Evidence map›Paper›PMID 1458144›Full record

Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)1992

Comparison of enalapril and nifedipine in treating non-insulin dependent diabetes associated with hypertension: one year analysis.

J C Chan, C S Cockram, M G Nicholls, C K Cheung, R Swaminathan

Open access · bronzeAbstract readClinical TrialRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 1992. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
6.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 140 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Antihypertensive agents for preventing diabetic kidney disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers and renal disease.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2017
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. A longitudinal study of risk factors for incident albuminuria in diabetic American Indians: the Strong Heart Study.American journal of kidney diseases : the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation · 2008
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

J C ChanDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, Prince of Wales Hospital, Shatin, Hong Kong.
C S Cockram
M G Nicholls
C K Cheung
R Swaminathan
Prince of Wales Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerance of enalapril and nifedipine in hypertensive patients with non-insulin dependent diabetes.

designOne year double blind follow up of patients randomly allocated to either enalapril or nifedipine with matching placebos for the alternative drug.

settingMetabolic Investigation Unit, Hong Kong. SUBJECTS: 102 patients were randomised: 52 to nifedipine and 50 to enalapril. At baseline 44 patients had normoalbuminuria, 36 microalbuminuria, and 22 macroalbuminuria.

main outcome measuresBlood pressure, albuminuria, and parameters of renal function and glycaemic control.

resultsIn patients who completed one year's treatment the median dose required by the nifedipine group (n = 49) was 60 mg/day; seven (14%) required additional diuretics. Of 41 patients given enalapril, 37 required the maximum dose (40 mg/day) and 27 (76%) required diuretics. At one year mean arterial blood pressures were similar in both groups. Albuminuria fell by 54% in the enalapril group and 11% in the nifedipine group (p = 0.006). Fractional albumin clearance ratio fell by 47% in the enalapril group and increased by 3% in the nifedipine group (p = 0.009). Creatinine clearance fell similarly in both groups but plasma creatinine concentration was increased by 20% in the enalapril group versus 8% in the nifedipine group (p = 0.001).

conclusionPatients taking enalapril often required diuretics to control blood pressure. Enalapril reduced proteinuria significantly more than nifedipine in the microalbuminuric and macroalbuminuric patients but increased plasma creatinine concentrations. Longer follow up is required to clarify the importance of enalapril's antiproteinuric effect.

Indexed as

AlbuminuriaBlood PressureBody WeightDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Double-Blind MethodEnalaprilFemaleHumansHypertensionKidneyMaleNifedipineEnalaprilNifedipine

Identifiers

PMID1458144
PMCPMC1883996
OpenAlexW2059497424

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.