Hubbry Logo
IvabradineIvabradineMain
Open search
Ivabradine
Community hub
Ivabradine
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Ivabradine
Ivabradine
Ivabradine
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Ivabradine
Clinical data
Pronunciation/ɪˈvæbrədiːn/
Trade namesCorlanor, Procoralan, others
Other namesS-16257
AHFS/Drugs.comMonograph
MedlinePlusa615027
License data
Routes of
administration		By mouth
ATC code
Legal status
Legal status
Pharmacokinetic data
Bioavailability40%
Protein binding70%
MetabolismLiver (first-pass) >50%, CYP3A4-mediated
Elimination half-life6 hours
ExcretionKidney and fecal
Identifiers
  • 3-[3-({[(7S)-3,4-dimethoxybicyclo[4.2.0]octa-1,3,5-trien-7-yl]methyl}(methyl)amino)propyl]-7,8-dimethoxy-2,3,4,5-tetrahydro-1H-3-benzazepin-2-one
CAS Number
PubChem CID
IUPHAR/BPS
DrugBank
ChemSpider
UNII
KEGG
ChEBI
ChEMBL
CompTox Dashboard (EPA)
Chemical and physical data
FormulaC27H36N2O5
Molar mass468.594 g·mol−1
3D model (JSmol)
  • O=C2N(CCc1cc(OC)c(OC)cc1C2)CCCN(C[C@@H]4c3cc(OC)c(OC)cc3C4)C
  • InChI=1S/C27H36N2O5/c1-28(17-21-11-20-14-25(33-4)26(34-5)16-22(20)21)8-6-9-29-10-7-18-12-23(31-2)24(32-3)13-19(18)15-27(29)30/h12-14,16,21H,6-11,15,17H2,1-5H3/t21-/m1/s1 checkY
  • Key:ACRHBAYQBXXRTO-OAQYLSRUSA-N checkY
 ☒NcheckY (what is this?)  (verify)

Ivabradine, sold under the brand name Procoralan among others, is a medication, which is a pacemaker current (If) inhibitor, used for the symptomatic management of heart-related chest pain and heart failure. Patients who qualify for use of ivabradine for congestive heart failure are patients who have symptomatic heart failure, with reduced ejection fraction, and heart rate at least 70 bpm, and the condition not able to be fully managed by beta blockers.[3]

Ivabradine acts by inducing negative chronotropy in the sinoatrial structure, thus reducing the heart rate via specific inhibition of the pacemaker current. It operates by a mechanism different from that of beta blockers and calcium channel blockers, which are two commonly prescribed antianginal classes of cardiac drugs. Ivabradine has no apparent inotropic properties and may be a cardiotonic agent.

Medical uses

[edit]

It is used for the symptomatic treatment of chronic stable angina pectoris in patients with normal sinus rhythm who cannot take beta blockers. It is also being used off-label in the treatment of inappropriate sinus tachycardia (IST).[4] Ivabradine stands as a pharmacological option for controlling HR and rhythm without associated side effects in postoperative CABG patients with IST.[5]

Chest pain

[edit]

Ivabradine is as effective as the beta blocker atenolol and comparable with amlodipine in the management of chronic stable angina, as demonstrated by improvements in total exercise duration in non-inferiority trials, hence it can be an alternative therapy for those who cannot tolerate conventional therapies.[6][7] In people not sufficiently managed with beta blockers for their angina, adding ivabradine can further reduce heart rate and improve total exercise duration.[8]

Heart failure

[edit]

It is used in combination with beta blockers in people with heart failure with LVEF lower than 35 percent inadequately controlled by beta blockers alone and whose heart rate exceeds 70 beats per minute.[9] In people not sufficiently managed with beta blockers for their heart failure adding ivabradine decreases the risk of hospitalization for heart failure.[3]

Tachycardia

[edit]

The clinical use of ivabradine is predicated on its mechanism of action on sinoatrial nodal tissue where it selectively inhibits the funny current (If) and results in a decrease in heart rate.[10]

Ivabradine's most frequent application in electrophysiology is for the treatment of inappropriate sinus tachycardia. Its use for inappropriate sinus tachycardia is not a European Medicines Agency or Food and Drug Administration approved indication for ivabradine.[10]

It has been used experimentally for the treatment of postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome in patients with long COVID.[11] It was used for POTS prior to this too. Many cardiologists have found success with this in their POTS patients.[12]

Contraindications

[edit]

Ivabradine is contraindicated in sick sinus syndrome. It should also not be used concomitantly with potent inhibitors of CYP3A4, including azole antifungals (such as ketoconazole), macrolide antibiotics, nefazodone and the antiretroviral drugs nelfinavir and ritonavir.[13]

Use of ivabradine with verapamil or diltiazem is contraindicated.[14]

Adverse effects

[edit]

Overall, 14.5% of patients taking ivabradine experience luminous phenomena (by patients described as sensations of enhanced brightness in a fully maintained visual field). This is probably due to blockage of Ih ion channels in the retina, which are very similar to cardiac If. These symptoms are mild, transient, and fully reversible. In clinical studies, about 1% of all patients had to discontinue the drug because of these sensations, which occurred on average 40 days after the drug was started.[6]

In a large clinical trial, bradycardia (unusually slow heart rate) occurred in 2% and 5% of patients taking ivabradine at doses of 7.5 and 10 mg respectively (compared to 4.3% in those taking atenolol).[6] Headaches were reported in 2.6 to 4.8 percent of cases.[6] Other common adverse drug reactions (1–10% of patients) include first-degree AV block, ventricular extrasystoles, dizziness and/or blurred vision.[15]

Mechanism of action

[edit]

Ivabradine acts on the If (f is for "funny", so called because it had unusual properties compared with other current systems known at the time of its discovery) ion current, which is highly expressed in the sinoatrial node. If is a mixed Na+–K+ inward current activated by hyperpolarization and modulated by the autonomic nervous system. It is one of the most important ionic currents for regulating pacemaker activity in the sinoatrial (SA) node. Ivabradine selectively inhibits the pacemaker If current in a dose-dependent manner. Blocking this channel reduces cardiac pacemaker activity, selectively slowing the heart rate and allowing more time for blood to flow to the myocardium.[16][17] By inhibiting the If channel, ivabradine reduces the heart rate and workload on the heart. This is relevant in the usage of the medication to treat angina as well as congestive heart failure. This is in contrast to other commonly used rate-reducing medications, such as beta-blockers and calcium channel blockers, which not only reduce heart rate, but also the cardiac contractility. Given the selective decrease in rate without loss of contractility, ivabradine may prove efficacious for treatment of congestive heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

Ivabradine binds to HCN4 receptors (potassium/sodium hyperpolarization-activated cyclic nucleotide-gated channel 4), utilizing Y506, F509 and I510 residues.[18]

Clinical trials

[edit]

Coronary artery disease

[edit]

The BEAUTIFUL study randomised over 10917 patients having stable coronary artery disease and left ventricle dysfunction (ejection fraction < 40%). Ivabradine did not show a significant reduction in the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, admission to hospital for acute myocardial infarction, and admission to hospital for new onset or worsening heart failure. However, in a prespecified subgroup of patients with a baseline heart rate of more than 70 bpm, ivabradine significantly reduced the following secondary endpoints:[19]

  • Coronary events by 22% (P=0.023)
  • Fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarction by 36% (P=0.001)
  • Coronary revascularization by 30% (P=0.016).

These results were seen in combination therapy with beta blockers, and were found to be safe and effective in improving coronary artery disease outcomes in patients with heart rates of 70 bpm or more.[20]

The SIGNIFY trial randomised 19102 patients with stable coronary artery disease and an elevated heart rate greater than 70 beats per minute were assigned to an intervention of ivabradine or placebo in addition to standard therapy. Ivabradine did not significantly improve the secondary outcomes in patient groups, however did demonstrate a reduction in heart rate. When compared to the SHIFT study, a reduction in cardiovascular death or hospital admission was also demonstrated and hence should be considered when additional therapy is in question.[21][22]

Chronic heart failure

[edit]

In the SHIFT study, ivabradine significantly reduced the risk of the primary composite endpoint of hospitalization for worsening heart failure or cardiovascular death by 18% (P<0.0001) compared with placebo on top of optimal therapy.[23] These benefits were observed after 3 months of treatment. SHIFT also showed that administration of ivabradine to heart failure patients significantly reduced the risk of death from heart failure by 26% (P=0.014) and hospitalization for heart failure by 26% (P<0.0001). The improvements in outcomes were observed throughout all prespecified subgroups: female and male, with or without beta-blockers at randomization, patients below and over 65 years of age, with heart failure of ischemic or non-ischemic etiology, NYHA class II or class III, IV, with or without diabetes, and with or without hypertension.[24] A 2020 Cochrane review found no difference in cardiovascular mortality and serious adverse events between long-term treatment with ivabradine and placebo/usual care/no treatment in participants with heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction.[25]

A note of caution must be emphasised. Ivabradine, though indicated for chronic heart failure in patients who are clinically stable, is not indicated in acute heart failure where the enhanced heart rate represents cardiac reserve. Indiscriminate use of Ivabradine could destabilise these patients.

Society and culture

[edit]

Approval

[edit]

Ivabradine was approved by the European Medicines Agency in 2005, and by the United States Food and Drug Administration in 2015.[26]

Alleged conflict of interest

[edit]

According to a documentary and article of the Danish media channel TV2 in September 2024, a former president of the European Society of Cardiology during 2006-2008, professor Kim Fox, had a conflict of interest in relation to clinical trials of ivabradine and his recommendation of ivabradine based on the trials. According to TV2, Fox and his partner founded a company, Heart Research Ltd., which performed clinical trials and received payments from the pharmaceutical industry, allowing them to extract a total profit of 500 million DKK (67 million euro) during 2003-2015, mostly from a cooperation with the French pharmaceutical company Servier. According to TV2's research of financial statements of the company, in the period of 2004-2006, the couple received a salary of over 20 million DKK (2.7 million euro) from their company, while during the same period, Kim Fox was chairman of the taskforce recommending ivabradine, and as president of the European Society of Cardiology, he also had the role of presenting the research results and recommending ivabradin as a "gold standard" treatment at a European cardiological conference in 2008. Karsten Juhl Jørgensen, professor of medicine and conflict of interests expert at Odense University and the Nordic Cochrane Centre,[27] commented that the conflict of interest was "probably the largest he had seen". Danish chief physician Niels Holmark Andersen commented that Fox's conflict of interest was of an "oligarchal magnitude" and "the mother of all conflicts of interests" because Fox was involved in all parts of the process, that the clinical results did not sustain claims of the superiority of the medication which has serious adverse effect, and further that Servier had marketed ivabradine "aggressively" and offered physicians exclusive trips to castles in France to promote the medication during the decade of 2000-2010.[28]

Names

[edit]

It is marketed by Amgen under the brand name Corlanor in the United States,[29] and by Servier in the rest of the world under the brand names Procoralan (worldwide), Coralan (in Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia and some other countries), Corlentor (in Armenia, Spain, Italy and Romania), Lancora (in Canada) and Coraxan (in Russia and Serbia). It is also marketed in India under the brand names Ivabrad, Ivabid. In Iran it's sold under the brand name "bradix" . IVAMAC and Bradia. During its development, ivabradine was known as S-16257.

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Ivabradine

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia

Ivabradine is a selective inhibitor of the hyperpolarization-activated cyclic nucleotide-gated (HCN) channels responsible for the funny current (If) in the sinoatrial node, which reduces heart rate without altering myocardial contractility, relaxation, conduction, or blood pressure.
Approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in April 2015 as Corlanor for reducing the risk of hospitalization for worsening heart failure in adults with chronic systolic heart failure, reduced ejection fraction, and persistent sinus rhythm tachycardia despite guideline-directed therapy including beta-blockers, its efficacy stems from heart rate lowering that improves cardiac efficiency and outcomes.
Ivabradine is also indicated for chronic stable angina pectoris in patients with contraindications to beta-blockers or intolerance, where it provides symptomatic relief by decreasing myocardial oxygen demand through rate reduction alone, as evidenced in trials like the SIGNIFY study.
Notable characteristics include its lack of chronotropic or inotropic effects on ventricular tissue and absence of influence on atrioventricular nodal conduction, distinguishing it from traditional heart rate-lowering agents; however, it carries risks such as bradycardia, transient phosphenes (luminous visual sensations), and elevated incidence of atrial fibrillation, particularly in patients with preexisting conduction abnormalities.

Medical Uses

Approved Indications

Ivabradine is approved by the U.S. (FDA) for reducing the risk of hospitalization for worsening in adult patients with stable, symptomatic chronic with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35% who are in with a resting ≥70 beats per minute (bpm) and are receiving maximally tolerated beta-blocker therapy or have a to beta-blocker use. This indication, granted on April 15, 2015, stems from the SHIFT trial, which demonstrated a 18% in the composite endpoint of hospitalization for worsening or cardiovascular death in patients meeting these criteria. Approval requires confirmation of persistent elevated despite optimized standard therapy, including beta-blockers, inhibitors or receptor blockers, and antagonists where indicated. In the European Union, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) approves ivabradine for the symptomatic treatment of chronic stable angina pectoris in adults with normal sinus rhythm who have a contraindication to or intolerance of beta-blockers, or in combination with beta-blockers in patients inadequately controlled by beta-blockers alone. This authorization, initially granted in 2005 as Procoralan, targets heart rate reduction to alleviate angina frequency and improve exercise tolerance without impacting myocardial contractility or blood pressure. EMA also endorses its use in chronic heart failure under similar criteria to the FDA, for New York Heart Association class II-IV patients with LVEF ≤35%, sinus rhythm, resting heart rate ≥75 bpm (or ≥70 bpm on minimal beta-blocker dose), and optimized guideline-directed therapy, to reduce hospitalization and mortality risks as evidenced by the SHIFT trial. Regional differences reflect trial data applicability, with angina approval in Europe supported by studies like INITIATIVE showing noninferiority to atenolol in exercise duration, though U.S. approval excludes angina due to lack of mortality benefit in broader stable coronary disease cohorts like SIGNIFY.

Off-Label Uses and Investigational Applications

Ivabradine has been explored off-label for heart rate control in postoperative following coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), where randomized trials demonstrate its efficacy in reducing s and improving left ventricular (LVEF) shortly after discharge, though without impact on 12-month readmission or mortality rates. In patients with poor heart rate control post-CABG, ivabradine achieved lower resting s at discharge and follow-up intervals of 3, 6, and 12 months compared to standard care, alongside enhancements in functional capacity during when added to low-dose beta-blockers. Similar applications in (PCI) contexts remain limited, with investigational focus on promoting coronary collateral function via heart rate reduction in stable patients eligible for PCI, but without established reductions in adverse outcomes. Investigational use in atrial fibrillation (AF) centers on rate control, particularly in permanent or persistent forms, where ivabradine induces moderate heart rate reductions through inhibition of the funny current in the atrioventricular node, independent of direct rhythm alteration effects. The BRAKE-AF trial reported discrete heart rate lowering in permanent AF patients, though less pronounced than with digoxin, with no significant influence on rhythm conversion. In persistent AF, ongoing studies as of 2025 evaluate ivabradine's tolerability for rate targeting without impairing contractility, yet evidence indicates suboptimal efficacy compared to alternatives in non-sinus rhythms and a potential risk of inducing new-onset AF. For myocardial injury prevention after noncardiac , the PREVENT-MINS trial (reported August 2025) tested ivabradine versus in 2,500 patients at risk, finding no reduction in myocardial injury after noncardiac (MINS) incidence despite heart rate lowering, thus failing to support its perioperative use for this indication. Overall, applications beyond with reduced or lack robust evidence, with trials highlighting benefits but inconsistent clinical outcome improvements and applicability constraints in non-standard populations.

Dosage and Administration

Ivabradine is administered orally twice daily with meals to enhance , which approximately doubles when taken with compared to conditions. The recommended starting dose for adults with chronic heart failure with reduced (HFrEF) in and resting ≥70 beats per minute (bpm), despite optimal beta-blocker therapy or to beta-blockers, is 5 mg twice daily. After two weeks, the dose is titrated based on resting measured before the morning dose: increase to 7.5 mg twice daily if heart rate >60 bpm; maintain at 5 mg if 50-60 bpm; reduce to 2.5 mg twice daily if <50 bpm or if symptomatic bradycardia occurs. The maximum dose is 7.5 mg twice daily, with titration aiming for a target of 50-60 bpm to optimize therapeutic benefit while minimizing bradycardia risk. For chronic stable angina pectoris (approved in regions outside the United States), dosing follows a similar regimen: initiate at 5 mg twice daily, with titration to 7.5 mg twice daily after two weeks if heart rate remains ≥70 bpm and tolerated, or reduction to 2.5 mg if <60 bpm. Patients unable to swallow tablets may receive an equivalent dose via oral solution (5 mg/5 mL), ensuring precise volume measurement for administration. Dose adjustments are required for specific populations: in moderate renal impairment ( clearance 15-30 mL/min), start at 2.5 mg twice daily with a maximum of 5 mg twice daily; no adjustment for clearance >30 mL/min, but severe impairment ( clearance <15 mL/min) contraindicates use. Mild to moderate hepatic impairment (Child-Pugh A or B) requires no adjustment, while severe hepatic impairment (Child-Pugh C) is contraindicated. In elderly patients (≥75 years), initiate at the lowest effective dose (e.g., 2.5-5 mg twice daily) with close monitoring due to potentially higher plasma exposure. Concomitant moderate CYP3A4 inhibitors necessitate dose reduction to a maximum of 5 mg twice daily or avoidance if possible, based on heart rate response. Therapy should be discontinued if resting heart rate persistently falls below 50 bpm, symptomatic bradycardia develops, or if the patient experiences worsening heart failure symptoms attributable to bradycardia despite dose reduction. Ongoing heart rate monitoring at baseline, after two weeks of initiation or titration, and periodically thereafter ensures safe administration aligned with trial protocols like SHIFT, where titration protocols reduced hospitalizations by targeting rate control.

Pharmacology

Mechanism of Action

Ivabradine selectively inhibits the If (funny) current mediated by hyperpolarization-activated cyclic nucleotide-gated (HCN) channels, predominantly HCN4, in (SAN) pacemaker cells. The If current, a mixed inward sodium-potassium flux activated by hyperpolarization during diastolic , drives the spontaneous pacemaker activity by contributing to the slow rise toward the action potential threshold. By binding preferentially to the open state of HCN channels within the intracellular pore, ivabradine exerts a use-dependent block that reduces If conductance without altering channel gating kinetics or nearby structural properties. This inhibition flattens the slope of the diastolic phase, prolonging the interval to threshold and thereby decreasing the SAN firing rate in a dose-dependent manner. The selectivity of ivabradine for SAN HCN channels stems from their high expression in pacemaker tissue compared to ventricular myocardium or conduction pathways, resulting in heart rate reduction without direct effects on myocardial contractility, atrioventricular conduction, or vascular tone. Unlike beta-blockers or calcium channel antagonists, ivabradine lacks inotropic, dromotropic, or lusitropic actions, preserving left ventricular systolic function and blood pressure while avoiding alterations in action potential duration or refractoriness. It does not influence repolarizing potassium currents or other ionic conductances beyond If, thereby exerting no independent effect on the QT interval or arrhythmogenic substrates apart from bradycardia-associated risks.

Pharmacokinetics and Metabolism

Ivabradine exhibits rapid oral absorption, achieving peak plasma concentrations in approximately 1 hour under conditions. Its absolute is approximately 40%, limited by extensive first-pass in the and liver. Ingestion with food delays absorption by about 1 hour and elevates plasma exposure (AUC) by 20% to 40%, though peak concentrations (Cmax) remain similar to levels. The drug undergoes primary metabolism via CYP3A4-mediated oxidation in the gut and liver, yielding the active N-desmethyl (S-18982) with roughly 40% of ivabradine's pharmacological activity. are linear across therapeutic doses of 5 to 7.5 mg, with approximately 70% . Plasma levels decline with a distribution of 2 hours and an effective elimination of about 6 hours, supporting twice-daily dosing to maintain steady-state concentrations. Elimination occurs predominantly through hepatic metabolism, with metabolites excreted equally in feces and urine; less than 0.5% of unchanged ivabradine appears in urine. Population analyses show roughly 20% higher exposure in females versus males, while no clinically meaningful differences occur in elderly patients (≥65 years). Reduced CYP3A4 activity, as in poor metabolizers or with concomitant inhibitors, elevates ivabradine levels, potentially necessitating dose adjustments.

Pharmacodynamics

Ivabradine inhibits the hyperpolarization-activated cyclic nucleotide-gated (HCN) channels, primarily HCN4 isoforms in the , selectively blocking the funny current (If) responsible for diastolic . This results in a dose-dependent prolongation of the spontaneous firing cycle, reducing sinus rate without altering , atrioventricular conduction, or systemic . Pharmacodynamic modeling from early dose-escalation studies demonstrates a linear relationship between plasma exposure and reduction, with therapeutic doses of 5–7.5 mg twice daily achieving a proportional decrease of 10–15 beats per minute from baseline, dependent on initial resting rate. The bradycardic effect arises without reflex sympathetic activation or upregulation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, as evidenced by preserved baroreflex sensitivity and muscle sympathetic nerve activity in studies. Ivabradine's , the N-desmethyl derivative, contributes substantially to the overall If inhibition, enhancing the net bradycardic response through additive channel blockade. Secondary physiological effects remain negligible, with no measurable alterations in vascular tone, endothelial-dependent , or left ventricular at clinically relevant concentrations. Selectivity for HCN channels is confirmed by electrophysiological assays, including patch-clamp and luminescence-based high-throughput screens, showing potent, use-dependent block of HCN currents (IC50 ≈1–2 μM for key isoforms) and minimal interference with other ion channels, such as hERG potassium channels, at therapeutic plasma levels below 0.1 μM. Off-target effects are limited, with structural analyses revealing ivabradine binds specifically to the open-pore conformation of HCN4, stabilizing inhibition without broad impacts on neuronal or HCN subtypes at standard dosing. Long-term pharmacodynamic profiles indicate negligible tolerance development, with consistent lowering sustained over chronic dosing periods exceeding 3–6 months, as modeled from repeated-measures data without evidence of receptor desensitization or adaptive counter-regulation.

Safety Profile

Contraindications

Ivabradine is contraindicated in patients with or recent worsening of chronic symptoms, as its selective inhibition of the funny current in the can induce that exacerbates hemodynamic instability in such states. Similarly, it is contraindicated in or acute , where the inability to tolerate further reduction risks worsening ischemia or shock. Contraindications include intrinsic conduction system disorders such as sick sinus syndrome, sinoatrial block, or third-degree atrioventricular block, unless a functioning demand pacemaker is in place, due to the drug's propensity to prolong conduction times and precipitate severe bradycardia or asystole. It is also contraindicated in patients with resting heart rate below 60 beats per minute or pacemaker-dependent rhythm, as baseline bradycardia amplifies the risk of excessive rate slowing without compensatory mechanisms. Severe hepatic impairment (Child-Pugh class C) represents an absolute barrier, given the absence of safety data and pharmacokinetic studies indicating markedly elevated systemic exposure from reduced metabolism, which heightens bradycardia risk. Concomitant administration with strong CYP3A4 inhibitors, such as ketoconazole, is contraindicated owing to substantial increases in ivabradine plasma concentrations—up to fivefold—leading to dose-dependent bradycardia observed in interaction studies. Ivabradine is contraindicated during due to findings in animal studies, including embryofetal lethality and cardiac malformations at exposures below human therapeutic levels, coupled with insufficient human data. is also contraindicated, as ivabradine is excreted into and could pose risks to the via bradycardic effects. to ivabradine or its excipients further precludes use.

Adverse Effects

The most common adverse effects associated with ivabradine are , luminous phenomena (phosphenes), and . , which is dose-dependent, was reported in 10% of patients in the SHIFT for (versus 2.2% on ), with symptomatic cases in 2.7% and in 3.4%. Phosphenes, manifesting as transient visual flashes or brightness, occurred in 2.8% of SHIFT participants (versus 0.5% ) and are typically reversible upon discontinuation. incidence ranges from 2-3% across clinical evaluations. Serious adverse effects include an excess risk of , with 8.3% incidence in ivabradine-treated patients versus 6.6% on in SHIFT (a 1-2% absolute increase corroborated by meta-analyses showing relative risks of 1.15-1.24). Ventricular arrhythmias are rare but may be linked to induced . Preclinical studies demonstrate fetal , though human post-marketing data are limited to isolated exposures without confirmed teratogenicity. Pooled trial data indicate dose-related elevations in overall adverse events, such as 73.3% versus 66.9% in the SIGNIFY trial for stable coronary artery disease (primarily driven by bradycardia at 18% versus 2.3%). Long-term follow-up in heart failure cohorts reveals no excess mortality signal from ivabradine, consistent with its net benefits in reducing hospitalizations despite higher discontinuation rates (13% versus 7% placebo due to adverse events). Patient experiences, aggregated from post-marketing reports, yield average ratings of 7.0/10, with 67% positive outcomes but 22% negative, often citing side effects like bradycardia and visual disturbances as primary concerns.

Drug Interactions

Ivabradine is primarily metabolized by the cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4) enzyme, rendering it susceptible to pharmacokinetic interactions with CYP3A4 modulators that alter its plasma exposure and therapeutic effects. Strong CYP3A4 inhibitors, such as ketoconazole and ritonavir, substantially increase ivabradine area under the curve (AUC) by approximately 2.6-fold and maximum concentration (C_max) by 3-fold, heightening the risk of dose-dependent bradycardia and conduction abnormalities; their concomitant use is contraindicated. Moderate CYP3A4 inhibitors like verapamil or diltiazem elevate ivabradine exposure by about 2-fold, necessitating a reduced starting dose (e.g., 2.5 mg twice daily) and close heart rate monitoring to mitigate excessive sinus node suppression. Grapefruit juice, a moderate CYP3A4 inhibitor, similarly boosts ivabradine levels by up to 2.3-fold and is not recommended during therapy. Conversely, inducers such as rifampicin or St. John's wort decrease ivabradine by roughly 80%, potentially diminishing its heart rate-lowering efficacy and warranting avoidance or dose escalation under monitoring. Pharmacodynamic interactions predominate with other negative agents, including beta-blockers (e.g., metoprolol), , and , which additively reduce heart rate without significant pharmacokinetic alterations; for instance, digoxin levels remain unchanged with ivabradine co-administration, but combined use heightens risk, requiring electrocardiographic surveillance and possible dose titration. No clinically meaningful pharmacokinetic interactions occur with statins (e.g., ), antiplatelet agents (e.g., aspirin, clopidogrel), or standard therapies like ACE inhibitors or diuretics beyond pharmacodynamic effects. Ivabradine's low affinity for as a substrate or inhibitor minimizes its impact on co-administered drugs' metabolism. Management emphasizes avoiding contraindicated combinations, monitoring resting (target >50-60 bpm), and adjusting doses based on exposure-response data from pharmacokinetic models.

Clinical Evidence

Pivotal Trials for Heart Failure and Angina

The Systolic Heart Failure Treatment with the If Inhibitor Ivabradine Trial (SHIFT), published in 2010, was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study involving 6,558 patients with chronic systolic heart failure (ejection fraction ≤35%), sinus rhythm, and resting heart rate ≥70 beats per minute despite optimal medical therapy. Patients received ivabradine titrated to 7.5 mg twice daily or placebo, with a median follow-up of 22.9 months. The primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for worsening heart failure occurred in 793 of 3,241 patients (24%) in the ivabradine group versus 937 of 3,217 (29%) in the placebo group, yielding a hazard ratio of 0.82 (95% CI 0.75-0.90; p<0.0001), corresponding to an 18% relative risk reduction.61198-1/fulltext) Ivabradine reduced heart rate by an average of 15 beats per minute at 28 days, with benefits most pronounced in subgroups with baseline heart rate ≥77 beats per minute, where absolute risk reduction for the primary endpoint reached approximately 5% over the trial duration. Efficacy was limited to patients in sinus rhythm, with no significant benefit observed in those with atrial fibrillation. The MorBidity-mortality EvAlUation of the If inhibitor ivabradine in patients with coronary disease and left ventricular dysfunction (BEAUTIFUL) trial, reported in 2008, enrolled 10,917 patients with stable coronary artery disease and left ventricular systolic dysfunction (ejection fraction <40%), randomized to ivabradine (up to 7.5 mg twice daily) or placebo on background beta-blocker therapy in 87% of cases.61170-8/fulltext) The primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, admission for acute myocardial infarction, or heart failure occurred in 832 of 5,458 patients (15%) in the ivabradine group versus 769 of 5,459 (14%) in placebo (hazard ratio 1.08; 95% CI 0.98-1.20; p=0.127), showing no overall benefit. Ivabradine reduced heart rate by 6 beats per minute at 12 months, but hospitalization for heart failure was reduced in the subgroup with baseline heart rate ≥70 beats per minute (hazard ratio 0.74; 95% CI 0.58-0.94). As with SHIFT, effects were confined to sinus rhythm patients with elevated heart rates. For chronic stable angina, the INITIATIVE trial (International Trial on the Treatment of Angina with IvaBradine versus Atenolol), conducted in 2005, randomized 939 patients with exertional to ivabradine (5-10 mg twice daily) or atenolol (50-100 mg once daily) over 4 months. Ivabradine increased total exercise duration by 57.5 seconds from baseline versus 56.7 seconds for atenolol (difference -0.2 seconds; p=0.0002 for non-inferiority), with comparable reductions in angina attacks (ivabradine: -0.76 per week; atenolol: -0.85; p=0.18) and nitrate use. Earlier placebo-controlled studies confirmed ivabradine's superiority in symptom relief and ischemia reduction, with benefits tied to heart rate lowering in patients with limiting heart rates ≥70 beats per minute during exercise. These trials established ivabradine's role as add-on therapy for when beta-blockers are insufficient or contraindicated, particularly in .

Trials in Coronary Artery Disease and Tachycardia

The SIGNIFY trial evaluated ivabradine in 19,102 patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and a resting heart rate of at least 70 beats per minute, without clinical heart failure, randomized to ivabradine or placebo added to standard therapy including beta-blockers in about 60% of participants. The primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina or heart failure showed no significant reduction with ivabradine (hazard ratio 0.99; 95% CI, 0.91-1.07; p=0.73), despite a mean heart rate reduction of approximately 10 beats per minute at 3 months (60.7 vs. 70.6 beats per minute in the placebo group). Secondary analyses confirmed heart rate lowering but no benefits in angina frequency or quality of life; however, ivabradine increased atrial fibrillation incidence (hazard ratio 1.18; 95% CI, 1.03-1.35) and, in a subgroup with activity-limiting angina, raised the primary endpoint risk (hazard ratio 1.18; 95% CI, 1.03-1.35). Adverse events, including symptomatic bradycardia and phosphenes, were more frequent with ivabradine (18.0% vs. 12.0%). In patients with (IST), a condition often overlapping with CAD-related , ivabradine has demonstrated heart rate reduction and symptom relief in small, mostly non-randomized studies. A prospective of 22 patients with IST treated with ivabradine (up to 15 mg daily) reported significant symptom improvement, with , , and eliminated in about 50% of cases after 2 months, alongside a mean drop from 99 to 75 beats per minute on Holter monitoring. Comparative data from a randomized crossover study (n=30) showed ivabradine superior to metoprolol succinate in tolerability and equivalent in reducing mean (from 94 to 72 beats per minute), with better exercise tolerance preservation. However, evidence remains limited by small sample sizes, lack of large randomized controlled trials, and potential effects on subjective symptoms, as no adequately powered placebo-controlled RCT exists for IST. Post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) trials in CAD patients with persistent have shown ivabradine effectively lowers post-discharge without compromising safety. In a retrospective cohort of 120 acute patients post-PCI with suboptimal control despite beta-blockers, ivabradine initiation led to sustained reductions (e.g., 72 vs. 82 beats per minute at discharge) and improved left ventricular at 12 months (48% vs. 44%), though long-term event rates like readmissions were not significantly altered. Meta-analyses of such adjunctive use confirm benefits in stable CAD subsets post-revascularization, with no excess adverse events, but primary outcomes like composite cardiovascular events remain neutral similar to SIGNIFY, emphasizing secondary hemodynamic gains over mortality reduction. These findings suggest utility in management where beta-blockers alone fail, though randomized data versus beta-blockers specifically for readmission prevention in non-heart failure CAD cohorts are sparse.

Recent Developments and Meta-Analyses (2015–2025)

The PREVENT-MINS trial, a multicenter randomized controlled study involving approximately 2,500 patients aged 45 and older undergoing noncardiac , evaluated ivabradine's ability to prevent myocardial injury after noncardiac (MINS). Despite achieving a significant reduction (mean difference of about 10 beats per minute versus ), ivabradine administered at 5 mg twice daily for 30 days did not reduce the incidence of MINS (primary outcome: 12.5% in ivabradine group versus 13.2% in ; hazard 0.95, 95% CI 0.78-1.16, p=0.62) nor secondary outcomes like 30-day mortality or vascular events. This result, presented at the Congress in August 2025, highlights limitations in extrapolating control benefits to perioperative settings without established systolic dysfunction. Meta-analyses from 2016 to 2024 have reaffirmed ivabradine's efficacy in reducing resting heart rate in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), with average reductions of 10-12 beats per minute versus comparators. In HFrEF cohorts, pooled data from randomized trials showed improved left ventricular ejection fraction (mean increase 4-6%), reduced heart failure hospitalizations (risk ratio 0.82, 95% CI 0.75-0.90), and lower composite mortality-hospitalization rates, though all-cause mortality benefits were inconsistent without baseline heart rates ≥70 bpm. Safety profiles in these analyses indicated no excess serious adverse events beyond known risks like atrial fibrillation onset (odds ratio 1.25 in CAD subsets), supporting selective use in sinus rhythm patients intolerant to beta-blockers. One 2024 analysis noted enhanced "win ratios" for hierarchical clinical outcomes (e.g., death, hospitalization, quality of life) favoring ivabradine in HFrEF, driven by heart rate modulation without hemodynamic compromise. Studies on ivabradine for rate control in (AF), particularly persistent or permanent forms, reported moderate ventricular rate reductions (8-15 beats per minute at rest) without inducing proarrhythmia or worsening conduction in short- to medium-term follow-up (up to 12 months). A 2025 prospective study in patients with inadequate beta-blocker response post-cardioversion found sustained targets (<80 bpm) achieved in 65% of ivabradine-treated cases versus 40% controls, with stable and no increased AF recurrence. Reviews up to 2025 position ivabradine as an adjunct for hyperkalemia-intolerant or hypotensive patients, leveraging its atrioventricular nodal effects via funny current inhibition, though evidence remains observational or small-scale without mortality endpoints. In post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) settings for acute myocardial infarction complicated by heart failure, a 2025 retrospective analysis (n=1,200, propensity-matched) demonstrated ivabradine's superiority over beta-blockers for reducing heart failure readmissions at 2 years (hazard ratio 0.72, 95% CI 0.55-0.94), attributed to better heart rate control (mean 68 vs. 74 bpm) without elevating bradycardia or bleeding risks. However, no differences emerged in all-cause mortality (9.5% vs. 10.2%) or major adverse cardiac events, underscoring niche benefits in readmission prevention rather than survival gains. These findings align with meta-analytic confirmation of ivabradine's long-term tolerability in CAD-HF overlap but emphasize patient selection to avoid unselected use linked to atrial fibrillation signals in earlier CAD trials.

Regulatory History

Development and Approval Timeline

Ivabradine was developed by Servier Laboratories in France during the 1990s, originating from a screening program of novel benzocycloalkane derivatives designed to selectively inhibit the hyperpolarization-activated cyclic nucleotide-gated (HCN) channel, known as the "funny current" (If), in the sinoatrial node to reduce heart rate without affecting contractility or blood pressure. The compound, initially designated S-16257, advanced to clinical trials after preclinical studies demonstrated its specificity for cardiac pacemaker activity. Servier received marketing authorization from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for ivabradine, branded as Procoralan, on November 16, 2005, for the symptomatic treatment of chronic stable angina pectoris in adults with normal sinus rhythm unable to use beta-blockers. This initial approval was supported by phase III trials such as the INITIATIVE study, which showed noninferiority to atenolol in controlling angina symptoms and exercise tolerance. In 2012, the EMA expanded approval to include treatment of chronic heart failure in adults with systolic dysfunction, based on the SHIFT trial results demonstrating reduced hospitalization risk. In the United States, Amgen secured rights from Servier in 2013 to develop and commercialize ivabradine, filing a New Drug Application with the FDA supported by the SHIFT trial data. The FDA granted approval for Corlanor (ivabradine) on April 15, 2015, specifically for reducing the risk of hospitalization for worsening heart failure in adults with chronic heart failure (New York Heart Association Class II-IV) with ejection fraction ≤35%, sinus rhythm, and resting heart rate ≥70 beats per minute on maximum tolerated beta-blocker therapy. Further development addressed pediatric needs; on April 22, 2019, the FDA approved an oral solution formulation of Corlanor for children aged 6 months and older with stable symptomatic due to , marking the first U.S. approval for this population based on pharmacokinetic bridging studies and limited efficacy data extrapolated from adults. Post-2010s trials, such as those exploring , have supported in select regions but have not led to formal expanded regulatory indications beyond and .

Global Regulatory Status

The (EMA) authorizes ivabradine for the of chronic stable angina pectoris in adults with normal who have a , intolerance, or inadequate control with beta-blockers, and for chronic (NYHA class II to IV) with systolic dysfunction in adults in with ≥ 75 beats per minute despite treatment with evidence-based doses of beta-blockers or maximum tolerated dose. Concomitant use with strong or moderate inhibitors (e.g., , , verapamil, ) is contraindicated due to risk of excessive from elevated ivabradine exposure. In the United States, the (FDA) approves ivabradine (as Corlanor) solely for reducing the risk of hospitalization for worsening in adults with stable, symptomatic chronic with left ventricular ≤ 35%, in with ≥ 70 beats per minute, either on maximum tolerated beta-blocker dose or with beta-blocker . It carries warnings for (including risk of conduction disturbances), (observed in 9% of patients in trials), and fetal toxicity (contraindicated in pregnancy with required contraception in females of reproductive potential); strong inhibitors are contraindicated, while moderate inhibitors require dose reduction or avoidance. Ivabradine is prescription-only and not approved for or primary prevention in without , reflecting outcomes from the SIGNIFY trial showing no primary endpoint benefit and increased risk in such patients. Health Canada approves ivabradine (as Lancora) for symptomatic stable chronic angina in patients with normal sinus rhythm unable to use beta-blockers and for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in sinus rhythm with heart rate ≥ 77 beats per minute despite optimized beta-blocker therapy. The UK's Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) maintains EMA-aligned authorization as a prescription-only medicine (POM) for angina and heart failure indications, with post-Brexit continuity. Australia's Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) approves it for chronic stable angina in normal sinus rhythm patients inadequately controlled or intolerant to beta-blockers, with heart failure use permitted under similar heart rate criteria but a median threshold of 77 beats per minute in labeling. No major global withdrawals or outright bans exist, though European scrutiny of manufacturer Servier (linked to prior drug safety issues) prompted EMA reviews without altering core approvals.

Post-Approval Modifications and Surveillance

In April 2019, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) extended approval of ivabradine to pediatric patients aged 6 months and older with stable, symptomatic heart failure due to dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM), supported by a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in 116 patients demonstrating heart rate reduction without increased adverse events beyond those in adults. This modification included an oral solution formulation for precise dosing in children weighing less than 40 kg, starting at 0.05 mg/kg twice daily. Post-marketing , including FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) , has revealed increased reports of (AF) temporally linked to ivabradine initiation, particularly in patients with underlying risk factors, prompting label enhancements for routine ECG monitoring and discontinuation if sustained or paroxysmal AF develops. Other post-approval signals include syncope, , and rare ventricular arrhythmias like , attributed causally to bradycardic effects exacerbating conduction abnormalities, though incidence remains low (e.g., AF in ~1-5% of exposed cases per meta-analyses of real-world reports). No black-box warnings have been added beyond embryofetal toxicity, which contraindicates use in due to showing cardiac teratogenicity and post-implantation loss, with case reports limited but emphasizing avoidance. Real-world surveillance aligns with pivotal trial safety profiles, with common non-severe effects like phosphenes and mild bradycardia driving discontinuation in approximately 5-17% of users across cohorts, often due to symptomatic heart rate slowing rather than severe events. Pediatric post-marketing reviews through 2022 confirm consistency, with bradycardia and hypertension predominant but rarely necessitating withdrawal. Ongoing monitoring via FAERS and registries underscores no emergent causal risks beyond anticipated If-current inhibition, supporting sustained use in indicated populations with vigilant heart rate oversight.

Controversies and Criticisms

SIGNIFY Trial and Safety Signals

The SIGNIFY trial (Study Assessing the Morbidity-Mortality Benefits of the If Inhibitor Ivabradine in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease), published in 2014, evaluated ivabradine versus placebo in 19,102 patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) without clinical heart failure, focusing on those with a resting heart rate ≥70 bpm on sinus rhythm. The primary composite endpoint—cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for worsening or urgent heart failure—occurred in 7.0% of the ivabradine group versus 6.5% of the placebo group, yielding a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.08 (95% CI 0.96-1.20; P=0.20), indicating no significant benefit from heart rate reduction with ivabradine. Cardiovascular mortality alone showed no difference (HR 1.05; 95% CI 0.90-1.22). In a prespecified subgroup analysis of patients with symptomatic angina (Canadian Cardiovascular Society class ≥II, comprising about 28% of participants), ivabradine was associated with increased risk of the primary endpoint (HR 1.18; 95% CI 1.03-1.35), driven primarily by higher rates of hospitalization for heart failure or atrial fibrillation, raising concerns about harm in those with activity-limiting symptoms despite overall trial neutrality. This subgroup finding, while exploratory and potentially limited by reduced power (as subgroup analyses inherently lack the statistical robustness of the main cohort), highlighted differential effects that questioned ivabradine's safety profile in broader CAD populations beyond heart failure. No overall mortality benefit was observed, undermining rationale for routine heart rate lowering in stable CAD without systolic dysfunction. Safety signals were prominent, with adverse events reported in 73.3% of ivabradine-treated patients versus 66.9% on placebo (P<0.001), including significantly higher incidences of symptomatic bradycardia (18.0% vs. 2.3%; P<0.001) and emergent atrial fibrillation (6.5% vs. 5.3%; HR 1.22; 95% CI 1.07-1.38). These events, causally linked to ivabradine's If current inhibition in the sinoatrial node, led to more discontinuations (13% vs. 8%) and prompted post-trial regulatory scrutiny, including European Medicines Agency updates restricting ivabradine to chronic stable angina only in patients intolerant to beta-blockers or with contraindications, while advising against initiation in those with resting heart rate <70 bpm or existing conduction abnormalities to mitigate risks without proven efficacy gains. Empirical data from SIGNIFY thus challenge expanded use in CAD, as elevated adverse events without offsetting benefits suggest net harm potential in unselected patients, particularly those with angina.

Alleged Conflicts of Interest

Servier Laboratories, the developer of ivabradine, sponsored pivotal trials including BEAUTIFUL (2008) and SIGNIFY (2014), both of which evaluated the drug's effects in patients with . In these studies, Servier provided funding and non-voting representation on executive committees, prompting questions about potential influences on trial design, data interpretation, and reporting. These concerns were amplified by Servier's involvement in scandal, where the company was convicted in 2021 and 2023 of aggravated deception, manslaughter, and fraud related to the withdrawn drug, which caused an estimated 500–2,000 deaths due to and ; courts imposed fines exceeding €430 million and highlighted systemic misrepresentation of risks. Such precedents have led critics to question Servier's impartiality in ivabradine research, suggesting possible selective emphasis on positive subgroups despite overall neutral or adverse findings in broader populations. In 2013, licensed North American rights to ivabradine from Servier for a $50 million upfront payment plus milestones and royalties, shortly before SIGNIFY results revealed no cardiovascular benefit in stable without and hinted at increased risks in subgroups with . Despite scrutiny of these outcomes, the U.S. approved ivabradine (Corlanor) in April 2015 for chronic based primarily on SHIFT trial data, with SIGNIFY cited as supportive but not pivotal for that indication. This approval occurred amid ongoing debates over Servier-Amgen ties, as the licensing predated full SIGNIFY disclosure, raising allegations of commercial pressures influencing regulatory interpretations. Subsequent independent meta-analyses of ivabradine in heart failure, incorporating data beyond Servier-sponsored trials, have affirmed benefits in reducing hospitalizations and mortality in select patients with elevated heart rates, partially addressing funding bias critiques through pooled re-analysis. However, these reviews note persistent uncertainties in selective outcome reporting from primary studies and do not fully dispel concerns over manufacturer-driven subgroup analyses that may prioritize marketable indications. Overall, while empirical evidence supports targeted use, the Servier scandals and trial sponsorship underscore the need for heightened scrutiny of disclosed financial relationships in interpreting ivabradine data.

Debates on Risk-Benefit Ratio

In patients with with reduced (HFrEF) and persistently elevated despite optimal beta-blocker therapy, ivabradine demonstrates a favorable risk-benefit profile primarily through reductions in heart failure hospitalizations, with a number needed to treat (NNT) of approximately 20 to prevent one such event over 18-24 months. This benefit stems from heart rate lowering without negative inotropic effects, preserving myocardial oxygen supply-demand balance in high-rate subsets (resting ≥70 bpm). However, the absolute risk reduction for composite cardiovascular death or hospitalization is modest (around 5 percentage points), and no standalone mortality benefit has been consistently observed, prompting debates on whether hospitalization avoidance justifies routine use amid alternative therapies like SGLT2 inhibitors that offer broader endpoint improvements. Key risks include symptomatic bradycardia (incidence up to 10-18% in trials, often requiring dose adjustment or discontinuation) and a dose-dependent increase in atrial fibrillation (AF) onset (hazard ratio approximately 1.2-1.8 compared to placebo), which can exacerbate heart failure decompensation or necessitate anticoagulation. These adverse effects are more pronounced in patients with baseline conduction abnormalities or lower heart rates, where benefits diminish as heart rate reduction plateaus below 60 bpm, leading experts to advocate for individualized thresholds rather than blanket application. In non-responders or those without refractory tachycardia, bradycardia-related symptoms may outweigh hospitalization gains, with some analyses indicating neutral or unfavorable net clinical benefit due to higher serious adverse event rates. For stable (CAD) without overt , the risk-benefit tilts against ivabradine, as empirical data show no reduction in despite lowering, alongside elevated and AF risks that could precipitate ischemia or arrhythmias in low-risk populations. Cardiologists remain divided, with proponents emphasizing additive symptom relief in beta-blocker-intolerant cases, while critics highlight over-reliance on surrogate endpoints like without hard outcome validation, questioning promotion beyond high-need HFrEF subsets. Recent expert consensus underscores selective use in refractory scenarios, prioritizing patient-specific factors like <35% and to maximize net benefit while minimizing AF provocation.

Society and Culture

Brand Names and Manufacturers

Ivabradine is marketed under the proprietary name Procoralan by the French pharmaceutical company Servier in the and various other regions outside the . In the , Servier licensed the rights to the drug to , which commercializes it as Corlanor. Servier originated the development of ivabradine as a selective inhibitor of the funny current (I_f) in cells. Generic formulations of ivabradine hydrochloride have become available in select markets following patent expirations. In the United States, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first generic versions of ivabradine tablets (5 mg and 7.5 mg strengths) in 2021, marketed by manufacturers including Ingenus Pharmaceuticals and Camber Pharmaceuticals. No generic equivalent for the oral solution formulation (5 mg/5 mL) is currently approved in the U.S. In the European Union, generic options such as Ivabradine Accord (tablets in 5 mg and 7.5 mg doses) are authorized by the European Medicines Agency. Corlanor and Procoralan are available in tablet form at 5 mg and 7.5 mg strengths, with Corlanor additionally offered as an oral solution for pediatric use.

Access and Economic Considerations

In the United States, the brand-name Corlanor (ivabradine) carried a high cost prior to generic entry, with average prices exceeding $700 for a 30-day supply of 5 mg tablets (approximately 60 tablets, aligning with typical twice-daily dosing). Generic ivabradine became available following FDA approvals starting in December 2021, with additional manufacturers entering the market in 2022 and 2024, leading to substantial price reductions; for instance, 30 tablets of 5 mg generic ivabradine can now cost as low as $21.26. These generics have improved affordability, though out-of-pocket costs vary by coverage and pharmacy. Utilization of ivabradine remains limited primarily to its niche in chronic management, particularly for patients with and heart rates above 70 bpm despite optimal beta-blocker therapy, due to established preferences for beta-blockers as first-line agents and awareness of ivabradine's risks such as and . In registries like the Swedish Heart Failure Registry, eligibility for ivabradine was estimated at 14.2% among patients, reflecting constrained real-world adoption beyond this specific subgroup. Globally, ivabradine enjoys broader availability in high-income regions like the , where it has been marketed as Procoralan since EMA approval in 2005 for and later indications, facilitating reimbursement in many national health systems. In contrast, access in low-resource settings is curtailed by elevated relative costs, limited healthcare infrastructure for monitoring, and prioritization of lower-cost alternatives like beta-blockers, exacerbating disparities in guideline-directed therapy implementation.

References

  1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK507783/
  2. https://go.drugbank.com/drugs/DB09083
  3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4671466/
  4. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circulationaha.115.018094
  5. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2015/206143orig1s000medr.pdf
  6. https://www.jacc.org/doi/10.1016/j.jacc.2017.08.038
  7. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1074248416672008
  8. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2019/209964lbl.pdf
  9. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2015/206143orig1s000lbl.pdf
  10. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/procoralan
  11. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7441002/
  12. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cardiovascular-medicine/articles/10.3389/fcvm.2025.1560639/full
  13. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1074248415575963
  14. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01039389
  15. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1547527123001509
  16. https://www.heartrhythmjournal.com/article/S1547-5271%2823%2900549-0/fulltext
  17. https://trial.medpath.com/clinical-trial/d2aac9a0a74c5c17/nct07135258-ivabradine-rate-control-persistent-atrial-fibrillation
  18. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5933550/
  19. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.125.076704
  20. https://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/articles/2025/08/26/11/47/sat-1145am-prevent-esc-2025
  21. https://www.drugs.com/dosage/ivabradine.html
  22. https://reference.medscape.com/drug/corlanor-ivabradine-999983
  23. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/procoralan-epar-product-information_en.pdf
  24. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pharmacology/articles/10.3389/fphar.2019.01566/full
  25. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6268830/
  26. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1779671/
  27. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1448693/
  28. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1734114013715007
  29. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circulationaha.112.000145
  30. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2402259121
  31. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2015/206143Orig1s000ClinPharmR.pdf
  32. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2019/209964Orig1s000ClinPharmR.pdf
  33. https://openheart.bmj.com/content/5/1/e000725
  34. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/JAHA.115.002674
  35. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9728900/
  36. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12325-014-0147-3
  37. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/01.cir.0000118464.48959.1c
  38. https://heart.bmj.com/content/100/19/1506
  39. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2015/206143Orig1s000RiskR.pdf
  40. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1406430
  41. https://www.drugs.com/comments/ivabradine/
  42. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-conclusion/procoralan-epar-scientific-conclusion_en.pdf
  43. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5013853/
  44. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20801500/
  45. https://www.acc.org/Latest-in-Cardiology/Clinical-Trials/2012/05/20/16/30/SHIFT
  46. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circheartfailure.117.004112
  47. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18595216/
  48. https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/34/29/2263/401143
  49. https://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/clinical-trials/2013/04/13/20/54/beautiful
  50. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16214830/
  51. https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/26/23/2529/2888048
  52. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/01.cir.0000048143.25023.87
  53. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/pdi.1405
  54. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22981555/
  55. https://academic.oup.com/europace/article/15/1/116/528440
  56. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1547527117311979
  57. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12125783/
  58. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40884771/
  59. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26839043/
  60. https://www.cureus.com/articles/310598-effect-of-ivabradine-on-heart-failure-a-2024-meta-analysis.pdf
  61. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38729854/
  62. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39944426/
  63. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12003289/
  64. https://www.heartrhythmjournal.com/article/S1547-5271%2825%2902618-9/abstract
  65. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40450212/
  66. https://bmccardiovascdisord.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12872-025-04854-x
  67. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16638639/
  68. https://academic.oup.com/eurheartjsupp/article/17/suppl_G/G1/2949969
  69. https://www.amgen.com/newsroom/company-statements/archives/statements-and-responses/amgen-statement-on-fda-fast-track-designation-for-investigational-ivabradine
  70. https://investors.amgen.com/news-releases/news-release-details/amgen-and-servier-announce-product-collaboration
  71. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/opdlisting/oopd/detailedIndex.cfm?cfgridkey=511915
  72. https://dhpp.hpfb-dgpsa.ca/review-documents/resource/RDS00262
  73. https://www.tga.gov.au/sites/default/files/auspar-coralan.pdf
  74. https://www.amgen.com/newsroom/company-statements/archives/statements-and-responses/amgen-statement-on-ema-review-of-ivabradine
  75. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2019/209964Orig1s000Approv.pdf
  76. https://www.thecardiologyadvisor.com/news/corlanor-gets-fda-approval-for-pediatric-indication-new-oral-solution-formulation/
  77. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4174120/
  78. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14740338.2024.2412220
  79. https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/drugInfo.cfm?setid=2ead1cf3-e61a-49c4-e063-6294a90a330f
  80. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8497193/
  81. https://www.fda.gov/media/169204/download
  82. https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/830727
  83. https://mdedge.com/ecardiologynews/article/86881/cad-atherosclerosis/signify-ivabradine-no-help-stable-cad
  84. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26385957/
  85. https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/36/46/3297/2398338
  86. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673608611708/abstract
  87. https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/french-drugmaker-servier-ordered-pay-471-million-mediator-scandal-2023-12-20/
  88. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/29/french-pharma-firm-found-guilty-over-medical-scandal-in-which-up-to-2000-died
  89. https://www.forbes.com/sites/larryhusten/2014/06/12/sharp-scrutiny-from-european-medicines-agency-of-amgen-and-servier-heart-drug/
  90. https://www.amgen.com/newsroom/press-releases/2015/04/fda-approves-corlanor-ivabradine-to-reduce-the-risk-of-hospitalization-for-worsening-heart-failure-in-patients-with-chronic-heart-failure
  91. https://www.reuters.com/article/business/study-raises-concerns-over-servier-amgen-heart-drug-idUSL5N0R10AX/
  92. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10552613/
  93. https://www.cureus.com/articles/310598-effect-of-ivabradine-on-heart-failure-a-2024-meta-analysis
  94. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2824%2900154-5/fulltext
  95. https://about.ebsco.com/clinical-decisions/dynamed-solutions/about/ebm-focus/ivabradine-reduces-heart-failure-mortality-and
  96. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26361063/
  97. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6196638/
  98. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6989297/
  99. https://bmccardiovascdisord.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12872-024-04339-3
  100. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6490712/
  101. https://openheart.bmj.com/content/7/2/e001288
  102. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10518888/
  103. https://www.mdpi.com/1648-9144/60/2/303
  104. https://adisinsight.springer.com/drugs/800003017
  105. https://www.camberpharma.com/camber-pharmaceuticals-launches-generic-corlanor/
  106. https://www.drugs.com/availability/generic-corlanor.html
  107. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/ivabradine-accord
  108. https://www.singlecare.com/prescription/corlanor
  109. https://www.costplusdrugs.com/medications/ivabradine-hcl-5mg-tablet/
  110. https://www.pharmacychecker.com/ivabradine/
  111. https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article-abstract/43/23/2224/6564923
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.