Latest & greatest articles for atenolol

The Trip Database is a leading resource to help health professionals find trustworthy answers to their clinical questions. Users can access the latest research evidence and guidance to answer their clinical questions. We have a large collection of systematic reviews, clinical guidelines, regulatory guidance, clinical trials and many other forms of evidence. If you wanted the latest trusted evidence on atenolol or other clinical topics then use Trip today.

This page lists the very latest high quality evidence on atenolol and also the most popular articles. Popularity measured by the number of times the articles have been clicked on by fellow users in the last twelve months.

What is Trip?

Trip is a clinical search engine designed to allow users to quickly and easily find and use high-quality research evidence to support their practice and/or care.

Trip has been online since 1997 and in that time has developed into the internet’s premier source of evidence-based content. Our motto is ‘Find evidence fast’ and this is something we aim to deliver for every single search.

As well as research evidence we also allow clinicians to search across other content types including images, videos, patient information leaflets, educational courses and news.

For further information on Trip click on any of the questions/sections on the left-hand side of this page. But if you still have questions please contact us via jon.brassey@tripdatabase.com

Top results for atenolol

1. Losartan Versus Atenolol for Prevention of Aortic Dilation in Patients With Marfan Syndrome Full Text available with Trip Pro

Losartan Versus Atenolol for Prevention of Aortic Dilation in Patients With Marfan Syndrome Beta-blockers are the standard treatment in Marfan syndrome (MFS). Recent clinical trials with limited follow-up yielded conflicting results on losartan's effectiveness in MFS.The present study aimed to evaluate the benefit of losartan compared with atenolol for the prevention of aortic dilation and complications in Marfan patients over a longer observation period (>5 years).A total of 128 patients (...) included in the previous LOAT (LOsartan vs ATenolol) clinical trial (64 in the atenolol and 64 in the losartan group) were followed up for an open-label extension of the study, with the initial treatment maintained.Mean clinical follow-up was 6.7 ± 1.5 years. A total of 9 events (14.1%) occurred in the losartan group and 12 (18.8%) in the atenolol group. Survival analysis showed no differences in the combined endpoint of need for aortic surgery, aortic dissection, or death (p = 0.462). Aortic root

2018 EvidenceUpdates

2. Atenolol

Atenolol Top results for atenolol - Trip Database or use your Google+ account Liberating the literature ALL of these words: Title only Anywhere in the document ANY of these words: Title only Anywhere in the document This EXACT phrase: Title only Anywhere in the document EXCLUDING words: Title only Anywhere in the document Timeframe: to: Combine searches by placing the search numbers in the top search box and pressing the search button. An example search might look like (#1 or #2) and (#3 or #4 (...) ) Loading history... Population: Intervention: Comparison: Outcome: Population: Intervention: Latest & greatest articles for atenolol The Trip Database is a leading resource to help health professionals find trustworthy answers to their clinical questions. Users can access the latest research evidence and guidance to answer their clinical questions. We have a large collection of systematic reviews, clinical guidelines, regulatory guidance, clinical trials and many other forms of evidence. If you wanted

2018 Trip Latest and Greatest

4. Atenolol versus losartan in children and young adults with Marfan's syndrome. Full Text available with Trip Pro

Atenolol versus losartan in children and young adults with Marfan's syndrome. Aortic-root dissection is the leading cause of death in Marfan's syndrome. Studies suggest that with regard to slowing aortic-root enlargement, losartan may be more effective than beta-blockers, the current standard therapy in most centers.We conducted a randomized trial comparing losartan with atenolol in children and young adults with Marfan's syndrome. The primary outcome was the rate of aortic-root enlargement (...) months to 25 years of age (mean [±SD] age, 11.5±6.5 years in the atenolol group and 11.0±6.2 years in the losartan group), who had an aortic-root z score greater than 3.0. The baseline-adjusted rate of change in the mean (±SE) aortic-root z score did not differ significantly between the atenolol group and the losartan group (-0.139±0.013 and -0.107±0.013 standard-deviation units per year, respectively; P=0.08). Both slopes were significantly less than zero, indicating a decrease in the aortic-root

2014 NEJM Controlled trial quality: predicted high

5. Atenolol

Atenolol USE OF ATENOLOL IN PREGNANCY 0344 892 0909 USE OF ATENOLOL IN PREGNANCY (Date of issue: March 2016 , Version: 2 ) This is a UKTIS monograph for use by health care professionals. For case-specific advice please contact UKTIS on 0344 892 0909. To report an exposure please download and complete a . Please encourage all women to complete an . A corresponding patient information leaflet on is available at . Summary Atenolol is a cardioselective (beta1 selective) beta-adrenoceptor blocking (...) drug (beta-blocker) licensed for the treatment of hypertension, angina pectoris, cardiac dysrhythmia, and for early intervention in the acute phase of myocardial infarction. Data on overall rates of fetal structural malformations, or of specific malformations following first trimester use of atenolol, are too limited to permit an evidence-based risk assessment. There are also insufficient data to assess the risk of spontaneous abortion, stillbirth and adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes following

2014 UK Teratology Information Service

6. Effect of heart rate reduction by atenolol or ivabradine on peripheral endothelial function in type 2 diabetic patients (Abstract)

Effect of heart rate reduction by atenolol or ivabradine on peripheral endothelial function in type 2 diabetic patients To assess whether reduction of heart rate (HR) has beneficial effects on endothelial function in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.University hospital.66 T2DM patients without overt cardiovascular disease.Patients were randomised to receive for 4 weeks, in addition to their standard therapy, one of the following (...) treatments: atenolol (25 mg twice daily), ivabradine (5 mg twice daily) or placebo (1 tablet twice daily).Systemic endothelial function, assessed by flow-mediated dilation (FMD); endothelium-independent vasodilation, assessed by nitrate-mediated dilation (NMD); cardiac autonomic function, assessed by HR variability (HRV).61 patients completed the study (19, 22 and 20 patients in atenolol, ivabradine and placebo groups, respectively). Compared with baseline, HR was similarly reduced by atenolol (87±13 vs

2012 EvidenceUpdates Controlled trial quality: predicted high

7. The lifetime cost effectiveness of amlodipine-based therapy plus atorvastatin compared with atenolol plus atorvastatin, amlodipine-based therapy alone and atenolol-based therapy alone: results from ASCOT

The lifetime cost effectiveness of amlodipine-based therapy plus atorvastatin compared with atenolol plus atorvastatin, amlodipine-based therapy alone and atenolol-based therapy alone: results from ASCOT The lifetime cost effectiveness of amlodipine-based therapy plus atorvastatin compared with atenolol plus atorvastatin, amlodipine-based therapy alone and atenolol-based therapy alone: results from ASCOT The lifetime cost effectiveness of amlodipine-based therapy plus atorvastatin compared (...) with atenolol plus atorvastatin, amlodipine-based therapy alone and atenolol-based therapy alone: results from ASCOT Lindgren P, Buxton M, Kahan T, Poulter NR, Dahlof B, Sever PS, Wedel H, Jonsson B, Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial investigators Record Status This is a critical abstract of an economic evaluation that meets the criteria for inclusion on NHS EED. Each abstract contains a brief summary of the methods, the results and conclusions followed by a detailed critical assessment

2009 NHS Economic Evaluation Database.

8. Economic evaluation of ASCOT-BPLA: antihypertensive treatment with an amlodipine-based regimen is cost effective compared with an atenolol-based regimen Full Text available with Trip Pro

Economic evaluation of ASCOT-BPLA: antihypertensive treatment with an amlodipine-based regimen is cost effective compared with an atenolol-based regimen To compare the cost effectiveness of an amlodipine-based strategy and an atenolol-based strategy in the treatment of hypertension in the UK and Sweden.A prospective, randomised trial complemented with a Markov model to assess long-term costs and health effects.Primary care.Patients with moderate hypertension and three or more additional risk (...) factors.Amlodipine 5-10 mg with perindopril 4-8 mg added as needed or atenolol 50-100 mg with bendroflumethiazide 1.25-2.5 mg and potassium added as neededCost per cardiovascular event and procedure avoided, and cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained.In the UK, the cost to avoid one cardiovascular event or procedure would be euro18 965, and the cost to gain one quality-adjusted life-year would be euro21 875. The corresponding figures for Sweden were euro13 210 and euro16 856.Compared with the thresholds

2008 EvidenceUpdates Controlled trial quality: uncertain

9. Economic evaluation of ASCOT-BPLA: antihypertensive treatment with an amlodipine-based regimen is cost effective compared with an atenolol-based regimen

Economic evaluation of ASCOT-BPLA: antihypertensive treatment with an amlodipine-based regimen is cost effective compared with an atenolol-based regimen Untitled Document The CRD Databases will not be available from 08:00 BST on Friday 4th October until 08:00 BST on Monday 7th October for essential maintenance. We apologise for any inconvenience.

2008 NHS Economic Evaluation Database.

10. Amlodipine plus perindopril was better than atenolol plus bendroflumethiazide for reducing complications in hypertension Full Text available with Trip Pro

Amlodipine plus perindopril was better than atenolol plus bendroflumethiazide for reducing complications in hypertension Amlodipine plus perindopril was better than atenolol plus bendroflumethiazide for reducing complications in hypertension | BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine We use cookies to improve our service and to tailor our content and advertising to you. You can manage your cookie settings via your browser at any time. To learn more about how we use cookies, please see our . Log in using (...) your username and password For personal accounts OR managers of institutional accounts Username * Password * your user name or password? Search for this keyword Search for this keyword Main menu Log in using your username and password For personal accounts OR managers of institutional accounts Username * Password * your user name or password? You are here Amlodipine plus perindopril was better than atenolol plus bendroflumethiazide for reducing complications in hypertension Article Text

2007 Evidence-Based Medicine

11. Review: atenolol may be ineffective for reducing cardiovascular morbidity or all cause mortality in hypertension Full Text available with Trip Pro

Review: atenolol may be ineffective for reducing cardiovascular morbidity or all cause mortality in hypertension Review: atenolol may be ineffective for reducing cardiovascular morbidity or all cause mortality in hypertension | BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine We use cookies to improve our service and to tailor our content and advertising to you. You can manage your cookie settings via your browser at any time. To learn more about how we use cookies, please see our . Log in using your username (...) and password For personal accounts OR managers of institutional accounts Username * Password * your user name or password? Search for this keyword Search for this keyword Main menu Log in using your username and password For personal accounts OR managers of institutional accounts Username * Password * your user name or password? You are here Review: atenolol may be ineffective for reducing cardiovascular morbidity or all cause mortality in hypertension Article Text Therapeutics Review: atenolol may

2006 Evidence-Based Medicine

12. Prevention of cardiovascular events with an antihypertensive regimen of amlodipine adding perindopril as required versus atenolol adding bendroflumethiazide as required, in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Blood Pressure Lowering Arm (ASCOT-B (Abstract)

Prevention of cardiovascular events with an antihypertensive regimen of amlodipine adding perindopril as required versus atenolol adding bendroflumethiazide as required, in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Blood Pressure Lowering Arm (ASCOT-B The apparent shortfall in prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD) noted in early hypertension trials has been attributed to disadvantages of the diuretics and beta blockers used. For a given reduction in blood pressure, some suggested (...) that newer agents would confer advantages over diuretics and beta blockers. Our aim, therefore, was to compare the effect on non-fatal myocardial infarction and fatal CHD of combinations of atenolol with a thiazide versus amlodipine with perindopril.We did a multicentre, prospective, randomised controlled trial in 19 257 patients with hypertension who were aged 40-79 years and had at least three other cardiovascular risk factors. Patients were assigned either amlodipine 5-10 mg adding perindopril 4-8 mg

2005 Lancet Controlled trial quality: predicted high

13. Effects of ranolazine with atenolol, amlodipine, or diltiazem on exercise tolerance and angina frequency in patients with severe chronic angina: a randomized controlled trial. Full Text available with Trip Pro

Effects of ranolazine with atenolol, amlodipine, or diltiazem on exercise tolerance and angina frequency in patients with severe chronic angina: a randomized controlled trial. Many patients with chronic angina experience anginal episodes despite revascularization and antianginal medications. In a previous trial, antianginal monotherapy with ranolazine, a drug believed to partially inhibit fatty acid oxidation, increased treadmill exercise performance; however, its long-term efficacy and safety (...) have not been studied in combination with beta-blockers or calcium antagonists in a large patient population with severe chronic angina.To determine whether, at trough levels, ranolazine improves the total exercise time of patients who have symptoms of chronic angina and who experience angina and ischemia at low workloads despite taking standard doses of atenolol, amlodipine, or diltiazem and to determine times to angina onset and to electrocardiographic evidence of myocardial ischemia, effect

2004 JAMA Controlled trial quality: predicted high

14. Atenolol in hypertension: is it a wise choice?

Atenolol in hypertension: is it a wise choice? Untitled Document The CRD Databases will not be available from 08:00 BST on Friday 4th October until 08:00 BST on Monday 7th October for essential maintenance. We apologise for any inconvenience.

2004 DARE.

15. Cost-effectiveness of losartan versus atenolol in treating hypertension: an analysis of the LIFE study from a Swiss perspective Full Text available with Trip Pro

Cost-effectiveness of losartan versus atenolol in treating hypertension: an analysis of the LIFE study from a Swiss perspective Cost-effectiveness of losartan versus atenolol in treating hypertension: an analysis of the LIFE study from a Swiss perspective Cost-effectiveness of losartan versus atenolol in treating hypertension: an analysis of the LIFE study from a Swiss perspective Szucs T D, Burnier M, Erne P Record Status This is a critical abstract of an economic evaluation that meets (...) the criteria for inclusion on NHS EED. Each abstract contains a brief summary of the methods, the results and conclusions followed by a detailed critical assessment on the reliability of the study and the conclusions drawn. Health technology The study compared the use of an angiotensin II receptor blocker (losartan) with the use of a beta-blocker (atenolol) in patients with essential hypertension. Type of intervention Treatment. Economic study type Cost-effectiveness analysis. Study population The study

2004 NHS Economic Evaluation Database.

16. Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension study (LIFE): a randomised trial against atenolol. (Abstract)

Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension study (LIFE): a randomised trial against atenolol. Blood pressure reduction achieved with beta-blockers and diuretics is the best recorded intervention to date for prevention of cardiovascular morbidity and death in patients with hypertension. Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) is a strong independent indicator of risk of cardiovascular morbidity and death. We aimed to establish whether (...) selective blocking of angiotensin II improves LVH beyond reducing blood pressure and, consequently, reduces cardiovascular morbidity and death.We did a double-masked, randomised, parallel-group trial in 9193 participants aged 55-80 years with essential hypertension (sitting blood pressure 160-200/95-115 mm Hg) and LVH ascertained by electrocardiography (ECG). We assigned participants once daily losartan-based or atenolol-based antihypertensive treatment for at least 4 years and until 1040 patients had

2002 Lancet Controlled trial quality: predicted high

17. Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients with diabetes in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension study (LIFE): a randomised trial against atenolol. (Abstract)

Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients with diabetes in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension study (LIFE): a randomised trial against atenolol. The most suitable antihypertensive drug to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease in patients with hypertension and diabetes is unclear. In prespecified analyses, we compared the effects of losartan and atenolol on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in diabetic patients.As part of the LIFE study (...) , in a double-masked, randomised, parallel-group trial, we assigned a group of 1195 patients with diabetes, hypertension, and signs of left-ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) on electrocardiograms losartan-based or atenolol-based treatment. Mean age of patients was 67 years (SD 7) and mean blood pressure 177/96 mm Hg (14/10) after placebo run-in. We followed up patients for at least 4 years (mean 4.7 years [1.1]). We used Cox regression analysis with baseline Framingham risk score and electrocardiogram-LVH

2002 Lancet Controlled trial quality: predicted high

18. An economic evaluation of atenolol vs. captopril in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 54)

An economic evaluation of atenolol vs. captopril in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 54) An economic evaluation of atenolol vs. captopril in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 54) An economic evaluation of atenolol vs. captopril in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 54) Gray A, Clarke P, Raikou M, Adler A, Stevens R, Neil A, Cull C, Stratton I, Holman R Record Status This is a critical abstract of an economic evaluation that meets the criteria for inclusion on NHS EED. Each abstract (...) contains a brief summary of the methods, the results and conclusions followed by a detailed critical assessment on the reliability of the study and the conclusions drawn. Health technology The health interventions under study were two antihypertensive therapies, atenolol (a beta-blocker, daily dose of 50 mg, increasing to 100 mg if required) and captopril (an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACE), 25 mg twice daily increasing to 50 mg twice daily), in patients with type-2 diabetes. Type

2001 NHS Economic Evaluation Database.

19. Efficacy of atenolol and captopril in reducing risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 39. UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. Full Text available with Trip Pro

Efficacy of atenolol and captopril in reducing risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 39. UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. To determine whether tight control of blood pressure with either a beta blocker or an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor has a specific advantage or disadvantage in preventing the macrovascular and microvascular complications of type 2 diabetes.Randomised controlled trial comparing an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (...) (captopril) with a beta blocker (atenolol) in patients with type 2 diabetes aiming at a blood pressure of <150/<85 mm Hg.20 hospital based clinics in England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.1148 hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes (mean age 56 years, mean blood pressure 160/94 mm Hg). Of the 758 patients allocated to tight control of blood pressure, 400 were allocated to captopril and 358 to atenolol. 390 patients were allocated to less tight control of blood pressure.Predefined clinical end

1998 BMJ Controlled trial quality: uncertain

20. Randomised, double blind, multicentre comparison of hydrochlorothiazide, atenolol, nitrendipine, and enalapril in antihypertensive treatment: results of the HANE study. HANE Trial Research Group. Full Text available with Trip Pro

Randomised, double blind, multicentre comparison of hydrochlorothiazide, atenolol, nitrendipine, and enalapril in antihypertensive treatment: results of the HANE study. HANE Trial Research Group. To compare the effectiveness and tolerability of hydrochlorothiazide, atenolol, nitrendipine, and enalapril in patients with mild to moderate hypertension.Randomised multicentre trial over 48 weeks with double blind comparison of treatments.48 centres in four countries.868 patients with essential (...) hypertension (diastolic blood pressure 95-120 mm Hg)Initial treatment (step 1) consisted of 12.5 mg hydrochlorothiazide (n = 215), 25 mg atenolol (n = 215), 10 mg nitrendipine (n = 218), or 5 mg enalapril (n = 220) once daily. If diastolic blood pressure was not reduced to < 90 mm Hg within four weeks, doses were increased to 25 mg, 50 mg, 20 mg, 10 mg, respectively, once daily (step 2) and after two more weeks to twice daily (step 3). The eight week titration phase was followed by an additional 40 weeks

1997 BMJ Controlled trial quality: uncertain