ArticleExpert opinion on pharmacotherapy2003
ACE inhibitors versus diuretics: ALLHAT versus ANBP2.
Article in Expert opinion on pharmacotherapy, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mega clinical trials which have shaped the RAS intervention clinical practice.Therapeutic advances in cardiovascular disease · 2016Review
- Hypertension and kidney protection in the elderly: what is the evidence in 2007?International urology and nephrology · 2007Review
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The ALLHAT (The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering treatment to prevent Heart Attack Trial) trial enrolled hypertensive patients with at least one additional risk factor for coronary heart disease (CHD) to a comparison of the diuretic chlorthalidone, the calcium channel blocker, amlodipine, and the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, lisinopril. Throughout the study, chlorthalidone decreased the systolic blood pressure to a slightly, but significantly greater extent (0.8-3.1 mmHg) than amlodipine or lisinopril. No significance differences were reported for amlodipine versus chlorthalidone or lisinopril versus chlorthalidone on the primary outcome of combined incidence of fatal CHD and nonfatal myocardial infarction. The findings of ALLHAT support the use of thiazide-type diuretics as first choice pharmacological therapy in at risk patients with hypertension. ANBP2 (The Second Australian National Blood Pressure Study) was also a comparison between diuretics (hydrochlorothiazide) and ACE inhibitors (enalapril) but was performed in older hypertensives that had few previous cardiovascular events. Diastolic blood pressure reduction was similar in both groups at all times. The risk of the primary outcome of all cardiovascular events or death from any cause was 11% lower in the ACE group than the diuretic group and the benefit was predominantly in men. Thus, ANBP2 suggests that in relatively healthy elderly hypertensive patients, ACE inhibitors should be preferred to diuretics.
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.