Antianginal drug treatment reduces symptoms and ischemia but may also influence the prognosis of patients with stable angina pectoris. The Atenolol Silent Ischemia Study (ASIST) compared atenolol and placebo treatment (about 140 patient-years on each) in patients with mainly silent ischemia and found less aggravation of angina and a tendency toward fewer cardiac complications with atenolol treatment. The Total Ischaemic Burden European Trial (TIBET) compared slow release nifedipine, atenolol, or the combination (about 450 patient-years on each) and found no significant differences with regard to cardiac complications, a nonsignificant trend toward better prognosis on combined treatment, and more side effects on nifedipine alone compared with the other treatments. The Angina Prognosis Study in Stockholm (APSIS) compared metoprolol and verapamil (about 1,400 patient-years on each) and found similar effects on cardiovascular endpoints, tolerability, and psychosocial variables with the 2 treatments. Hypothesis-generating subgroup analyses in APSIS suggest that treatment effects may differ in hypertensive and diabetic subgroups. Beneficial effects in primary and secondary prevention, together with data from ASIST, suggest that beta 1 blockade influences prognosis favorably. The safety of short-acting nifedipine in ischemic heart disease is questioned, but TIBET data suggest that slow release nifedipine may be safe. Verapamil has beneficial effects after myocardial infarction (Danish Verapamil Infarction Trial II) and shows similar efficacy as metoprolol in the APSIS study. The paucity of placebo data (antianginal treatment cannot be withheld during long periods of time in symptomatic patients) precludes firm conclusions regarding effects of drug treatment on prognosis. It is argued that patients with stable angina pectoris do well on medical treatment, and that beta 1 blockers, verapamil, and, possibly, slow-release nifedipine may influence their prognosis favorably.