β-Blockers in Hypertension: Studies and Meta-analyses Over the Years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
β-Blockers are among the most commonly used medications in the treatment of hypertension. However, 45 years after their initial indication for that treatment, their place in the treatment of hypertensive patients is under evaluation and their usefulness has been questioned based on evidence from meta-analyses of clinical trials. The β-blocker class consists of various agents with diverse pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties including lipo- and hydrophilicity, duration of action, intrinsic sympathomimetic activity, vasodilation, and metabolism linked to genetic polymorphisms. Because of their various properties, some β-blockers are indicated for cardiovascular conditions such as angina, rate control of atrial fibrillation, chronic heart failure, and after myocardial infarction, and other indications such as migraine and essential tremor. There have been more than 17 large trials influencing the recommendations on the use of these agents in the treatment of hypertension. The results of these trials initially led to the widespread recommendation for the use of β-blockers in the management of hypertension. However, the recent multiple meta-analyses using these trials have raised a controversy on their place in that treatment. The Canadian Hypertension Education Program recommendations have included β-blockers as a first-line treatment option for patients younger than 60 years of age based on the evidence from these large trials, and this has been supported by 2 of the meta-analyses. This article reviews these studies to help clinicians better understand the role of β-blockers in managing hypertension.
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) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".