The low-affinity site of the β1-adrenoceptor and its relevance to cardiovascular pharmacology

β-Adrenoceptor blocking agents (β-blockers) that at low concentrations antagonize cardiostimulant effects of catecholamines, but at high concentrations also cause cardiostimulation, have been appearing since the late 1960s. These cardiostimulant β-blockers, coined non-conventional partial agonists, antagonize the effects of catecholamines through a high-affinity site (β1HAR), but cause cardiostimulation mainly through a low-affinity site (β1LAR) of the myocardial β1-adrenoceptor. The experimental non-conventional partial agonist (−)-CGP12177 increases cardiac L-type Ca2+ current density and Ca2+ transients, shortens action potential duration but augments action potential plateau, increases heart rate and force, as well as causes arrhythmic Ca2+ transients and arrhythmic cardiocyte contractions. Other β-blockers, which do not cause cardiostimulation, consistently have lower affinity for β1LAR than β1HAR. These sites were verified and the cardiac pharmacology of non-conventional partial agonists confirmed on recombinant β1-adrenoceptors and on β1-adrenoceptors overexpressed into the heart. A targeted mutation of Asp138 to Glu138 virtually abolished the pharmacology of β1HAR but left intact the pharmacology of β1LAR. Non-conventional partial agonists may be beneficial for the treatment of peripheral autonomic neuropathy but probably due to their arrhythmic propensities, may be harmful for the treatment of chronic heart failure.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a kidney and cardiovascular disease treatment program in an Australian Aboriginal population

The objective of the study was to assess, from a health service perspective, whether a systematic program to modify kidney and cardiovascular disease reduced the costs of treating end-stage kidney failure. The participants in the study were 1,800 aboriginal adults with hypertension, diabetes with microalbuminuria or overt albuminuria, and overt albuminuria, living on two islands in the Northern Territory of Australia during 1995 to 2000. Perindopril was the primary treatment agent, and other medications were also used to control blood pressure. Control of glucose and lipid levels were attempted, and health education was offered. Evaluation of program resource use and costs for follow-up periods was done at 3 and 4.7 years. On an intention-to-treat basis, the number of dialysis starts and dialysis-years avoided were estimated by comparing the fate of the treatment group with that of historical control subjects, matched for disease severity, who were followed in the before the treatment program began. For the first three years, an estimated 11.6 person-years of dialysis were avoided, and over 4.7 years, 27.7 person-years of dialysis were avoided. The net cost of the program was 1,210 dollars more per person per year than status quo care, and dialyses avoided gave net savings of 1.0 million dollars at 3 years and 3.4 million dollars at 4.6 years. The treatment program provided significant health benefit and impressive cost savings in dialysis avoided.

Gliptins - do they increase cardiovascular risk or benefit?

INTRODUCTION: In 2008, the US FDA required all new glucose-lowering therapies to show cardiovascular safety, and this applies to the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors ('gliptins'). AREAS COVERED: The cardiovascular safety trials of saxagliptin and alogliptin have recently been published and are the subject of this evaluation. EXPERT OPINION: The Saxagliptin Assessment of Vascular Outcomes Recorded in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus - Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 53 trial and Examination of Cardiovascular Outcomes with Alogliptin versus Standard of Care were both multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase IV clinical trials. These trials showed that saxagliptin and alogliptin did not increase the primary end point, which was a composite of cardiovascular outcomes that did not include hospitalisations for heart failure. However, saxagliptin significantly increased hospitalisation for heart failure, which was a component of the secondary end point. The effect of alogliptin on hospitalisations for heart failure has not been reported. Neither agent improved cardiovascular outcomes. As there is no published evidence of improved outcomes with gliptins, it is unclear to us why these agents are so widely available for use. We suggest that the use of gliptins be restricted to Phase IV clinical trials until such time as cardiovascular safety and benefits/superiority are clearly established