Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12556649›Full record

Trial reportJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)

The effects of amlodipine compared to losartan in patients with mild to moderately severe hypertension.

Robert A Phillips, Robert A Kloner, Richard H Grimm, Myron Weinberger

Open access · bronzeAbstract readClinical TrialComparative StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Epidemiology and management of hypertension in the Hispanic population: a review of the available literature.American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions · 2012
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Amlodipine and losartan: reaction to comparison.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Robert A PhillipsDepartment of Medicine, Lenox Hill Hospital and New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY 10021, USA. RPhillips@lenoxhill.net
Robert A Kloner
Richard H Grimm
Myron Weinberger
Berman Center for Outcomes and Clinical Research · USIndiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis · USNew York University · USUniversity of Southern California · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The calcium channel blocker amlodipine and angiotensin II receptor blocker losartan, with or without hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), were compared for the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension in a multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group clinical trial. Following a 2-week placebo run-in, 440 adults (45-80 years old) were randomized to receive either amlodipine 5 mg once daily or losartan 50 mg once daily. Patients who failed to meet the sitting diastolic blood pressure (BP) reduction goal of <or=90 mm Hg after 6 weeks had their dose increased to 10 mg amlodipine or had 12.5 mg of HCTZ added to the losartan 50 mg. A total of 42.3% of losartan and 43.6% of amlodipine subjects achieved a diastolic BP of <or=90 mm Hg at initial dose (low dose). Of those who completed treatment at the low dose, 71% of the amlodipine- and 81% of the losartan-treated patients met BP goal. This difference was not statistically significant. Of those who received a dosage adjustment, a significantly greater percentage of amlodipine-treated patients (59%) than losartan/HCTZ-treated patients (42%) reached BP goal at the last visit (p=0.009). Including both high- and low-dose subjects, 63.8% of amlodipine and 55.1% of losartan patients achieved a diastolic BP of <or=90 mm Hg at the last maintenance visit; this difference was not significant (p=0.07). Overall, reductions in mean sitting BP from baseline to the end of treatment were significantly greater in the amlodipine group than in the losartan group for both diastolic BP (-12.6 vs. -10.3 mm Hg; p=0.002) and systolic BP (-16.1 vs. -13.7 mm Hg; p=0.018). Additionally, the response rate was significantly greater after treatment with amlodipine than with losartan in African Americans (62.5% vs. 41.4%; p=0.033) and the other mostly Hispanic patients (67.7% vs. 53.5%; p=0.039). Both treatment groups showed significant reductions from baseline in 24-hour ambulatory BP at the end of treatment, with no difference between them. Adverse events were consistent with the safety profile of each drug. It is concluded that, while both amlodipine and losartan demonstrated a significant benefit for the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension, there were greater reductions in most BP measurements following treatment with amlodipine in comparison to losartan with or without HCTZ.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overAmlodipineAnalysis of VarianceAntihypertensive AgentsBlood PressureCalcium Channel BlockersChi-Square DistributionDouble-Blind MethodDrug Therapy, CombinationFemaleHumansHydrochlorothiazideHypertensionLeast-Squares AnalysisLosartanAmlodipineAntihypertensive AgentsCalcium Channel BlockersHydrochlorothiazideLosartan

Identifiers

PMID12556649
PMCPMC8101887
OpenAlexW2133906755

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.