Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17541390›Full record

Trial reportJournal of human hypertension2007

A comparison of the tolerability of the direct renin inhibitor aliskiren and lisinopril in patients with severe hypertension.

R H Strasser, J G Puig, C Farsang, M Croket, J Li, H van Ingen

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of human hypertension, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
8.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 68 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Proteinuria and its relation to cardiovascular disease.International journal of nephrology and renovascular disease · 2013
    Review
  6. Oral renin inhibitors in clinical practice: a perspective review.Therapeutic advances in chronic disease · 2012
    Article
  7. Renin inhibitors.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2011
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Direct renin inhibition: clinical pharmacology.Journal of molecular medicine (Berlin, Germany) · 2008
    Review
  15. Renin inhibitors, clinical experience.Journal of molecular medicine (Berlin, Germany) · 2008
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

R H StrasserTechnical University Dresden, Heart Center, University Hospital, Dresden, Germany. Ruth.Strasser@mailbox.tu-dresden.de
J G Puig
C Farsang
M Croket
J Li
H van Ingen
Novartis (Switzerland) · CHHospital Universitario La Paz · ESSemmelweis University · HUTU Dresden · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patients with severe hypertension (>180/110 mm Hg) require large blood pressure (BP) reductions to reach recommended treatment goals (<140/90 mm Hg) and usually require combination therapy to do so. This 8-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study compared the tolerability and antihypertensive efficacy of the novel direct renin inhibitor aliskiren with the angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor lisinopril in patients with severe hypertension (mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (msDBP)>or=105 mm Hg and <120 mm Hg). In all, 183 patients were randomized (2:1) to aliskiren 150 mg (n=125) or lisinopril 20 mg (n=58) with dose titration (to aliskiren 300 mg or lisinopril 40 mg) and subsequent addition of hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) if additional BP control was required. Aliskiren-based treatment (ALI) was similar to lisinopril-based treatment (LIS) with respect to the proportion of patients reporting an adverse event (AE; ALI 32.8%; LIS 29.3%) or discontinuing treatment due to AEs (ALI 3.2%; LIS 3.4%). The most frequently reported AEs in both groups were headache, nasopharyngitis and dizziness. At end point, ALI showed similar mean reductions from baseline to LIS in msDBP (ALI -18.5 mm Hg vs LIS -20.1 mm Hg; mean treatment difference 1.7 mm Hg (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.0, 4.4)) and mean sitting systolic blood pressure (ALI -20.0 mm Hg vs LIS -22.3 mm Hg; mean treatment difference 2.8 mm Hg (95% CI -1.7, 7.4)). Responder rates (msDBP<90 mm Hg and/or reduction from baseline>or=10 mm Hg) were 81.5% with ALI and 87.9% with LIS. Approximately half of patients required the addition of HCTZ to achieve BP control (ALI 53.6%; LIS 44.8%). In conclusion, ALI alone, or in combination with HCTZ, exhibits similar tolerability and antihypertensive efficacy to LIS alone, or in combination with HCTZ, in patients with severe hypertension.

Indexed as

Renin InhibitorsAgedAmidesAngiotensin-Converting Enzyme InhibitorsAntihypertensive AgentsDouble-Blind MethodFemaleFumaratesHumansHypertensionLisinoprilMaleMiddle AgedRenin-Angiotensin SystemTreatment OutcomealiskirenAmidesAngiotensin-Converting Enzyme InhibitorsAntihypertensive AgentsFumaratesLisinoprilRenin Inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID17541390
OpenAlexW2007772636

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.