Pharmacovigilance study of beta adrenergic receptor antagonists in patients visiting department of medicine of a tertiary care hospital, Surendranagar, Gujarat, India

Madhav Trivedi, Tejas Acharya, Fenilkumar Kotadiya, Ritesh Vekariya, Dimple Mehta


Background: The objective of this study was to evaluate incidence, patterns, and severity of Beta blockers induced adverse drug reactions (ADR).

Methods: A total of 500 patients taking Beta blockers were enrolled in the study by taking an informed consent. Reporting of all Beta blockers-induced ADRs was done by filling CDSCO ADR form. All ADR reports were evaluated according to WHO-UMC causality assessment scale.

Results: A total of 64 ADRs (48 males and 18 females) was observed in 500 patients taking beta blockers. Of 64 ADRs, 20 (31.25%) were mild, 34 (53.13%) were moderate, and 10 (15.62%) were classified as severe. 26 (40.62%) ADRs were classified as Probable, followed by 22 (34.38%) ADRs were in Possible category, 8 (12.5%) were in certain category, 4 (6.25%) ADRs were unlikely and 4(6.25%) ADRs were Conditional. Among 64 ADRs, 22 (3.43%) patients developed bronchospasm, 10 (1.56%) bradycardia, 8 (1.25%) fatigue, 8 (1.25%) nausea/GI upset, 4 (0.62%) erectile dysfunction, 4 (0.62%) dry cough, altered lipid profile, insomnia, night mares and diarrhea are other rare ADRs.

Conclusions: Incidence of ADRs by beta blockers is 12.80% with bronchospasm as the most common ADR followed by bradycardia. As atenolol is most frequently used beta blocker, ADRs due to atenolol are more common.


Beta blockers, Pharmacovigilance, WHO-UMC scale

Full Text:



Bonow RO, Smaha LA, Smith SC Jr, Mensah GA, Lenfant C. World Heart Day 2002: the international burden of cardiovascular disease: responding to the emerging global epidemic. Lenfant C Circulation. 2002;106(13):1602-5.

LaPointe NM, Jollis JG. Medication errors in hospitalized cardiovascular patients. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163(12):1461-6.

Jose J, Rao GM. Pattern of adverse drug reactions notified by spontaneous reporting in an Indian tertiary care teaching hospital. Pharmacol Res. 2006;226-33.

Prakash S. Pharmacovigilance in India. Indian J Pharmacol. 2007;39:123.

WHO. The importance of pharmacovigilance, safety monitoring of medical products. WHO Geneva, 2002.

Edward IR, Aronson JK. Adverse drug reactions: Definitions, diagnosis, and management. Lancet. 2000;356:12550-9.

Tripathi KD, Antiadrenergic drugs and drugs for glaucoma. Essentials of Medical Pharmacology, 6th ed. New Delhi: Jaypee Brothers. 2009:140-57.

Central drug standard control organization. Pharmacovigilance Programme of India; 2011 [Cited in 2011] Available from internet:

The Uppsala monitoring centre. The use of WHO-UMC system for standardized case causality assessment; 2011 [Cited in 2011]. Available from internet:

Jose J, Rao GM. Pattern of adverse drug reactions notified by spontaneous reporting in an Indian tertiary care teaching hospital. Pharmacol Res. 2006;226-33.

Lewis CE, Grandits GA, Flack J, McDonals R, Elmer PJ. Efficacy and tolerance of anti-hypertensive treatment to men and women with stage-1 diastolic hypertension: Result of the treatment of mild hypertension study. Arch Intern Med. 1996;156:377-85.

Montastruc JL, Lapeyre-Mestre M, Bagheri H, Fooladi A. Gender differences in adverse drug reactions: Analysis of spontaneous reports to a regional pharmacovigilance center in France. Fundam Clinical Pharmacol. 2002;16:343-6.

Kanjanarat P1, Winterstein AG, Johns TE, Hatton RC, Gonzalez-Rothi R, Segal R. Nature of preventable adverse drug events in hospitals: a literature review. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2003;60(17):1750-9.

Palanisamy S, Kottur SG, Rajasekaran A. A study on assessment, monitoring and reporting of adverse drug reaction in Indian hospital. Asian J Pharm Clin Res. 2011;4(3):112-6.

Hussain A, Aqil M, Alam MS, Khan MR, Kapur P, Pillai KK. A Pharmacovigilance Study of Antihypertensive Medicines at a South Delhi Hospital. Indian J Pharm Sci. 2009;71(3):338-41.

A study of atenolol side effects[Internet] 2011 Oct12 Available from: