ArticleClinical drug investigation2006
Efficacy and safety of amlodipine: a comparative study of hypertensive patients treated at primary- and specialised-care centres.
Article in Clinical drug investigation, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quality by Design Assisted Optimization of a Chiral Capillary Electrokinetic Chromatographic Method for the Separation of Amlodipine Enantiomers Using Maltodextrin as Chiral Selector.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Amlodipine-induced hypersensitivity reaction mimicking CD30(+) mycosis fungoides.JAAD case reports · 2016Article
- Titration of amlodipine to higher doses: a comparison of Asian and Western experience.Vascular health and risk management · 2013Article
- Adverse effects of the amlodipine on bone healing of the mandibular fracture: an experimental study in rats.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2011Article
- Combination therapy with renin-angiotensin system blockers: will amlodipine replace hydrochlorothiazide?Current hypertension reports · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study set out to assess the safety and efficacy of amlodipine in two cohorts of patients who were attended in primary- and specialised-care centres, respectively.
methodsProspective, observational, multicentre pharmacovigilance study including patients aged >18 years who presented with a diagnosis of hypertension (systolic blood pressure [SBP] >or=140 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure [DBP] >or=90 mm Hg) of >6 months' duration, which was either untreated or uncontrolled, and who were followed up by general practitioners and specialists over a period of 4-6 months.
resultsOf the total of 4277 patients included in the study, 2520 (58.9%) were attended in primary care and 1757 (41.1%) in specialised care. 2982 patients (69.7%) were receiving monotherapy, the rest were receiving combined therapy. Over the course of the study, 308 patients (7.2%) experienced adverse events related to the study drug, mostly mild to moderate in nature. There were 20 serious events, although none was related to the study drug. By the end of the study, 1617 patients (37.8%) had achieved the therapeutic goal (SBP <140 mm Hg and DBP <90 mm Hg), with the greatest degree of control being registered among patients receiving combined therapy compared with monotherapy (38.7% vs 35.7%), and in those treated in a specialised-care setting versus a primary-care setting (43.5% vs 33.8%; p < 0.005).
conclusionsAmlodipine was shown to be a well tolerated and effective drug in one in three patients, and achieved the therapeutic goal in a higher proportion of patients at specialised-care centres compared with those in primary care, and in those receiving combined therapy compared with monotherapy.
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.