ReviewInternational journal of clinical practice2022
Real-World Effectiveness of Beta-Blockers versus Other Antihypertensives in Reducing All-Cause Mortality and Cardiovascular Events.
Review in International journal of clinical practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: The aim of the study was to compare the effectiveness of beta-blockers with other antihypertensive classes in reducing all-cause mortality, cardiovascular-related mortality and the risk of cerebrocardiovascular events. Methods: This noninterventional study was conducted within the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Hypertensive patients who initiated antihypertensive monotherapy were allocated to one of five cohorts: beta-blockers; angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi); angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB); calcium channel blockers (CCB); and diuretics. Differences in outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazard models with competing risks. Results: A total of 44,404 patients were prescribed beta-blockers (75% atenolol), 132,545 ACEi, 12,018 ARB, 91,731 CCB, and 106,547 diuretics. At baseline, patients in the beta-blocker cohort presented more frequently with angina, arrhythmia, and atrial fibrillation. The risk of all-cause mortality was lower for those treated with ACEi, ARB, and CCB, and no difference was observed compared with diuretics (adjusted hazard ratio versus beta-blockers (98.75% CI), for ACEi 0.71 (0.61, 0.83), ARB 0.67 (0.51, 0.88), CCB 0.76 (0.66, 0.88), diuretics 1.06 (0.93, 1.22)). No differences were seen in the risk of cardiovascular mortality for patients treated with beta-blockers, ARB, CCB, and diuretics, while a lower risk in patients treated with ACEi was observed (ACEi 0.63 (0.43, 0.91), ARB 0.64 (0.32, 1.28), CCB 0.71 (0.49, 1.03), diuretics 0.97 (0.69, 1.37)). Conclusions: These data add to the limited pool of evidence from real-world studies exploring the effectiveness of beta-blockers versus other antihypertensive classes. Discrepancies to previously published studies might be partly explained by differences in the selected populations and in the follow-up time.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.