Trial reportJournal of human hypertension2010
Comparative efficacy and safety of amlodipine/benazepril combination therapy and amlodipine monotherapy in severe hypertension.
Trial report in Journal of human hypertension, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative peripheral edema for dihydropyridines calcium channel blockers treatment: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2022Pooled it
- Role of olmesartan in combination therapy in blood pressure control and vascular function.Vascular health and risk management · 2010Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This multicentre, double-blind, trial in subjects with severe hypertension compared the efficacy and tolerability of two parallel drug regimens: A/B (amlodipine/benazepril: 5/20 or 10/40 mg daily, if necessary) with A (amlodipine: 5 or 10 mg daily, if necessary). The principal dependent variable was the proportion of patients achieving goal blood pressures (BP<140/90 mm Hg or BP<130/80 mm Hg in diabetes or chronic kidney disease) in the two groups within 6 weeks. In the 259 randomized subjects, BP control rates were higher with A/B at 2, 4 and 6 weeks (10.5, 22, and 33.6%, respectively) compared with A (5.7, 16, and 25.8 %, respectively). Corresponding trended BP reductions from baseline at 2, 4 and 6 weeks were about 5 mm Hg greater with A/B (-21+/-16, -26+/-17 and -30+/-17 mm Hg, respectively, compared with A (-16+/-17, -23+/-18 and 25+/-19 mm Hg, respectively, P<0.01). Both regimens were well tolerated; incidences of peripheral oedema at weeks 4 and 6 were similar (A/B: 13 and 20% versus A: 20 and 22%, P=not significant). We conclude that titration of amlodipine and benazepril in single-pill combinations is more effective than titration of amlodipine alone for rapid BP control in patients with severe hypertension.
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.