Effects of D-nebivolol and L-nebivolol on left ventricular systolic and diastolic function: comparison with D-L-nebivolol and atenolol.

(D-L) Nebivolol is a new beta 1-selective adrenoceptor blocker which in normal individuals preserves rest and exercise hemodynamics. We assessed the effects of the enantiomers (L- and D-nebivolol) on left ventricular (LV) systolic and diastolic function and compared their effects with those of the racemic mixture. LV angiography (+Millar) was performed before and after intravenous (i.v.) infusion of either D- or L-nebivolol (1.25-2.5 mg, n = 22) in patients with ischemic heart disease and previous myocardial infarction. Neither L- nor D-nebivolol produced significant changes in heart rate (HR), peak (+) dP/dt, (dP/dt) DP40, cardiac index (CI) or ejection fraction (EF). Diastolic distensibility, evaluated from the shift of the pressure-volume data at the time of mitral valve opening, did not improve after D- or L-enantiomers administration. In contrast, both D-L-nebivolol 2.5 mg (n = 9) and atenolol 15 mg (n = 9) significantly reduced HR and peak (+) dP/dt, but in comparison to atenolol D-L nebivolol improved EF (+4% after D-L nebivolol vs. -4% after atenolol; p < 0.05 D-L nebivolol vs. atenolol) and maintained cardiac output CO, (+2% vs. -21%; p < 0.05 between groups). Moreover, unlike any of the other drugs in the study, the racemate shifted the diastolic pressure-volume data downward, suggesting improved LV distensibility. The beneficial effects of nebivolol on LV systolic and diastolic function appears to require the presence of both D- and L-enantiomers

Medium-term effects of beta-blockade on left ventricular mechanics: a double-blind, placebo-controlled comparison of nebivolol and atenolol in patients with ischemic left ventricular dysfunction.

The aim of this study was to compare the effects on left ventricular function and exercise tolerance of a selective beta-antagonist (atenolol) with those of another selective beta 1-antagonist with vasodilator properties (nebivolol) in patients with ischemic left ventricular dysfunction but no overt congestive heart failure. Beta blockers are widely used in ischemic heart disease, but their effects on left ventricular mechanics and exercise tolerance are poorly defined in the subgroup of patients with significant systolic dysfunction but without clinical evidence of ischemia or congestive heart failure. Angiographic and symptom-limited exercise data were obtained at baseline and after an 8-10-week double-blind treatment with placebo (n = 10), 50 mg atenolol daily (n = 10), or 2.5 mg (n = 10) or 5 mg (n = 10) nebivolol daily. When compared to placebo, both atenolol and nebivolol reduced resting heart rate and improved left ventricular ejection fraction (from 33.9 to 39.2% with atenolol and from 36.5 to 40.8% with nebivolol, both P < .05) while lowering mean systolic wall stress. Only nebivolol, however, produced a parallel downward shift of the pressure-volume relationship during early diastolic filling and improved the early peak filling rate when compared to placebo (+ 10%, P < .05). When compared to baseline, maximal exercise duration increased by 7 and 13 seconds with placebo and atenolol, respectively (both NS vs baseline), and increased by 44 seconds with nebivolol (P = .0077 vs baseline). Both atenolol and nebivolol decreased maximal exercise heart rate; the reduction was more pronounced with atenolol. Prolonged beta 1-adrenoceptor blockade leads to a significant increase in left ventricular ejection fraction in patients with ischemic left ventricular dysfunction. The dissociation between the changes in resting left ventricular function and the changes in exercise duration suggests that in this clinical setting, the changes in systolic function may have less impact on functional capacity than an improvement in diastolic distensibility during the rapid filling phase

Efficacy and safety of oral ridogrel in the treatment of ulcerative colitis: two multicentre, randomized, double-blind studies

Background: Ridogrel at low doses inhibits thromboxane synthase. Oral ridogrel, from 5 mg once daily to 150 mg twice daily, improves the endoscopic appearance of colonic mucosa and clinical manifestations in mild to moderate ulcerative colitis. Aim: One US trial and one international trial were conducted to determine the effect of ridogrel on mild to severe active ulcerative colitis. Methods: Two 12-week, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group trials were conducted. A US trial compared 0.5 mg, 2.5 mg and 5 mg of ridogrel once daily with placebo. An international trial compared 0.5 mg of ridogrel once daily with 2.5 mg and 5.0 mg of ridogrel once daily and 800 mg of mesalazine (known as mesalamine in the USA) three times daily. The primary efficacy outcome measure was the rate of complete remission. Results: In the US trial, complete remission was achieved in 20.8% of patients in the 0.5 mg ridogrel group, 17.9% in the 2.5 mg ridogrel group, 20.6% in the 5.0 mg ridogrel group and 13.6% in the placebo group. In the international trial, 14.4% of patients in the 0.5 mg ridogrel group, 19.6% in the 2.5 mg ridogrel group. 19.4% in the 5.0 mg ridogrel group and 16.4% in the mesalazine group experienced complete remission. In the international trial, rates of complete remission at the end-point were greater in the 2.5 mg and 5.0 mg ridogrel groups than in the 0.5 mg ridogrel group, but the differences were not statistically significant. In the US trial, rates of complete remission at the end-point were greater in the 2.5 mg and 5.0 mg ridogrel groups than in the placebo group, but the differences were not statistically significant. Approximately 30% of the patients in each group discontinued treatment before the 12-week end-point owing to a lack of therapeutic response. All doses of ridogrel were well tolerated and comparable with placebo or mesalazine in terms of safety. Conclusions: No significant differences in the primary efficacy outcome measure were found between either the 2.5 mg or the 5.0 mg dose of ridogrel and placebo in the US trial and between either the 2.5 mg or the 5.0 mg dose of ridogrel and the 0.5 mg dose of ridogrel, a surrogate dose for placebo, in the international trial. There was no clear indication in either trial of an effective dose of ridogrel in the treatment of ulcerative coliti

A placebo-controlled trial of the 5-HT1A agonist R-137696 on symptoms, visceral hypersensitivity and on impaired accommodation in functional dyspepsia

Acute studies suggested a therapeutic benefit for fundus-relaxing drugs in functional dyspepsia (FD) with visceral hypersensitivity (VH) to gastric distention or impaired accommodation (IA), but long-term studies are lacking. R-137696 is a serotonin-1A (5-HT(1A)) receptor agonist which relaxes the proximal stomach in man. Our aim was to investigate the influence of R-137696 on symptoms in FD with VH or IA. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group study of 4 weeks R-137696 2 mg t.i.d. in FD with VH or IA. Symptoms were assessed using the patient assessment of upper gastrointestinal symptom severity index (PAGI-SYM) total score and individual symptom subscales. Barostat studies were performed before and after 4 weeks of treatment. Fifty-three patients (33 VH and 20 IA), 18 men, mean age 40 +/- 13 years were recruited. Twenty-four received placebo and 29 received R-137696. In VH patients, both placebo and R-137696 improved total symptom scores, with a tendency for superiority of placebo (-1.12 vs-0.51, P = 0.07). Placebo was superior for the subscales of early satiety, bloating, fullness and discomfort (all P <0.05). In IA, both placebo and R-137696 had no significant influence on total or individual symptom scores (-0.08 and -0.27). In VH, both placebo and R-137696 increased the discomfort volume, without a statistical difference between both arms (+120 and +164 mL). In IA, both placebo and R-137696 enhanced accommodation, without a statistical difference between both (+77 and +159 mL). Adverse events were similar for drug and placebo. A 4-week administration of the fundus-relaxing 5-HT(1A) agonist R-137696 failed to significantly improve symptoms, VH or gastric accommodation compared to placeb