Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11110735›Full record

Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2000

Randomised controlled trial of dual blockade of renin-angiotensin system in patients with hypertension, microalbuminuria, and non-insulin dependent diabetes: the candesartan and lisinopril microalbuminuria (CALM) study.

C E Mogensen, S Neldam, I Tikkanen, S Oren, R Viskoper, R W Watts, M E Cooper

Open access · bronzeAbstract readClinical TrialComparative StudyMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 212 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
212citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
46.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

212 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 1,039 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. An evidence-based systematic review of the off-label uses of lisinopril.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2018
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Guideline
  8. Guideline
  9. Standards of medical care in diabetes--2010.Diabetes care · 2010 · on this map
    Guideline
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Use of renin-angiotensin inhibitors in people with renal artery stenosis.Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN · 2014
    Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. A "patient-tailored" treatment of hypertension with use of impedance cardiography: a randomized, prospective and controlled trial.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2013
    Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

152 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

C E MogensenDepartment of Medicine, M, Kommunehospitalet, University Hospital, DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. cem@afdm.au.dk
S Neldam
I Tikkanen
S Oren
R Viskoper
R W Watts
M E Cooper
Barzilai Medical Center · ILHelsinki University Hospital · FIUniversity of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess and compare the effects of candesartan or lisinopril, or both, on blood pressure and urinary albumin excretion in patients with microalbuminuria, hypertension, and type 2 diabetes.

designProspective, randomised, parallel group, double blind study with four week placebo run in period and 12 weeks' monotherapy with candesartan or lisinopril followed by 12 weeks' monotherapy or combination treatment.

settingTertiary hospitals and primary care centres in four countries (37 centres).

participants199 patients aged 30-75 years.

interventionsCandesartan 16 mg once daily, lisinopril 20 mg once daily.

main outcome measuresBlood pressure and urinary albumin:creatinine ratio.

resultsAt 12 weeks mean (95% confidence interval) reductions in diastolic blood pressure were 9.5 mm Hg (7.7 mm Hg to 11.2 mm Hg, P<0.001) and 9.7 mm Hg (7.9 mm Hg to 11.5 mm Hg, P<0.001), respectively, and in urinary albumin:creatinine ratio were 30% (15% to 42%, P<0.001) and 46% (35% to 56%, P<0.001) for candesartan and lisinopril, respectively. At 24 weeks the mean reduction in diastolic blood pressure with combination treatment (16.3 mm Hg, 13.6 mm Hg to 18.9 mm Hg, P<0. 001) was significantly greater than that with candesartan (10.4 mm Hg, 7.7 mm Hg to 13.1 mm Hg, P<0.001) or lisinopril (mean 10.7 mm Hg, 8.0 mm Hg to 13.5 mm Hg, P<0.001). Furthermore, the reduction in urinary albumin:creatinine ratio with combination treatment (50%, 36% to 61%, P<0.001) was greater than with candesartan (24%, 0% to 43%, P=0.05) and lisinopril (39%, 20% to 54%, P<0.001). All treatments were generally well tolerated.

conclusionCandesartan 16 mg once daily is as effective as lisinopril 20 mg once daily in reducing blood pressure and microalbuminuria in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes. Combination treatment is well tolerated and more effective in reducing blood pressure.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAlbuminuriaAngiotensin-Converting Enzyme InhibitorsAntihypertensive AgentsBenzimidazolesBiphenyl CompoundsDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2HumansHypertensionLisinoprilMiddle AgedProspective StudiesRenin-Angiotensin SystemTetrazolesTreatment OutcomeAngiotensin-Converting Enzyme InhibitorsAntihypertensive AgentsBenzimidazolesBiphenyl CompoundscandesartanLisinoprilTetrazoles

Identifiers

PMID11110735
PMCPMC27545
OpenAlexW2084343172

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.