ReviewJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2006
Dispelling the myth of "aggressive" antihypertensive therapy.
Review in Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.), 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of blood pressure reduction response and responder characteristics to fixed-dose combination treatment of amlodipine and losartan: a post hoc analysis of pooled clinical trials.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2014Pooled it
- Long-term efficacy of a combination of amlodipine and olmesartan medoxomil ± hydrochlorothiazide in patients with hypertension stratified by age, race and diabetes status: a substudy of the COACH trial.Journal of human hypertension · 2010Trial
- Safety and tolerability of an olmesartan medoxomil-based regimen in patients with stage 1 hypertension: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.Clinical drug investigation · 2010Trial
- Efficacy and safety of long-term treatment with the combination of amlodipine besylate and olmesartan medoxomil in patients with hypertension.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2009Trial
- Polypharmacy among patients with hypertension attending primary healthcare centres.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2023Article
- Achieving Adherence After First-Line Antihypertensive Treatment: Should Fixed-Dose Combinations Receive Priority?Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2016Article
- Nebivolol/Hydrochlorothiazide : a new fixed-dose combination for effective simplified antihypertensive therapy.High blood pressure & cardiovascular prevention : the official journal of the Italian Society of Hypertension · 2008Article
- Metoprolol succinate extended release/hydrochlorothiazide combination tablets.Vascular health and risk management · 2007Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Data from well designed randomized trials have proven the effectiveness of an intensive approach to hypertension management in reducing morbidity and mortality. Based on these data, guidelines recommend a blood pressure goal of <140/90 mm Hg in the general population, with lower goals for high-risk patients. Clinical trials also show that most patients will require at least two antihypertensive agents to reach goal. Despite this evidence base, only about one third of individuals with hypertension receive sufficient therapy to attain a blood pressure of <140/90 mm Hg. Physicians may be reluctant to use multiple antihypertensive agents to achieve this goal because they may consider it to be "aggressive" and not always in the best interests of the patient, especially in those deemed at low risk. Such perceptions may be founded on several myths: 1) the approach demands a complex, time-consuming titration-to-response strategy, during which the patient may be lost to follow-up; 2) it increases the pill burden, which will decrease patient compliance; 3) it increases treatment-related side effects; and 4) it is not cost-effective. The availability of fixed-dose combinations containing two antihypertensive agents should help to dispel these myths. Careful selection of efficacious, well tolerated, once-daily, fixed-dose combinations allows goal blood pressure to be achieved quickly in a broad range of patients and encourages patient concordance with therapy. Such formulations are also cost-effective. Thus, reducing blood pressure using multiple drugs as fixed-dose combinations is a strategy that recognizes the multiple pathophysiologic changes that lead to hypertension.
Indexed as
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.