Advertisement

PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 1, Issue 6, pp 460–462 | Cite as

β—Blockers vs Calcium Channel Blockers vs ACE Inhibitors

  • Dahlof C
  • Dimenas E
  • Kendall M
  • Wiklund I
  • J. Boelaert
Current Comment
  • 8 Downloads

Summary

The use of β—blockers in therapeutics is well established. This article poses 3 questions: (a) what are the particular advantages of β—blockers, and are these important? (b) what problems are caused by β—blockers, and how serious are these? (c) is it possible to maximise the benefits and minimise the unwanted effects by choosing a particular β—blocker or a specific pharmaceutical formulation? The first question is barely addressed but the other two are discussed by reviewing methods for assessing quality of life in the specific field of hypertension, and examining the association between adverse effects of β—blockers and their physicochemical and pharmacodynamic properties. There is an interesting section contrasting the severity and nature of adverse effects in different populations. The tolerability of β—blockers demonstrated in large trials after myocardial infarction provides a contrast with the numerous measures of impaired performance detectable in healthy volunteers. There is also a suggestion that β—blockers are tolerated more readily by patients with type A personalities. The influence of plasma concentration on adverse effects is mentioned briefly, with some support for using a controlled release formulation to reduce fluctuation and adverse effects at peak concentrations. The authors conclude that hydro/lipophilicity is of minor importance, but β1—selectivity may have some impact on quality of life, and β1—selective agents are equivalent to calcium channel blockers and ACE inhibitors but (implicitly) superior to nonselective β—blockers.

Keywords

Erythromycin Metoprolol Calcium Channel Blocker Sickness Absence Functional Dyspepsia 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barton LL, Friedman AD, Sharkey AM. Impetigo contagiosa III. Comparative efficacy of oral erythromycin and topical muplrocin. Pediatric Dermatology 6: 134–138, 1989PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Goldfarb J, Crenshaw D, O’Horo J, Lemon E, Blumer JL. Randomized clinical trial of topical mupirocin versus oral erythromycin for impetigo. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 32: 1780–1783, 1988PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Mc Linn S. Topical mupirocin vs. systemIc erythromycin treatment for pyoderma. Pediatric Infectious Diseases Journal 7: 785–790, 1988Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dahlof C
  • Dimenas E
  • Kendall M
  • Wiklund I
  • J. Boelaert
    • 1
  1. 1.Unit for Renal and Infectious DiseasesAlgemeen ZiekenhuisBelgium

Personalised recommendations