Key result
Atenolol shows no significant difference compared with ivabradine for improving heart rate variability parameters.
Why the study?
Clozapine-induced tachycardia occurs in 25-54% of patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia, but evidence guiding optimal use of atenolol versus ivabradine is limited.
Does atenolol improve heart rate variability compared to ivabradine in patients with schizophrenia and clozapine-induced tachycardia?
RCT (n=40)
Open-label
randomized
No
Does atenolol improve heart rate variability compared to ivabradine in patients with schizophrenia and clozapine-induced tachycardia?
Ivabradine reduces pulse rate similarly to atenolol without significant differences in heart rate variability, making it a viable alternative for patients with clozapine-induced tachycardia who cannot tolerate beta-blockers.
BACKGROUND A third of schizophrenia cases are resistant to antipsychotics, where clozapine is the only FDA-approved medication. Clozapine use is often limited by intolerable adverse effects. Persistent tachycardia occurs in approximately 25-54% patients receiving clozapine. Heart rate variability (HRV) is a non-invasive, clinically relevant marker of autonomic nervous system functioning. Atenolol and Ivabradine are usually prescribed for clozapine-induced tachycardia (CIT), although evidence guiding their optimal use remains limited. AIM This study aimed to compare the effects of atenolol versus ivabradine on HRV in patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS) receiving clozapine. METHODS This open-label randomised clinical trial, conducted at a tertiary-care center over 20 months, involved TRS patients on clozapine for more than three months and having persistent tachycardia. Twenty patients received atenolol 25mg once-daily, while twenty received ivabradine 5mg twice-daily for two months. The primary outcome was the change in the frequency domain of HRV, while the secondary outcomes were time-domains, central and peripheral blood pressure, pulse rate and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE). RESULTS While both drugs significantly reduced pulse-rates (atenolol: -20.56±13.00, p<0.001; ivabradine: -21.855±12.873, p<0.001). Within-group analysis showed that, the atenolol group had significant improvements in high-frequency [HF] power (p=0.048) and LF/HF ratio (p=0.044), along with a non-significant trend towards increased total power (p=0.053); no significant within-group changes were observed in the ivabradine group. CONCLUSION No significant between-group differences in HRV parameters were established between atenolol and ivabradine. Ivabradine could be a viable option in patients where atenolol is either contraindicated or not tolerated. Future larger multicentric studies are needed for greater generalisability. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT06505668.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bahmania et al. (2026) conducted an RCT in Treatment-resistant schizophrenia with clozapine-induced tachycardia (n=40). Atenolol vs. Ivabradine 5mg twice-daily was evaluated on Change in the frequency domain of HRV. Atenolol and ivabradine both significantly reduced pulse rates, but showed no significant between-group differences in the primary endpoint of heart rate variability parameters.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: