A comparison of 100 mg atenolol and 100 mg metoprolol once a day at rest and during exercise in hypertensives

Time-of-day variation in cardiovascular response to maximal exercise testing in coronary heart disease patients taking a beta-blocker

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of a beta-blocker (atenolol and metoprolol) on exercise heart rate (HR) and rate pressure product (RPP) during a morning and afternoon maximal exercise test (maxET) in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD). Twenty-one CHD patients (59.9 ± 8.9 years of age) treated with either atenolol or metoprolol participated in this study. All subjects underwent a morning and afternoon symptom-limited maximal exercise test (maxET) 2–3 h and 8–10 h after medication intake. No significant differences in exercise capacity (atenolol: 8.3 ± 1.9 vs. 8.3 ± 2.1 metabolic equivalents (METs); metoprolol: 8.8 ± 2.0 vs. 8.7 ± 2.0 METs) or rate of perceived exertion (atenolol: 7.4 ± 1.9 vs. 7.4 ± 1.7 METs; metoprolol: 7.2 ± 1.5 vs. 6.8 ± 0.9 METs) were observed between the 2 maxETs in either group. However, there was a discrepancy in cardiovascular and ischemic responses between morning and afternoon maxET. Subjects treated with atenolol demonstrated better overall control of HR and RPP during the afternoon maxET. The difference between morning and afternoon HRmax (11 ± 8 vs. 19 ± 9 beats·min–1; p = 0.05) was significantly higher in the metoprolol group, but did not attain significance for RPP (31 ± 30 vs. 54 ± 28 mmHg·beats·min–1·10−2; p = 0.09). Also, nearly one quarter of our subjects who had a normal morning maxET demonstrated an abnormal electrocardiogram response and (or) ischemia when exercise testing was done in the late afternoon. These changes were more prevalent in subjects taking metoprolol. The results of this study suggest that there is considerable time-of-day variation in the cardiovascular response to a maxET in CHD patients treated with a beta-blocker.

Beta blockers for elective surgery in elderly patients: population based, retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To test whether atenolol (a long acting beta blocker) and metoprolol (a short acting beta blocker) are associated with equivalent reductions in risk for elderly patients undergoing elective surgery.

DESIGN

Population based, retrospective cohort analysis.

SETTING

Acute care hospitals in Ontario, Canada, over one decade.

PARTICIPANTS

Consecutive patients older than 65 who were admitted for elective surgery, without symptomatic coronary disease.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Death or myocardial infarction.

RESULTS

37,151 patients were receiving atenolol or metoprolol before surgery, of which the most common operations were orthopaedic or abdominal procedures. As expected, the two groups were similar in demographic characteristics, medical therapy, and type of surgery. 1038 patients experienced a myocardial infarction or died, a rate that was significantly lower for patients receiving atenolol than for those receiving metoprolol (2.5% v 3.2%, P < 0.001). The decreased risk with atenolol persisted after adjustment for measured demographic, medical, and surgical factors; extended to comparisons of other long acting and short acting beta blockers; was accentuated in analyses that focused on patients with the clearest evidence of beta blocker treatment; and reflected the immediate postoperative interval.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients receiving metoprolol do not have as low a perioperative cardiac risk as patients receiving atenolol, in accord with possible acute withdrawal after missed doses.

Do β-blockers prolong survival in heart failure only by inhibiting the β1-receptor? A perspective on the results of the COMET trial

Experimental and clinical studies indicate that carvedilol exerts multiple antiadrenergic effects in addition to beta(1)-receptor blockade, but the prognostic importance of these actions has long been debated. This controversy has now been substantially advanced by the results of the recently completed Carvedilol Or Metoprolol European Trial (COMET), which showed that carvedilol (25 mg twice daily) reduced mortality by 17% when compared with metoprolol (50 mg twice daily), P=.0017--a result that was consistent with the differences seen across earlier controlled trials with beta-blockers in survivors of an acute myocardial infarction and in patients with chronic heart failure. Questions have been raised about the interpretation of these findings in view of the fact that the trial did not use the dose or formulation of metoprolol that was shown to prolong life in a placebo-controlled trial (ie, Metoprolol CR/XL [Controlled Release] Randomized Intervention Trial in Heart Failure). Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analyses, however, indicate that the dosing regimen of metoprolol selected for use in the COMET trial produces a magnitude and time course of beta(1)-blockade during a 24-hour period that is similar to the dose of carvedilol targeted for use in the trial. These analyses suggest that the observed difference in the mortality effects of metoprolol and carvedilol is not related to a difference in the magnitude or time course of their beta(1)-blocking effects but instead reflect antiadrenergic effects of carvedilol in addition to beta(1)-blockade.

Effects of atenolol and diltiazem-SR on exercise and pressure load in hypertensive patients

The effects of monotherapy with atenolol or diltiazem-SR on blood pressure, 24-h blood pressure (BP) load, and exercise capacity were tested in patients with mild to moderate (stages I and II) essential hypertension. After 3-week single-blind placebo therapy, patients with sitting diastolic blood pressure (SDBP) of 94-114 mmHg were randomized to atenolol 50 mg/day (62 patients) or diltiazem-SR 90 mg b.i.d. (60 patients) in a double-blind parallel study. Depending on SDBP response, the dose was increased to 100 mg/day for atenolol and 180 mg b.i.d. for diltiazem-SR. Twenty-four-hour ambulatory blood pressure measurements and exercise tolerance test by the Bruce protocol were done at the end of placebo and active treatment. Compared with placebo, both atenolol and diltiazem-SR significantly decreased heart rate (HR), sitting systolic blood pressure (SSBP), SDBP, ambulatory BP, BP load for waking and sleeping hours, area under the BP curve, rate-pressure product (p < 0.001), and exercise time (NS). Atenolol exerted a greater effect on ambulatory BP, HR, rate-pressure product, waking diastolic BP load, and area under the 24-h BP curve. The drugs were well tolerated and caused no serious side effects necessitating discontinuation of treatment. These findings indicate that (1) monotherapy for hypertension with atenolol or diltiazem-SR is effective and well tolerated, (2) it decreases the 24-h BP load, (3) it does not interfere with exercise capacity.

A comparison of once-daily atenolol and metoprolol using office and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring

The authors compared the relative safety and efficacy of changing treatment from once-daily atenolol to metoprolol in patients with essential hypertension. A parallel-group randomized clinical trial was conducted in two phases: a 4-week baseline single-blind phase using atenolol 50 mg, followed by a 4-week randomized double-blind treatment phase using either atenolol 50 mg or metoprolol 100 mg administered once daily at noontime. Patients with well-controlled hypertension already prescribed 50 mg of atenolol (with or without the addition of a diuretic) for control of hypertension were selected for participation from the outpatient hypertension clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Seated blood pressure (BP) and pulse were obtained during the baseline phase and during the randomized treatment phase. Twenty-four-hour ambulatory BP monitoring was performed once during the baseline phase and once during the randomized treatment phase, near the end of each 4-week period. There were no within- and between-treatment differences in office systolic and diastolic BP. There was a slight increase in pulse (average = 5.2 beats/minute; P = .02) for those participants treated with metoprolol. For within-treatment groups, the ambulatory BP data showed no significant differences in systolic and diastolic BPs, except for an increase in morning diastolic BP for those randomized to metoprolol (average = 6.2 mm Hg; P = .01). For between-treatment groups, the metoprolol arm had a higher morning systolic BP (P = .01), a higher morning diastolic BP (P = .03), and a higher nighttime heart rate (P = .01).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Dose-response relationships with antihypertensive drugs

A variety of antihypertensive drugs have been introduced into clinical practice at excessively high dose. Examples include most thiazide diuretics, propranolol, oxprenolol, atenolol, methyldopa, hydralazine and captopril. These very high doses have usually resulted from studies in which doses have been increased at regular intervals until the desired antihypertensive effect has been achieved or until unacceptable adverse effects have resulted. Frequently the starting doses were too high and the intervals between dose adjustment too short. In many cases these large doses resulted in unnecessary adverse effects--the adverse biochemical effects of thiazide diuretics, nephrotic syndrome, taste disturbances and neutropenia with captopril, the lupus syndrome with hydralazine and the central nervous system effects of methyldopa. Parallel group design with single doses and sufficient statistical power to distinguish between the upper and lower ends of the antihypertensive dose-response relationship should replace the dose-escalating design.

Side effects of beta-blocker treatments as related to the central nervous system

During the last decade beta-adrenoceptor antagonists have become one of the first-line treatments for hypertension. Generally, they have been shown to be safe with a low frequency of serious side effects. However, minor subjective symptoms, usually considered to be CNS-related, have been reported for all beta-blockers used. Thus, all beta-blockers on the market seem to have a high benefit:risk ratio; independent of their physicochemical properties and pharmacodynamic profile, however, they seem to cause CNS-related side effects to about the same extent. These minor side effects, the mechanisms of which are unclear, consist of subtle effects on general well being, decreased initiative, a depressed frame of mind, and disturbed sleep. Generally, however, beta-blockers in therapeutic dosages do not affect the qualitative functions of the brain. The results so far available have been obtained primarily by using objective methods. Further comparison has now been initiated using documented subjective methods to investigate whether the objectively documented differences are of any clinical relevance to the patient's quality of life. Although it cannot be claimed with certainty, nonselective beta-blockers seem to cause CNS-related side effects to a greater extent than beta 1-selective blockers. Differences in the degree of hydrophilicity of the beta-blocker are apparently of no clinical relevance in this respect. Rather, the plasma concentration of the beta-blocking drug (degree of beta-blockade) seems to be the major determinant of whether or not CNS-related symptoms appear in susceptible patients.

Beta-blockers and central nervous system side effects

Beta-adrenergic blocking drugs are a widely used, well tolerated and effective treatment for a variety of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular disorders. Over the years, beta-blockers have been associated with an incidence, albeit low, of CNS side effects. The question of interest, however, is whether the incidence is the same for all members of the class or whether other properties, such as hydrophilicity, have a bearing on the incidence of this type of side effect? This article addresses this question. In pharmacokinetic terms the lipophilic beta-blockers have been shown, both in animals and man, to readily cross the blood-brain barrier in contrast to hydrophilic beta-blockers. This is thought to have possible clinical relevance with respect to the relative incidence of CNS side-effects. To clarify the situation every published clinical paper, in which the beta-blockers propranolol (highly lipophilic, nonselective, no intrinsic sympathomimetic activity (ISA)), pindolol (moderately lipophilic, nonselective, moderate ISA), metoprolol (moderately lipophilic, beta 1-selective, no ISA) and atenolol (hydrophilic beta 1-selective, no ISA) were compared, was assessed for information pertaining to CNS side effects. This comprehensive review of the literature has shown, with few exceptions, that the incidence of CNS side effects such as sleep disturbances, dreaming, nightmares and hallucinations following clinically accepted doses of the four beta-blockers under scrutiny is generally low and that effects on short-term memory are minimal or absent. However, within this group of four drugs the incidence of these side effects is lowest with hydrophilic atenolol and generally highest with pindolol and propranolol. Metoprolol occupies an intermediate position. This order is in agreement with the pharmacokinetic observation that the more hydrophilic the molecule, the less is found in the brain tissue of both animals and man, although in the case of pindolol other factors may be important. The clinical relevance of studies involving psychometric testing is not clear.

Exercise capacity and hemodynamics in persons aged 20 to 50 years with systemic hypertension treated with diltiazem and atenolol

Hemodynamic responses and exercise capacity were studied during maximal exercise in 25 young hypertensive persons (mean age 40 years) taking placebo, diltiazem (mean 216 mg/day) and atenolol (mean 80 mg/day). The study was a crossover, double-blind, randomized trial, each medication period lasting 2 months. Sitting blood pressure (BP) was 160 +/- 19/109 +/- 8 mm Hg after run-in. Both drugs decreased BP significantly, diltiazem by 10/ 11 mm Hg and atenolol by 16/14 mm Hg (difference not significant between drugs). During exercise there were no differences among patients taking placebo, diltiazem and atenolol in peak workload and rating of perceived exertion. Atenolol significantly attenuated the increase in heart rate, BP and heart rate-BP product at each workload. Diastolic BP during exercise was significantly lower (6 to 10 mm Hg) during diltiazem therapy than during placebo at each workload. Thus, both diltiazem and atenolol decrease rest BP significantly without impairing exercise capacity.

Metoprolol. An updated review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties, and therapeutic efficacy, in hypertension, ischaemic heart disease and related cardiovascular disorders

During the intervening years since metoprolol was first reviewed in the Journal (1977), it has become widely used in the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension and angina pectoris. Although much data have accumulated, its precise mechanisms of action in these diseases remain largely uncertain. Optimum treatment of hypertension and angina pectoris with metoprolol is achieved through dose titration within the therapeutic range. It has been clearly demonstrated that metoprolol is at least as effective as other beta-blockers, diuretics and certain calcium antagonists in the majority of patients. Although a twice daily dosage regimen is normally used, satisfactory control can be maintained in many patients with single daily doses of conventional or, more frequently, slow release formulations. Addition of a diuretic may improve the overall response rate in hypertension. Several controlled trials have studied the effects of metoprolol administered during the acute phase and after myocardial infarction. In early intervention trials a reduction in total mortality was achieved in one moderately large trial of prolonged treatment, but in another, which excluded patients already being treated with beta-blockers or certain calcium antagonists and where treatment was only short term, mortality was significantly reduced only in 'high risk' patients. Overall results with metoprolol have not demonstrated that early intervention treatment in all patients produces clinically important improvement in short term mortality. Thus, the use of metoprolol during the early stages of myocardial infarction is controversial, largely because of the requirement to treat all patients to save a small number at 'high risk'. This blanket coverage approach to treatment may be more justified during the post-infarction follow-up phase since it has been shown that metoprolol slightly, but significantly, reduces the mortality rate for periods of up to 3 years. Metoprolol is generally well tolerated and its beta 1-selectivity may facilitate its administration to certain patients (e.g. asthmatics and diabetics) in whom non-selective beta-blockers are contraindicated. Temporary fatigue, dizziness and headache are among the most frequently reported side effects. After a decade of use, metoprolol is well established as a first choice drug in mild to moderate hypertension and stable angina, and is beneficial in post-infarction patients. Further study is needed in less well established areas of treatment such as cardiac arrhythmias, idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy and hypertensive cardiomegaly.