Should β blockers remain first choice in the treatment of primary hypertension? A meta-analysis

Department of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Umeå University Hospital, Umeå, Sweden.
The Lancet (Impact Factor: 45.22). 10/2005; 366(9496):1545-53. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67573-3
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Beta blockers have been used widely in the treatment of hypertension and are recommended as first-line drugs in hypertension guidelines. However, a preliminary analysis has shown that atenolol is not very effective in hypertension. We aim to substantially enlarge the data on atenolol and analyse the effect of different beta blockers.
The Cochrane Library and PubMed were searched for beta blocker treatment in patients with primary hypertension. Data were then entered into the Cochrane Collaboration Review Manager package and were summarised in meta-analyses. 13 randomised controlled trials (n=105 951) were included in a meta-analysis comparing treatment with beta blockers with other antihypertensive drugs. Seven studies (n=27 433) were included in a comparison of beta blockers and placebo or no treatment.
The relative risk of stroke was 16% higher for beta blockers (95% CI 4-30%) than for other drugs. There was no difference for myocardial infarction. When the effect of beta blockers was compared with that of placebo or no treatment, the relative risk of stroke was reduced by 19% for all beta blockers (7-29%), about half that expected from previous hypertension trials. There was no difference for myocardial infarction or mortality.
In comparison with other antihypertensive drugs, the effect of beta blockers is less than optimum, with a raised risk of stroke. Hence, we believe that beta blockers should not remain first choice in the treatment of primary hypertension and should not be used as reference drugs in future randomised controlled trials of hypertension.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Perindopril and lisinopril are two common ACE inhibitors prescribed for management of hypertension. Few studies evaluated their comparative effectiveness to reduce mortality. This study compared the all-cause and cardiovascular related mortality among patients newly prescribed ACE inhibitors. Methods: All adult patients newly prescribed perindopril or lisinopril from 2001 to 2005 in all public clinics or hospitals in Hong Kong were retrospectively evaluated, and followed up until 2010. Patients prescribed the ACE inhibitors for less than a month were excluded. The all-cause and cardiovascular-specific (i.e. coronary heart disease, heart failure and stroke) mortality were compared. Cox proportional hazard regression model was used to assess the mortality, controlling for age, sex, socioeconomic status, patient types, the presence of comorbidities, and medication adherence as measured by the Proportion of Days Covered. An additional model using propensity scores were performed to minimize indication bias. Results: A total of 15,622 patients were included in this study, in which 6,910 were perindopril users and 8,712 lisinopril users. The all-cause mortality (22.2% vs. 20.0%, p<0.005) and cardiovascular mortality (6.5% vs. 5.6%, p<0.005) were higher among lisinopril users than perindopril users. From regression analyses, lisinopril users were 1.09-fold (95% C.I. 1.01-1.16) and 1.18-fold (95% C.I. 1.02-1.35) more likely to die from any-cause and cardiovascular diseases, respectively. Age-stratified analysis showed that this significant difference was observed only among patients aged>70 years. The additional models controlled for propensity scores yielded comparable results. Conclusions: The long-term all-cause and cardiovascular related mortality of lisinopril users was significantly different from that of perindopril users. These findings showed the intra-class variation on mortality exists among ACE inhibitors among those aged 70 years or older. Future studies should consider a longer, large-scale randomized controlled trial to compare the effectiveness between different medications in the ACEI class, especially among the elderly.
    International Journal of Cardiology 07/2014; 176(3). DOI:10.1016/j.ijcard.2014.07.114 · 6.18 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Recent Advances in the Pathogenesis, Prevention and Management of Type 2 Diabetes and its Complications, 08/2011; , ISBN: 978-953-307-597-6
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Once released, norepinephrine is removed from cardiac synapses via reuptake into sympathetic nerves, whereas transmitter ATP is catabolized by ecto-NTP diphosphohydrolase 1 (E-NTPDase1)/CD39, an ecto-ATPase. Because ATP is known to modulate neurotransmitter release at prejunctional sites, we questioned whether this action may be ultimately controlled by the expression of E-NTPDase1/CD39 at sympathetic nerve terminals. Accordingly, we silenced E-NTPDase1/CD39 expression in nerve growth factor-differentiated PC12 cells, a cellular model of sympathetic neuron, in which dopamine is the predominant catecholamine. We report that E-NTPDase1/CD39 deletion markedly increases depolarization-induced exocytosis of ATP and dopamine and increases ATP-induced dopamine release. Moreover, overexpression of E-NTPDase1/CD39 resulted in enhanced removal of exogenous ATP, a marked decrease in exocytosis of ATP and dopamine, and a large decrease in ATP-induced dopamine release. Administration of a recombinant form of E-NTPDase1/CD39 reproduced the effects of E-NTPDase1/CD39 overexpression. Exposure of PC12 cells to simulated ischemia elicited a release of ATP and dopamine that was markedly increased in E-NTPDase1/CD39-silenced cells and decreased in E-NTPDase1/CD39-overexpressing cells. Therefore, transmitter ATP acts in an autocrine manner to promote its own release and that of dopamine, an action that is controlled by the level of E-NTPDase1/CD39 expression. Because ATP availability greatly increases in myocardial ischemia, recombinant E-NTPDase1/CD39 therapeutically used may offer a novel approach to reduce cardiac dysfunctions caused by excessive catecholamine release.
    Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics 02/2011; 337(2):524-32. DOI:10.1124/jpet.111.179994 · 3.86 Impact Factor


Available from