Role of beta-adrenergic receptor blocking agents in hypertensive diseases: personal thoughts as the controversy persists

Abstract

The long history of the beta-adrenergic receptor blockers for the treatment of hypertension is fraught with many controversies. The first compound had severe untoward effects preventing their use until propranolol was introduced. It was found effective for treatment of angina pectoris since not all patients with hypertension responded to monotherapy with a meaningful reduction of pressure. Nevertheless, the beta-blockers were most effective in: younger patients, especially with hyperkinetic circulation; with co-morbid diseases (e.g. coronary arterial disease with or without prior myocardial infarction); or when used with a diuretic. Subsequently with the advent of meta-analysis to evaluate more generalized experience, controversy resumed with statements made to exclude beta-blockers for initial hypertensive therapy. Support for this argument was gained with reports of patients developing 'dysglycemia' with treatment. However, exclusion of any one therapeutic class for a multifactorial disease such as hypertension seems unrealistic. Meta-analysis confounded this conclusion since inadequate numbers of patients having specific clinical and biological characteristics were included (especially young patients). This is particularly important at this time when third-party reimbursement procedures are particularly relevant and when the primary care physician must deal with the individual patient. The NICE report has introduced specific thinking along these lines. In-and-of itself, its recommendations are reasonable, but current articles continue to suggest that the 'older' beta-blockers should be excluded from national guidelines for initial antihypertensive therapy. Personally, I disagree; and, no doubt, controversy will continue.