Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 119823

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"

Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018

Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."

Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018

Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."

Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018

Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
Knowledge is treasure of a wise man. The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."

Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
On Sep 2018

Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."

Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata

Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
On Aug 2018

Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".

Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
On Aug 2018

Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help ones reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".

Dr. Mamta Gupta
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018

Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.

Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journalsNo manuscriptsNo authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."

Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
On May 11,2011

Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."

Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
On April 2011

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.

Dr. Anuradha
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2008 | Month : August | Volume : 2 | Issue : 4 | Page : 925 - 931 Full Version

Effects Of Atenolol And Nebivolol On Blood Pressure And On ECG In Patients Of Stage-1 Hypertension A Comparative Study

Published: August 1, 2008 | DOI:
Correspondence Address :
Dr.Rashmi Sharma MBBS.MD, DMCH(Pharmacology) Senior Demonstrator, Department of Pharmacology & Therapeutics Govt. Medical college Jammu, India.


Background:ß-blockers are used as first line antihypertensive drugs.
Aim:To compare the effects of atenolol and nebivolol on blood pressure and ECG in patients of Stage 1 hypertension.
Setting: This study was conducted by the departments of pharmacology and general medicine of a tertiary care teaching hospital in India.
Study Design:Prospective single blind randomized trial over 6 months.
Materials and Methods:Of the 102 patients randomized for the trial (atenolol n=50, nebivolol n=52), 26 patients were lost to follow-up. The 76 patients, who attended the three reviews at 3, 6 and 12 weeks following recruitment to the trial, were included for analysis. During each of the follow up visits, blood pressure and ECG were recorded. Corrected QT interval (QTc) was calculated using the Bazett's formula. The effect of each drug at 3, 6 and 12 weeks were compared with the baseline and were analysed using the paired ¡¥t¡¦ test, whilst the comparison between the two drugs (baseline, 3, 6 and 12 weeks) was performed using the unpaired ¡¥t¡¦test.
Results:Both the drugs significantly reduced (P<0.001) systolic and diastolic blood pressure during the follow-up visits. QTc was significantly reduced from baseline values at 3, 6 and 12 weeks of therapy with atenolol, but only at 6 weeks with nebivolol.
Conclusion:Both atenolol and nebivolol appear to have similar antihypertensive effects in the short term. The effect of the anti-hypertensive agent on QTc appears to be more pronounced with atenolol than with nebivolol.


Nebivolol, Atenolol, QTc.

Hypertension is a very common and important disease related to modern civilized life and its complications pose a major health problem in populations worldwide. Its prevalence is quite high in India, and affects both rural and urban populations (1). Both randomized clinical trials and observational studies have confirmed the effect of uncontrolled hypertension on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality (2). Early treatment can reverse and retard the complications associated with hypertension.

£]-blockers have long been considered as first line antihypertensive drugs (3). A number of clinical trials such as STOP, CAPP, NORDIL and JNC 7 recommend £] blockers in the initial management of hypertension (4),(5),(6),(7). However, atenolol, a ß1-blocker, is a commonly used antihypertensive agent, and has often been used as a reference drug in a number of clinical trials (8). However, the question arises about the status of this drug as a reference drug in comparison with other antihypertensive drugs, because of its undesirable effects on lipid profile, blood sugar, and heart rate of patients (9),(10).

The newer 3rd generation ƒÒ-blocker, nebivolol, is found to be more cardioselective, and has a vasodilating effect on resistance arteries (11).This drug is endowed with peripheral vasodilating properties mediated by endogenous production of nitric oxide (12). Recently, it has been well studied that pharmacogenomics has a greater impact on the therapeutic effect of the drug (13). Nebivolol has been recently launched in the Indian market, and as not much work has been done in our setup to compare the efficacy and safety of atenolol and nebivolol on the cardiovascular system; hence, keeping in mind the promising utility of nebivolol, it is thought of interest to elucidate the effects of nebivolol on blood pressure and ECG in patients of stage 1 hypertension.

Material and Methods

This study was conducted in the department of pharmacology and therapeutics in collaboration with departments of general medicine and cardiology of a tertiary care teaching hospital in India, starting from 01-07-2004 to 31-1-2005, in a prospective single blind randomized design, after taking permission from the institutional review committee.

Newly diagnosed outdoor patients of both sexes, in the age group of 30-65 yrs, attending the medicine and cardiology OPDs, were screened for stage I hypertension having an SBP of 140-159 and a DBP of 90-99 according to the JNC report seven, for the management of hypertension (7). In addition to a detailed medical history and physical examination, routine investigations including complete blood profile, renal function tests and liver function tests, were done to rule out other associated co-morbidities. All patients also underwent a full lipid profile analysis, fasting and post-prandial blood sugar analysis, as well as chest X-ray and ECG. Exclusion criteria were as follows: previously diagnosed secondary or complicated hypertension, associated ischaemic heart disease, history of stroke, abnormalities of cardiac rhythm or conduction under pharmacologic treatment, renal failure, endocrine abnormalities, obstructive airway disease, intake of any other drugs and pregnant and lactating mothers.

Initially, 122 patients were registered after taking informed consent and put on placebo therapy in the form of sugar coated tablets, and they were advised salt restriction along with dietary modifications for two weeks. After two weeks of placebo therapy, twenty patients showed improvement, and they were excluded. Finally, 102 patients were found to have stage I hypertension and they were randomized into two groups.

Randomization was done with the help of a table of random numbers, and allocation envelopes were kept with some other person in the department. Then these envelopes were opened in front of the patients.

Out of 102 patients enrolled for the study, 52 patients received tab nebivolol 5mg, and 50 patients received tab atenolol 50mg once a day, at 8A.M in the morning. 26 patients were lost during the follow up, and only 76 patients completed the study. Thirty six patients in the atenolol group, and 40 patients in the nebivolol group, completed the study.

Each patient was followed up for a period of twelve weeks after inclusion in the study. All patients attended 3 follow up visits at 3, 6 and 12 weeks of study. During each visit, blood pressure in the sitting, standing and supine positions, was recorded using a sphygmomanometer with a gap of two minutes between each position. In each position, a mean of 3 readings, one minute apart, was taken. Before recording the blood pressure, it was seen that the patient was comfortable, and BP was recorded after giving 10 minutes of rest to the patient .Blood pressure was normal, and no patient required any increase in dose of drug or addition of any other antihypertensive drug. Postural hypotension was defined as a fall in blood pressure greater than 20/10 (SBP/DBP) mm of Hg on standing upright from a supine position within 3 minutes (14). ECG was recorded by using a standard digital cardiomin 2K UNI-EM device.

ECGs were analyzed by calculating RR and QT intervals. It has been seen that in hypertensive patients, LVH increases the risk of sudden death, and regression of both electrocardiographic and echocardiographic LVH reduces cardiovascular events (15). Clinical studies have also shown that reduction in LV masses is associated with shortening of QT interval and a decrease in QT dispersion (16).

All the ECG recordings were carried out with lead 11. However; occasionally another appropriate lead was selected if lead 11 was inadequate (17). The QT interval was measured from the onset of the QRS complex to the end of the T wave. In case of a prominent U wave, the dip or notch between the T and U wave was taken as the end of the T wave. QT interval after measurement was standardized by converting it to the QTc i.e corrected QT interval. Because the QT interval is influenced by change in heart rate, it is customary to correct the interval to such changes (QTc). QTc was calculated by using Bazett¡¦s formula (18).
QTc = QT interval divided by underroot of R-Rinterval
QT and RR intervals were measured in seconds, and QTc was expressed in seconds. The normal QTc interval was taken as < 0.44 seconds. The average of 3 sequential QTc values was used as a single QTc value for statistical evaluation.

Statistical Analysis
Effects of the individual drug on SBP, DBP and QTc were analyzed by using paired ¡§t¡¨¡Vtest, and comparative analysis was done by using unpaired ¡§t¡¨ test. Comparative analysis of the effects of each drug on sitting, standing and supine blood pressure was done by using analysis of variance test. P-values less than 0.05 were considered as statistically significant.(Table/Fig 1) Flow chart presenting the study.


Both atenolol and nebivolol significantly reduced SBP and DBP at 3, 6 and 12 weeks, as compared to the baseline (P<0.001). When SBP in the sitting, supine and standing positions was compared in the atenolol group and nebivolol groups at 3, 6 and 12 weeks, no statistically significant effect was seen (P>0.05). However, a statistically significant effect was reported in DBP at three different positions in both the atenolol group and nebivolol groups at 3, 6 and 12 weeks with (P<0.01) and (P<0.001) respectively (Table/Fig 2).

When BP in the supine, sitting and standing positions was compared between the two groups at 3, 6 and 12 weeks, it was found to be statistically insignificant (Table/Fig 3).

Atenolol decreased the QTc significantly (P<0.001) at the end of 3, 6 and 12 weeks. However, nebivolol produced a statistically significant reduction in QTc at 6 weeks (P<0.001) (Table/Fig 4).When the effects of both the drugs on QTc were compared, it was found to be statistically insignificant. No other change in ECG alone, or in comparison, was observed.


The relationship between hypertension and cardiovascular, cerebrovascular and renovascular diseases, has long been recognized, and this relationship is strong, continuous, graded, consistent, independent, predictive and aetiologically significant for those with or without coronary heart disease (19)(20). The main goal of antihypertensive treatment is to prevent or to arrest cardiovascular damage. It has been seen that the antihypertensive treatment has proved to be effective in preventing hypertensive complications such as stroke and renal failure (21).

ß-blockers are effective antihypertensive drugs, and are currently recommended as first line treatment options in patients with uncomplicated, essential hypertension .These reduce cardiac output, alter baroreceptor reflex sensitivity, block peripheral adrenoreceptors, block 1-receptors in heart and juxtaglomerular cells in kidney, and inhibit release of norepinephrine from the sympathetic nerve terminals (22).

Atenolol, a ß1-blocker is one of the widely and commonly used antihypertensive. Its antihypertensive efficacy is well established in a number of clinical studies (9),(10),(23),(24),(25). The optimum antihypertensive effect of £]- blocker action is seen after 10-15 days. In the present study, the effect was recorded after 3, 6 and 12 weeks. Atenolol produced a statistically significant fall in SBP and DBP throughout the study, and in all the three positions. But when the supine, sitting and standing positions were compared, the fall in SBP was not significant, whereas DBP showed a statistically significant fall at 3 and 6 weeks without any clinical signs of postural hypotension, as reported earlier (26).

Nebivolol, a new selective ß1-blocker has a novel mechanism of antihypertensive activity (27). This drug has a vasodilatory property that is attributed to an endothelium- dependent effect, which is mediated via the L-arginine / nitric oxide (NO) pathway (11). This compound has a dl-racemic mixture. The d-enantiomer is responsible for the blockade, whereas the l- enantiomer induces vasodilation via a nitric oxide mechanism (12).As in hypertension, there is an unexplained rise in systemic vascular resistance, with an associated endothelial dysfunction ; hence, nebivolol could prove to be a better option for hypertensive therapy(28).

Because of its NO mediated peripheral vasodilatory action, nebivolol has the potential to cause orthostatic blood pressure changes. However, a few studies where nebivolol was compared with placebo and lisinopril, reported more reduction in DBP in the standing than in the supine posture, without any signs of orthostatic hypotension in the nebivolol group (29),(30).

In the present study, nebivolol produced a statistically significant fall in both SBP and DBP in all the three positions at 3, 6 and 12 weeks. When the supine, sitting and standing positions were compared, there was no statistically significant fall in SBP; whereas it produced a statistically significant fall in DBP. So, in the present study, both the drugs produced a statistically significant postural hypotension in DBP; but no clinical sign of postural hypotension was seen. Moreover, the difference in BP of 2- 3 mmHg is hardly clinically significant, and may be within the limits of measurement errors.

On comparative analysis, both drugs nebivolol and atenolol produced a similar reduction in BP at 3, 6 and 12 weeks. So, both the drugs have similar antihypertensive efficacy.(Table/Fig 5)Comparitive effect of atenol and nebivolol on DBP in patient of Stage-1 hypertension.

In the present study, atenolol decreased heart rate, which was evident by a statistically significant fall in QTc at 3, 6 and 12 weeks.

Nebivolol was also found to decrease QTc significantly at 6 weeks, but not at 12weeks.It seems that after prolonged treatment, nebivolol does not have any significant effect on heart rate, and it may be because of its NO related vasodilation resulting into tachycardia, which may counteract ß-receptor mediated bradycardia in the heart. On comparison, the drugs produced insignificant decrease in QTc. Although nebivolol affects autonomic functions and attenuates the sympathetic tone, it does not promote vagal activity more than atenolol (31).

Hence, it is quiet evident from the results of the present study that both atenolol and nebivolol should be used with caution in patients of hypertension with an associated condition like bradycardia, heart blocks and concomitent use of drugs, resulting into QT prolongation.

The results of our study clearly indicated that nebivolol is as efficacious as atenolol, as a antihypertensive drug. However, nebivolol produced reduction in QTc at 6 weeks, but there is no evidence of increased heart rate at 12 weeks. Moreover, inability of our study to compare the effect of nebivolol on lipid profile, the respiratory system, blood sugar etc with other conventional £]-blockers, could be considered as lacune of the study, and further long term clinical trials are required to establish its safety and superiority in hypertensive patients.


. Park K. Hypertension.Parks Textbook of Prevemtive and Social Medicine 19th edition 2007; 311.
. Jeffery D. Greenberg, Tiwari A, Rajan M, Miller D, Nataranjan S and Pogach L. Determinants of sustained uncontrolled blood pressure in national cohort of persons with diabetes. AJH 2006; 19:161-69.
. Guidelines Committee. 2003 European Society of hypertension -European Society of cardiology guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension. J Hypertens 2003; 21:1011-53.
. Dahlof B, Lindholm LH, Hanson L, Schersten B, Ekbom T, Wester PO. Morbidity and mortality in the Swedish trial in old patients with hypertension (STOP-Hypertension). Lancet 1991; 338:1281-85.
. Hansson L, Lindholm LH, Niskannen L, et al. Effect of angiotensin- converting –enzyme inhibition compared with conventional therapy on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertension: the Captopril prevention Project(CAPP).Lancet 1999;353:611-16.
. Hansson L, Hedner T. Lund-Johansen P, et al. Randomized trial of effects of calcium antagonists compared with diuretics and β-blockers on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertension: the Nordic Diltiazem (NORDIL) study. Lancet 2000; 356:359-65.
. Aram V.Chobanian, George L.Bakris,Henry R. Black,William C. Cushman,Lee A. Green,Joseph L.Izzo,et al. Joint National Committee seventh report. JAMA 2003; 289(9):2560-71.
. Carlberg B, Samuelsson O, Lindholm LH. Atenolol in hypertension: is it a wise choice? Lancet 2004; 364:1684-89
. Aberg H, Morlin C and Lithell H. Different Long term metabolic effects of enalapril and atenolol in patients with mild hypertension EGTA group.J Human Hypertension 1995 ; 9(2):149-53.
.Hakamaki T and Lehtonen A. Metabolic effects of spirapril and atenolol : results from a randomized long term study. Inter J Clin Pharmacol Therape, 1997; 35(6):227-30.
. Bowman AJ, Chen CP, Ford GA: Nitric oxide mediated Venodilator effects of Nebivolol. Br J. Clin Pharmacol 1994; 38(3):199-204.
. Simon G and Johnson ML. Comparison of antihypertensive and -adrenoceptor antagonist effect of nebivolol and atenolol in essential hypertension.Clinical Exp Hypertension 1993;15(3): 501-9.
. Bansal V, Kumar V, Medhi B.Future challenges of Pharmacogenomics in clinical practice. JK Science 2005; 7(3):176-79.
. Philip A and Johan W Engstrom. Disorders of the Autonomic nervous system.Harrison’s principles of Internal Medicine 2005; 16th edition, 2428-31.
. Haider AW, Larson MG and Benjamin EJ. Increased left ventricular mass and hypertrophy are associated with increased risk for sudden death. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998 ; 32;1454-9.
. Mayet J, Shahi M and Mc Grath. Left ventricular hyperytrophy and QT dispersion in hypertension. Hypertension 1996; 28:791-6.
. Schamroth L The genesis of normal and abnormal electrocardiogram : Basic principles. In: Schamroth (ed). An introduction to electrocardiography (7thed.) 2002 (Indian print):28-29.
. Bruyne MC, Hoes AW, KorsJA ,HofmanA,Van Bemmel JH and Grobbee DE.Prolonged QT interval predicts cardiac and all-cause mortality in the elderly-The Rotterdam study. Eu Heart J 1999; 20: 278-84.
. Stamler J. Blood pressure and high blood Pressure. Aspects of Risk Hypertension 1991; 18(Suppl.1); 95-107.
. Flack J.M,Neaton J, Grimm R Jr.,Shih J,Cutler J,Ensrud al(MRIFT).Blood pressure and Mortality among men with prior myocardial infarction. Circulation 1995; 92: 2437-45.
. Sirtori, Cesare R.,Johnson Bruce,Vaccarino Viola,Montanri Guido,Cremoncini Mario et al. lipid effects of celiprolol, a new cardioselective β blocker verses propranolol. Clin Pharmacol and Therap. 1989; 45:617-26.
. Stephen N Davis and Daryl K Granner. Insulin,Oral hypoglycemic agents and the Pharmacology of the Endocrine pancreas.Goodman and Gilman’s,The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics 2001;10th Edition 1681.
. Pollare T, Lithell H,Morlin C,Prantare H,Hvarfunes A. and Ljunghall S. Metabolic effects of dilitazem and atenolol: Result from a randomized,double blind study with parallel groups. Journal of Hypertension 1989; 7(7): 551-9.
. Bonner G,Schmieder R,Chrosch Rand Weldinger G. Effect of bunazooosin and atenolol on glucose metabolism in obese nondiabetic patients with primary hypertension. Cardiovasc Drugs Ther 1997; 11(1):21-6.
. Thulin T,Lehtonen A,Dahlof C,Wilsson-Ehte P,Engquvist L,Lagerstedt C et al.Long term effect of dilitazem and atenolol on blood glucose,serum lipids,serum urate in hypertensive patients.International J Clinic Pharmacol Ther 1999 ;37(1):28-33.
. Douglas-jones AP and Cruickshank JM.Once daily dosing of atenolol in patients with mild to moderate hypertension.BMJ 1976;1:990-91.
. Shibata Marcelo C,Marcus D,Flather and Michael Bohm.Study of effects of nebivolol on intervention outcomes and rehospitalisation in seniors with heart failure.International Journal of Cardiology 2002;86: 77-85.
. Brette S.,Forte P.,Chowienczyk P.J.,Benjamin N. and Ritter J.M.Comparison of effects of nebivolol and bisoprolol on systematic vascular resistance in patients with essential hypertension.Clinical Drug Invest 2002;22(6):355-59.
. Van Bortel LM, Breed JG, Joosten J, Kragten JA and Lustermans FA. Nebivolol in hypertension: A double blind placebo-controlled multicenric study assessing its antihypertensive efficacy and effect on quality of life. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1993; 21(6):856-62.
. Rosel EA, Rizzoni D, Comini S and Boari G.Evaluation of the efficacy and tolerability of nebivolol versus lisinopril in the treatment of essential arterial hypertension : a randomized multicentre, double-blind study. Blood pressure Supplement 2003; 1:30-5.
. Chiladakes JA,Georgiopoulou E andAlexopoulos D.Autonomic effects of nebivolol versus atenolol in healthy subjects.Cardiovasc Drugs Ther 2004;18(6):

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)