Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15365275›Full record

Trial reportJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2004

Antihypertensive efficacy of candesartan-lisinopril in combination vs. up-titration of lisinopril: the AMAZE trials.

Joseph L Izzo, Marc S Weinberg, James W Hainer, Joseph Kerkering, Conrad K P Tou, AMAZE

Open access · greenAbstract readClinical TrialMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.), 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. AMAZE study--less than amazing results.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2005
    Trial
  3. Review
  4. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2011
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Joseph L IzzoDepartment of Medicine, State University of New York at Buffalo, 462 Grider Street, Buffalo, NY 14215, USA. jizzo@acsu.buffalo.edu
Marc S Weinberg
James W Hainer
Joseph Kerkering
Conrad K P Tou
AMAZE
AstraZeneca (Germany) · DEBoston University · USBrown University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The AMAZE (A Multicenter Trial Using Atacand and Zestril vs. Zestril to Evaluate the Effects on Lowering Blood Pressure) program included two identical studies sponsored by AstraZeneca LP. The oral form of candesartan is candesartan cilexetil; for simplicity, the term "candesartan" is used throughout this manuscript. Two identical multicenter, randomized, double-blind studies were performed to determine if addition of the angiotensin receptor blocker candesartan was more effective in lowering blood pressure than up-titration of lisinopril. Hypertensive patients (N=1,096) who were uncontrolled on lisinopril 20 mg daily were randomized (1:1) to receive either 8 weeks of high-dose lisinopril (40 mg) or the addition of candesartan (16 mg) for 2 weeks followed by 32 mg for 6 weeks. Study 1 (n=538) demonstrated decreases in trough sitting systolic/diastolic blood pressures at Week 8 by 6.2/5.9 mm Hg, respectively, for the lisinopril up-titration treatment group and by 11.6/8.3 mm Hg, respectively, for the lisinopril plus candesartan treatment group (p<0.01 in comparing both blood pressures reductions between the two treatment groups). Corresponding results for Study 2 (n=558) are reductions of 8.7/6.2 mm Hg and 9.5/7.4 mm Hg, respectively, for each of the two treatment groups. For Study 2, comparisons of systolic/diastolic blood pressures between the two treatment groups were not statistically significantly different (p=0.51/p=0.08, respectively). Post hoc pooled analysis (N=1,096) demonstrated a slightly greater blood pressure reduction with lisinopril plus candesartan compared with lisinopril (3.1/1.7 mm Hg). A 95% confidence interval limit for the difference in least squares mean change from baseline in systolic blood pressure between the two treatment groups is -4.8 to -1.5 and is -2.8 to -0.7 in mm Hg for diastolic blood pressure. The blood pressure control rates (<140/<90 mm Hg) were 42.7% and 36.9%, respectively. Both treatment regimens were well tolerated in all groups. In conclusion, for hypertensive patients not controlled by lisinopril 20 mg once daily, addition of candesartan (32 mg once daily) or doubling the dose of lisinopril provides safe, additional reduction of blood pressure.

Indexed as

AgedAngiotensin II Type 1 Receptor BlockersAntihypertensive AgentsBenzimidazolesBiphenyl CompoundsBlood PressureDouble-Blind MethodDrug Administration ScheduleDrug Therapy, CombinationFemaleHumansHypertensionLisinoprilMaleMiddle AgedTetrazolesAngiotensin II Type 1 Receptor BlockersAntihypertensive AgentsBenzimidazolesBiphenyl CompoundscandesartanLisinoprilTetrazoles

Identifiers

PMID15365275
PMCPMC8109520
OpenAlexW1974906889

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.