Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16106131›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2005

Your drug, my drug, or our drugs: how aggressive should we be with antihypertensive therapy?

Joseph L Izzo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.), 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Joseph L IzzoErie County Medical Center and the Department of Medicine, Division of Clinical Pharmacology, State University of New York at Buffalo School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Buffalo, NY 14215, USA. jizzo@ams.ecmc.edu

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the prevention of hypertensive complications, especially stroke and kidney disease, "lower is better" because for each decrease of 20 mm Hg systolic or 10 mm Hg diastolic pressure in the population, cardiovascular risk is halved. Ideally, the goal for each patient should be to reach the lowest blood pressure that is well tolerated, a value that may be well below the arbitrary threshold value of 140/90 mm Hg. For the majority of "uncomplicated hypertensives," the question of single-drug therapy is essentially moot, because more than one agent is almost always required to optimally control blood pressure. In individuals who already have heart or kidney disease, there are compelling indications for the use of drugs that block the renin-angiotensin system, but the large outcome studies that spawned these recommendations are themselves combination trials. Thus, in virtually all patients, more than one drug is indicated. The best combinations take advantage of long durations of action and complementary mechanisms of action of the component and are not only able to effectively lower blood pressure, but also to favorably affect the natural history of hypertensive complications. Regimens-including fixed-dose combination products-that combine a thiazide diuretic or calcium antagonist with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker are most efficient. In summary, why would an astute clinician (or informed patient) be satisfied with the relatively limited effects of any single class of antihypertensive agents when better overall protection is possible?

Indexed as

Antihypertensive AgentsClinical Trials as TopicDecision MakingDelivery of Health CareDrug IndustryDrug Therapy, CombinationHumansHypertensionAntihypertensive Agents

Identifiers

PMID16106131
PMCPMC8109736

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.