Trial reportClinical cardiology2000
Monotherapy with amlodipine or atenolol versus their combination in stable angina pectoris.
Trial report in Clinical cardiology, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Do Clinical Outcomes and Quality of Life Differ by the Number of Antianginals for Stable Ischemic Heart Disease? Insights from the BARI 2D Trial.The American journal of cardiology · 2024Trial
- Efficacy of the long-acting nitro vasodilator pentaerithrityl tetranitrate in patients with chronic stable angina pectoris receiving anti-anginal background therapy with beta-blockers: a 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.European heart journal · 2014Trial
- Efficacy of the I(f) current inhibitor ivabradine in patients with chronic stable angina receiving beta-blocker therapy: a 4-month, randomized, placebo-controlled trial.European heart journal · 2009Trial
- Trial
- Effectiveness of Trimetazidine in Patients with Stable Angina Pectoris of Various Durations: Results from ODA.Cardiology and therapy · 2020Article
- Effectiveness of Long-acting Trimetazidine in Different Clinical Situations in Patients with Stable Angina Pectoris: Findings from ODA Trial.Cardiology and therapy · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe basic cause of angina pectoris is imbalance between the metabolic needs of the myocardium and the capacity of the coronary circulation to deliver sufficient oxygenated blood to satisfy these needs. HYPOTHESIS: The study was undertaken to evaluate whether the effect of combined amlodipine and atenolol therapy on patients with stable angina pectoris and with ST-depression during exercise testing and 48-h ambulatory electrocardiographic monitoring is superior to that of either agent given alone.
methodsPatients with stable angina pectoris and ST depression during exercise and ambulatory monitoring were randomized to receive amlodipine (n = 116) or atenolol (n = 116), or both (n = 119). All patients were also treated with short- and long-acting nitrates. The design was a double-blind, randomized, triple-arm parallel group study with 10 weeks of administration of the test medication.
resultsIn terms of time to onset of ST depression > 1 mm, time to onset of angina, total exercise time, maximum achieved workload, and peak intensity of angina, amlodipine and atenolol alone were as effective as their combination. During ambulatory monitoring, atenolol was more effective than amlodipine regarding total time and number of ST-depression episodes, and as effective as the combined drugs.
conclusionFor individual patients with stable angina pectoris, combination of a beta blocker with a calcium antagonist is not necessarily more effective than either drug given alone.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.