Beta-blocker side-effects in clinical practice: A nationwide approach
Authors' conclusion
In a large nationwide cohort, the incidence of BB side-effects was clinically relevant and consistently increased compared with CCBs with the exception of erectile dysfunction, which carried similar risks for both treatments.
Study context
- Population
- Danish hypertensive patients initiating antihypertensive treatment with a BB or calcium-channel blocker (CCB)
- Participants
- 64,722 vs 181,880
- Exposure
- BB side-effects compared with CCB treatment
- BBn = 64,722
- CCBn = 181,880reference
Methodological detailsDanish nationwide registers
- Danish nationwide registers
Safety
| Outcome | BB | RR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anxiety/insomnia · 1-year | 1-year risk 6.2% (95% CI 6.0%–6.3%) | 1.53 (1.47–1.59) | |
| Gastrointestinal side-effects · 1-year | 1-year risk 4.6% (95% CI 4.4%–4.7%) | 1.31 (1.25–1.36) | |
| Erectile dysfunction · 1-year | 1-year risk 4.7% (95% CI 4.5%–4.9%) | 0.91 (0.85–0.96) | |
| Depression | 1.48 (1.41–1.55) | ||
| Dizziness/fainting | 1.50 (1.38–1.61) | ||
| 0.512Relative risk (log scale) |
- Any outcome, erectile dysfunction exempt (standardized risk, BB) · 1-year
- 13.7% · standardized 1-year risk · 95% CI 13.4%–13.9%
Original publication
Beta-blocker side-effects in clinical practice: A nationwide approach. Am Heart J. Published 10 August 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →