ArticleClinical drug investigation1998
A comparison of fosinopril and hydrochlorothiazide with hydrochlorothiazide in non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus patients with mild to moderate hypertension.
Article in Clinical drug investigation, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study of the tolerability and antihypertensive efficacy of once-daily fosinopril 20 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5mg (FOS/HCTZ) compared with once-daily hydrochlorothiazide 25mg (HCTZ) was conducted in 142 patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM) and mild to moderate essential hypertension. After 12 weeks of treatment, both groups had statistically significant mean changes from baseline in seated diastolic and systolic blood pressures (FOS/HCTZ, -15.0mm Hg; HCTZ, -11.9mm Hg for seated diastolic blood pressure). The difference between treatment groups was statistically significant (p < 0.001). In addition, normalisation of seated diastolic blood pressure was achieved in 85% of FOS/HCTZ patients compared with 71% of HCTZ patients. A statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) in favour of FOS/HCTZ was observed for the total number of favourable responses (normalisation or >/=10mm Hg reduction in seated diastolic blood pressure) at week 12 and for the end-point analysis. One FOS/HCTZ patient and 5 HCTZ patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events. No clinically significant changes in serum glucose, potassium or cholesterol were observed. A slight but statistically significant increase in fasting triglycerides occurred with FOS/HCTZ compared with HCTZ (+26.1 vs +13.5 mg/dl, respectively; p < 0.05). These results show that the combination of fosinopril and hydrochlorothiazide has considerable potential as an effective antihypertensive regimen that does not significantly alter glucose or lipid metabolism in patients with NIDDM.
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.