Nebivolol in the treatment of arterial hypertension: From pharmacological profile to clinical recommendations for treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
β-blockers are a valuable class of antihypertensive drugs, which is confirmed in modern guidelines for the treatment of hypertension. However, β-blockers are not a homogeneous class and differ in their pharmacological and clinical profile. Nebivolol is a representative of the third generation of β-blockers with the highest selectivity, additional vasodilatory and pleiotropic effects, neutral metabolic effects and good tolerability, and has proven its advantages over other β-blockers. The additional vasodilatory effect of nebivolol is mediated by NO-releasing activity with an increase in the bioavailability of NO, which is involved not only in the antihypertensive activity, but also provides important vascular protective effects. Studies demonstrate its effect on oxidative stress, endothelial dysfunction and arterial stiffness, as well as a decrease in central aortic pressure and reflected wave in patients with hypertension. Nebivolol reduces ultrastructural changes in the myocardium and coronary bed, reducing interstitial fibrosis and improving diastolic relaxation of the myocardium. Meta-analyses of clinical trials have noted the high antihypertensive efficacy of nebivolol compared to other β-blockers and other classes of antihypertensive drugs, as evidenced by a lower frequency of discontinuation and switching to other drugs. In large-scale studies of real-world clinical practice on large cohorts of patients with hypertension, nebivolol showed favorable long-term efficacy in terms of impact on cardiovascular outcomes compared to other β-blockers (atenolol, metoprolol). Thus, nebivolol has special pharmacological properties, providing additional vasodilator, antioxidant and anti-ischemic effects, which is of particular interest to certain groups of patients, in whom its good tolerability profile can also improve treatment adherence.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".