Beta-blockers in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: the good, the bad and the ugly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Several observational studies have suggested that β-blockers, especially cardioselective ones, are well tolerated and associated with a lower risk of acute exacerbations and death in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, there are dissenting studies. This review provides an update on the use of β-blockers in COPD, focusing on results of recent prospective studies and randomized controlled trials. RECENT FINDINGS: In totality, cohort studies indicate that β-blockers are generally well tolerated and effective in COPD patients who also have a clear cardiovascular indication for these medications. Although β-blockers on average reduce lung function acutely in COPD patients, the absolute decrease is relatively small, especially if cardioselective β-blockers are used. The results of two large randomized controlled trials suggest that β-blocker use does not reduce the therapeutic benefits of inhaled bronchodilators in COPD patients. The use of β-blockers in COPD patients, who do not have overt cardiovascular disease, does not prevent COPD exacerbations and may paradoxically increase the risk of COPD-related hospitalization and mortality. SUMMARY: The use of β-blockers is generally well tolerated and effective in COPD patients, who also have a clear cardiovascular indication for these drugs. However, they should not be used in patients who do not have overt cardiovascular disease as β-blockers can reduce lung function, worsen health status and increase the risk of COPD-related hospitalization.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".