Combining Other Antihypertensive Drugs With β-Blockers in Hypertension: A Focus on Safety and Tolerability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Combining multiple classes of antihypertensive drugs together is one of the most important factors for achieving blood pressure control in most hypertensive patients. The benefits of combination therapy in comparison with monotherapy include: a synergistic enhancement of each drug's hypertensive effects and a potential reduction of side effects if each drug is used at a lower dose. Although long-acting dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers and β-blockers are a good fit for combination therapy, because of the risk of atrioventricular block and bradycardia, the combination of verapamil and β-blockers is not advised. In addition, the combination of higher-dose diltiazem and β-blockers is also not advised. β-blockers and diuretic agents as initial lone combination therapy are not the preferred combination to be used in uncomplicated hypertension. Using an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor as initial combination therapy with most β-blockers is not recommended because of a lack of antihypertensive efficacy. Nebivolol, however, appears different in this regard and might provide an opportunity for combining these 2 classes of agents with proven cardiovascular benefits for better blood pressure control. Adding an α-blocker to a β-blocker is an effective combination.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".