evaluated the association between β-blocker use, bone mineral density (BMD), and fracture risk in a population-based study in Geelong, a southeastern Australian city with a single teaching hospital and two radiological centers providing complete fracture ascertainment for the region. β-Blocker use was documented for 569 women with radiologically confirmed incident fractures and 775 controls without incident fracture. Medication use and lifestyle factors were documented by questionnaire.

Results: Odds ratio for fracture associated with β-blocker use was 0.68 (95% CI, 0.49–0.96) for any fracture. Adjusting for age, weight, medications, and lifestyle factors had little effect on the odds ratio. β-Blocker use was associated with a higher BMD at the total hip (2.5%, p = 0.03) and ultradistal forearm (3.6%, p = 0.04) after adjustment for age, anthropometry, and thiazide use.

Conclusion: β-Blockers are associated with a reduction in fracture risk and higher BMD.

Evidence based drug therapy : are optimal doses and multiple medication therapies realistic in patients with chronic heart failure

Background: Chronic Heart Failure (CHF) has a high mortality and morbidity. Large scale randomised controlled trials have proven the benefits of beta blockade and ACE inhibitors in reducing mortality in patients with CHF and expert guidelines mandate their use. In spite of these recommendations, important therapies are under-prescribed and under-utilised.

Method: 1015 consecutive patients enrolled in CHF management programs across Australia were surveyed during 2005-2006 to determine prescribing patterns in heart failure medications. These patients were followed-up for a period of 6 months.

Results: The survey revealed that beta blockers were prescribed to 80% of patients (more than 85% were on sub-optimal doses) and 70% were prescribed Angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors (approximately 50% were on sub-optimal dose). 19% of patients were prescribed Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). By 6 months <25% of the patients who were on sub-optimal dose beta blockers or ACE inhibitors at baseline, had been up-titrated to maximum dose (p<0.0001). In CHF programs, were nurses were able to titrate medications, 75% of patients reached optimal dose of beta blockers compared to those programs with no nurse-led medication titration, where only 25% of patients reached optimal dose (p<0.004). When examining optimal dosage for any two of these mandatory medications, less patients were on optimal therapy. Beta blockers and ACE inhibitors, were both prescribed in combination in 60% of patients. While beta blockers and ARBs were prescribed to 15% of patients.

Conclusion: Whilst prescribing rates for a single medication strategy of beta blockers, or ACE inhibitors were greater than 70%, an increase in dosage of these medications and utilisation of proven combination therapy of these medications was poor. It is suggested that clinical outcomes for this cohort of patients could be further improved by adherence to evidence-based practice, ESC guidelines, and optimisation of these medications by heart failure nurses in a CHF program. On the basis of these findings and in the absence of ready access to a polypill, focussing on evidence-based practice to increase utilisation and optimal dosage of combination medication therapy is critical.

Improving the cost-effectiveness of cardiovascular disease prevention in Australia : a modelling study

Background : Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death worldwide. Like many countries, Australia is currently changing its guidelines for cardiovascular disease prevention from drug treatment for everyone with 'high blood pressure' or 'high cholesterol', to prevention based on a patient's absolute risk. In this research, we model cost-effectiveness of cardiovascular disease prevention with blood pressure and lipid drugs in Australia under three different scenarios: (1) the true current practice in Australia; (2) prevention as intended under the current guidelines; and (3) prevention according to proposed absolute risk levels. We consider the implications of changing to absolute risk-based cardiovascular disease prevention, for the health of the Australian people and for Government health sector expenditure over the long term.

Methods : We evaluate cost-effectiveness of statins, diuretics, ACE inhibitors, calcium channel blockers and beta-blockers, for Australian men and women, aged 35 to 84 years, who have never experienced a heart disease or stroke event. Epidemiological changes and health care costs are simulated by age and sex in a discrete time Markov model, to determine total impacts on population health and health sector costs over the lifetime, from which we derive cost-effectiveness ratios in 2008 Australian dollars per quality-adjusted life year.

Results : Cardiovascular disease prevention based on absolute risk is more cost-effective than prevention under the current guidelines based on single risk factor thresholds, and is more cost-effective than the current practice, which does not follow current clinical guidelines. Recommending blood pressure-lowering drugs to everyone with at least 5% absolute risk and statin drugs to everyone with at least 10% absolute risk, can achieve current levels of population health, while saving $5.4 billion for the Australian Government over the lifetime of the population. But savings could be as high as $7.1 billion if Australia could match the cheaper price of statin drugs in New Zealand.

Conclusions : Changing to absolute risk-based cardiovascular disease prevention is highly recommended for reducing health sector spending, but the Australian Government must also consider measures to reduce the cost of statin drugs, over and above the legislated price cuts of November 2010.

Evidence-based chronic heart-failure management programs : myth or reality?

Background Chronic heart-failure management programmes (CHF-MPs) have become part of standard care for patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). Objective To investigate whether programmes had applied evidence-based expert clinical guidelines to optimise patient outcomes. Design A prospective cross-sectional survey was used to conduct a national audit. Setting Community setting of CHF-MPs for patients postdischarge. Sample All CHF-MPs operating during 2005–2006 (n=55). Also 10–50 consecutive patients from 48 programmes were recruited (n=1157). Main outcome measures (1) Characteristics and interventions used within each CHF-MP; and (2) characteristics of patients enrolled into these programmes. Results Overall, there was a disproportionate distribution of CHF-MPs across Australia. Only 6.3% of hospitals nationally provided a CHF-MP. A total of 8000 postdischarge CHF patients (median: 126; IQR: 26–260) were managed via CHF-MPs, representing only 20% of the potential national case load. Significantly, 16% of the caseload comprised patients in functional New York Heart Association Class I with no evidence of these patients having had previous echocardiography to confirm a diagnosis of CHF. Heterogeneity of CHF-MPs in applied models of care was evident, with 70% of CHF-MPs offering a hybrid model (a combination of heart-failure outpatient clinics and home visits), 20% conducting home visits and 16% conducting an extended rehabilitation model of care. Less than half (44%) allowed heart-failure nurses to titrate medications. The main medications that were titrated in these programmes were diuretics (n=23, 96%), β-blockers (n=17, 71%), ACE inhibitors (ACEIs) (n=14, 58%) and spironolactone (n=9, 38%). Conclusion CHF-MPs are being implemented rapidly throughout Australia. However, many of these programmes do not adhere to expert clinical guidelines for the management of patients with CHF. This poor translation of evidence into practice highlights the inconsistency and questions the quality of health-related outcomes for these patients.

Nurse-led titration of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, beta-adrenergic blocking agents and angiotensin receptor blockers for patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows:

To assess the effects of nurse-led titration of ACEIs, beta-adrenergic blocking agents and ARBs in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction in terms of safety and patient outcomes.

Nurse-led titration of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, beta-adrenergic blocking agents, and angiotensin receptor blockers for people with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

BACKGROUND: Heart failure is associated with high mortality and hospital readmissions. Beta-adrenergic blocking agents, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) can improve survival and reduce hospital readmissions and are recommended as first-line therapy in the treatment of heart failure. Evidence has also shown that there is a dose-dependent relationship of these medications with patient outcomes. Despite this evidence, primary care physicians are reluctant to up-titrate these medications. New strategies aimed at facilitating this up-titration are warranted. Nurse-led titration (NLT) is one such strategy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of NLT of beta-adrenergic blocking agents, ACEIs, and ARBs in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in terms of safety and patient outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL Issue 11 of 12, 19/12/2014), MEDLINE OVID (1946 to November week 3 2014), and EMBASE Classic and EMBASE OVID (1947 to 2014 week 50). We also searched reference lists of relevant primary studies, systematic reviews, clinical trial registries, and unpublished theses sources. We used no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing NLT of beta-adrenergic blocking agents, ACEIs, and/or ARBs comparing the optimisation of these medications by a nurse to optimisation by another health professional in patients with HFrEF. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors (AD & JC) independently assessed studies for eligibility and risk of bias. We contacted primary authors if we required additional information. We examined quality of evidence using the GRADE rating tool for RCTs. We analysed extracted data by risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous data to measure effect sizes of intervention group compared with usual-care group. Meta-analyses used the fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel method. We assessed heterogeneity between studies by Chi(2) and I(2). MAIN RESULTS: We included seven studies (1684 participants) in the review. One study enrolled participants from a residential care facility, and the other six studies from primary care and outpatient clinics. All-cause hospital admission data was available in four studies (556 participants). Participants in the NLT group experienced a lower rate of all-cause hospital admissions (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.88, high-quality evidence) and fewer hospital admissions related to heart failure (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.72, moderate-quality evidence) compared to the usual-care group. Six studies (902 participants) examined all-cause mortality. All-cause mortality was also lower in the NLT group (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.92, moderate-quality evidence) compared to usual care. Approximately 27 deaths could be avoided for every 1000 people receiving NLT of beta-adrenergic blocking agents, ACEIs, and ARBs. Only three studies (370 participants) reported outcomes on all-cause and heart failure-related event-free survival. Participants in the NLT group were more likely to remain event free compared to participants in the usual-care group (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.77, moderate-quality evidence). Five studies (966 participants) reported on the number of participants reaching target dose of beta-adrenergic blocking agents. This was also higher in the NLT group compared to usual care (RR 1.99, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.47, low-quality evidence). However, there was a substantial degree of heterogeneity in this pooled analysis. We rated the risk of bias in these studies as high mainly due to a lack of clarity regarding incomplete outcome data, lack of reporting on adverse events associated with the intervention, and the inability to blind participants and personnel. Participants in the NLT group reached maximal dose of beta-adrenergic blocking agents in half the time compared with participants in usual care. Two studies reported on adverse events; one of these studies stated there were no adverse events, and the other study found one adverse event but did not specify the type or severity of the adverse event. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Participants in the NLT group experienced fewer hospital admissions for any cause and an increase in survival and number of participants reaching target dose within a shorter time period. However, the quality of evidence regarding the proportion of participants reaching target dose was low and should be interpreted with caution. We found high-quality evidence supporting NLT as one strategy that may improve the optimisation of beta-adrenergic blocking agents resulting in a reduction in hospital admissions. Despite evidence of a dose-dependent relationship of beta-adrenergic blocking agents, ACEIs, and ARBs with improving outcomes in patients with HFrEF, the translation of this evidence into clinical practice is poor. NLT is one strategy that facilitates the implementation of this evidence into practice.