Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19225530›Full record

Trial reportJournal of human hypertension2009

Antihypertensive efficacy of telmisartan vs ramipril over the 24-h dosing period, including the critical early morning hours: a pooled analysis of the PRISMA I and II randomized trials.

B Williams, Y Lacourcière, H Schumacher, P Gosse, J M Neutel

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of human hypertension, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Olmesartan vs. ramipril in elderly hypertensive patients: review of data from two published randomized, double-blind studies.High blood pressure & cardiovascular prevention : the official journal of the Italian Society of Hypertension · 2014
    Review
  4. Perindopril for improving cardiovascular events.Vascular health and risk management · 2014
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Telmisartan and cardioprotection.Vascular health and risk management · 2011
    Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 5 institutions in 5 countries.

B WilliamsDepartment of Cardiovascular Sciences, Clinical Sciences Building, Leicester Royal Infirmary, Leicester, UK. bwl7@le.ac.uk
Y Lacourcière
H Schumacher
P Gosse
J M Neutel
Boehringer Ingelheim (Germany) · DECentre hospitalier universitaire de Québec · CAHôpital Saint-André · FRLeicester Royal Infirmary · GBOrange County Research Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cardiovascular risk is subject to circadian variation, with peak morning incidence of myocardial infarction and stroke correlating with the early morning blood pressure (BP) surge (EMBPS). Ideally, antihypertensive therapy should maintain control of BP throughout the 24-h dosing cycle. In two sister studies, Prospective, Randomized Investigation of the Safety and efficacy of Micardis vs Ramipril Using ABPM (ambulatory BP monitoring) (PRISMA) I and II, BP control was compared in patients with essential hypertension (24-h mean baseline ambulatory BP approximately 148/93 mm Hg) randomized to the angiotensin receptor blocker, telmisartan (80 mg; n=802), or the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, ramipril (5 or 10 mg; n=811), both dosed in the morning. The primary end point was the change from baseline in mean ambulatory systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) during the final 6 h of the 24-h dosing cycle. The adjusted mean treatment differences in the last 6-h mean ambulatory SBP/DBP were -5.8/-4.2 mm Hg after 8 weeks and -4.1/-3.0 mm Hg after 14 weeks, in favour of telmisartan (P<0.0001 for all four comparisons). Secondary end point results, including the mean 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring, day- and night-time BP and 24-h BP load, also significantly favoured telmisartan (P<0.0001). Both treatments were well tolerated; adverse events, including cough, were less common with telmisartan. These findings suggest that telmisartan is more effective than ramipril throughout the 24-h period and during the EMBPS; this may be attributable to telmisartan's long duration of effect, which is sustained throughout the 24-h dosing period.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAngiotensin-Converting Enzyme InhibitorsAngiotensin II Type 1 Receptor BlockersBenzimidazolesBenzoatesCircadian RhythmFemaleHumansHypertensionMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesRamiprilTelmisartanAngiotensin-Converting Enzyme InhibitorsAngiotensin II Type 1 Receptor BlockersBenzimidazolesBenzoatesRamiprilTelmisartan

Identifiers

PMID19225530
OpenAlexW1972396757

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.