Summary:The pharmacokinetic characteristics of beta‐receptor antagonists in man—Similarities and differences of clinical relevance.The aliphatic partial structure common to the beta‐receptor antagonists leads to similar products of their biotransformation. The main qualitative and quantitative differences of the metabolism of the compounds of this class, however, rest in the nature of their aromatic or heterocyclic substituents.The physico‐chemical properties of the beta‐blockers appear to be predominantly responsible for the extent of metabolic degradation and for the distribution in the body, especially for the binding to proteins. As a consequence of their different biological disposition the clinically relevant systemic bioavailabilities of the various beta‐blockers from oral doses differ drastically.Practolol maintains an extreme position among all other compounds: It is most hydrophilic, it is not bound to proteins, it is metabolized least, but cleared renally in unchanged form to 85% of the dose. Despite its extremely high systemic bioavailability, relatively high daily doses were required for therapy. The receptor sensitivity for practolol has been rated 2 to 3 powers of 10 lower than of propranolol.Comparative pharmacokinetic assessment of beta‐receptor antagonists requires quantitative analytical data in clinically representative groups of patients. This has been demonstrated by respective studies with oxprenolol. The intra‐and inter‐individual systemic bioavailability, the differential analysis of plasma and erythrocytes, the multiexponential elimination kinetics, and their possible dependence on the dose have been studied as clinically relevant pharmacokinetic characteristics.The continuing attempt of the pharmaceutical industry to optimize the properties of beta‐blockers also has taken advantage of the slow release principle in oral dosage forms as shown by the example of oxprenolol.The beta‐receptor antagonists belong to one of the youngest classes of pharmaceuticals. Pharmacokinetic and metabolic data for the different representatives of this class have been generated in different laboratories with different approaches and different techniques. Therefore, full comparative documentatio