Atenolol as initial antihypertensive therapy: an observational study comparing first-line agents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The role of atenolol in the management of patients with hypertension is currently under scrutiny. Our aim was to evaluate the real-world consequences of recent clinical trial findings. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, cohort study using linked administrative data from the province of Saskatchewan, Canada. Eligible subjects were first-ever users of antihypertensive medications between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 2003 and were grouped into four cohorts: atenolol, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI), thiazide diuretics, or calcium antagonists. Patients remained eligible during monotherapy only. RESULTS: We identified 19 249 eligible individuals (mean age 60.6 years) who were followed for a mean of 2.3 years (SD 2.0). The rate of myocardial infarction, unstable angina, stroke, or death occurred in similar frequencies among all cohorts: atenolol (2.3%), ACEI (3.6%), thiazide diuretics (2.9%), and calcium antagonists (3.9%). After adjustment for potential confounders, atenolol therapy was not associated with higher event rates than the other first-line agents, with hazard ratios ranging between 1.03 [95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.72-1.46] and 1.24 (95% CI 0.91-1.68) for all cohorts compared with atenolol. Similar results were observed upon stratifying the sample into subjects above and below 60 years of age. CONCLUSION: The low event rates for all cohorts suggest that atenolol has not been associated with a significant burden of cardiovascular morbidity or mortality in its traditional role for uncomplicated hypertension. Further study is needed to identify the specific types of patients that should avoid atenolol as an antihypertensive agent.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".