Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12740004›Full record

ArticleExpert opinion on pharmacotherapy2003

ACE inhibitors versus diuretics: ALLHAT versus ANBP2.

Sheila A Doggrell

Abstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 36% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Mega clinical trials which have shaped the RAS intervention clinical practice.Therapeutic advances in cardiovascular disease · 2016
    Review
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sheila A DoggrellSchool of Biomedical Sciences, The University of Queensland, QLD 4072, Australia. s_doggrell@yahoo.com
University of Queensland · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID12740004
OpenAlexW2159616176

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.