Trial reportJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2006
An effectiveness study comparing algorithm-based antihypertensive therapy with previous treatments using conventional and ambulatory blood pressure measurements.
Trial report 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. It is linked to trial NCT01070342 (Methodological Improvement in Measuring Efficacy Outcome in Antihypertensive Trials in Children), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Methodological Improvement in Measuring Efficacy Outcome in Antihypertensive Trials in Children
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Effectiveness trials in hypertension enable the efficacy and safety of new drugs to be compared with previous therapy. Since these open-label trials could inadvertently be influenced by observer bias, this study has used ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) to provide a rigorous blinded end point to validate the study conclusions. The study was performed in 675 patients with stage 1 or 2 hypertension despite receiving single-agent or fixed-dose combination therapy. After baseline ABPM, the previous treatment was replaced by telmisartan 40 mg daily; if control (office blood pressure <140/90 mm Hg) was not achieved in 2 weeks, the dose was increased to 80 mg, and if necessary, a fixed combination with hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg was used after a further 4 weeks. ABPM was repeated after 4 weeks on final therapy. Overall, 50% of patients finished on monotherapy and 50% on combination therapy. By office measurements, there was a decrease (mean +/- SEM) of 16.8+/-0.5/10.3+/-0.3 mm Hg (p<0.001) when telmisartan-based treatment replaced previous treatment; by ABPM, the decrease was 8.2+/-0.4/5.0+/-0.2 mm Hg (p<0.001). The decreases were significant for comparisons with each of the prior drug classes. A treatment algorithm based on the angiotensin receptor blocker, telmisartan, was confirmed by the blinded end point of ABPM as an efficacious alternative to other antihypertensive regimens in clinical practice.
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.