Combination Of Β-blocker Research Articles

Nifedipine and Mortality

When an approved treatment is considered for an unapproved indication, the physician must evaluate the safety of the medication, its value in related conditions, and the individual patient. What is asked is that he make a prudent decision based upon full knowledge of the available evidence.”1 Furberg and his colleagues2 entitle their article “Nifedipine: Dose-Related Increase in Mortality in Patients With Coronary Heart Disease.” They provide a valuable service by making us think more carefully about the benefit/risk ratio of the calcium antagonists as a group. However, by touting calcium antagonists as being unsafe and possibly lethal, they also create a great deal of uncertainty and anxiety among physicians and patients. We feel that they overstate their case. The following is an attempt to show that (1) the allegations focus on short-acting nifedipine, so that even if correct, they cannot be applied to other calcium antagonists; (2) the accusation of a dose-related increase in mortality rests on a biased selection of data chosen for the meta-analysis; and (3) several of the mechanisms suggested for the proposed adverse effects are unlikely. Finally, we shall argue that pharmaceutical companies have been remiss in not obtaining outcome studies for short-acting nifedipine and for other calcium antagonists, especially in the case of ischemic heart disease. Several aspects of the Furberg paper suggest that calcium antagonists in general are accused; for example, the statement that “the literature reviews strongly suggest that the problem may go beyond short-acting nifedipine. Troubling and major adverse cardiovascular events have been linked to other calcium antagonists, primarily dihydropyridines.” It should be clearly and unequivocally stated that Furberg et al2 provide no evidence whatsoever for any adverse effect on mortality or morbidity for any other agent, with one important exception. That exception is nimodipine, approved for use in …

Treatment of Hypertensive Patients with Ventricular Arrhythmias: Comparison and Combination of β-Blocker and Anti-Arrhythmic Therapy

The effect of therapy with atenolol and tocainide, separately or in combination, was studied in 20 patients with hypertension and concomitant ventricular arrhythmias. Patients were given 400 mg tocainide, three times daily, 100 mg atenolol, once daily (plus 25 mg hydrochlorothiazide and 2.5 mg amiloride diuretics if required) and a combination of these treatments. Tocainide alone significantly reduced the incidence of ventricular arrhythmias without affecting atrial arrhythmias. It also controlled exercise-induced arrhythmias in 7/13 (54%) patients. Atenolol significantly reduced atrial arrhythmias and had a good effect on exercise-induced arrhythmias (reduced in 75% of patients), but it did not have a significant effect on ventricular arrhythmias. In 13 patients, despite normalization of blood pressure by atenolol, it was necessary to combine antihypertensive therapy (atenolol) with anti-arrhythmic therapy (tocainide) in order to reduce ventricular arrhythmias. All drugs were well tolerated. It is concluded that, in certain patients, specific anti-arrhythmic treatment may be necessary to control ventricular arrhythmias in hypertensive patients despite normalization of blood pressure by beta-blockers.