Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20089489›Full record

Trial reportClinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN2010

Randomized, double-blind, controlled study of losartan in children with proteinuria.

Nicholas J A Webb, Chun Lam, Tom Loeys, Shahnaz Shahinfar, Juergen Strehlau, Thomas G Wells, Emanuela Santoro, Denise Manas, Gilbert W Gleim

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pharmacological interventions for hypertension in children.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Pharmacologic Treatment of Pediatric Hypertension.Current hypertension reports · 2016
    Review
  15. Anti-hypertensive drugs in children and adolescents.World journal of cardiology · 2014
    Review
  16. Review
  17. 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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Nicholas J A WebbDepartment of Paediatric Nephrology, Royal Manchester Children's Hospital, Manchester M13 9WL, United Kingdom. nicholas.webb@cmft.nhs.uk
Chun Lam
Tom Loeys
Shahnaz Shahinfar
Juergen Strehlau
Thomas G Wells
Emanuela Santoro
Denise Manas
Gilbert W Gleim
Royal Manchester Children's Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivesNo large, randomized, double-blind trials in children with proteinuria treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers have previously been reported. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: This 12-week, double-blind, multinational study investigated the effects of losartan 0.7 to 1.4 mg/kg per day compared with placebo (normotensive stratum) or amlodipine 0.1 to 0.2 mg/kg per day up to 5 mg/d (hypertensive stratum) on proteinuria (morning-void urinary protein-creatinine ratio, baseline > or =0.3 g/g) in 306 children up to 17 years of age.

resultsTwelve weeks of treatment with losartan significantly reduced proteinuria compared with amlodipine/placebo: losartan -35.8% (95% confidence interval: -27.6% to -43.1%) versus amlodipine/placebo 1.4% (95% confidence interval: -10.3% to 14.5%), P < or = 0.001. Significance remained after adjustment for differences across treatment groups in change in BP (losartan produced incremental systolic and diastolic BP reductions versus amlodipine of 5.4 and 4.6 mmHg, respectively; and versus placebo of 3.8 and 4.0 mmHg, respectively). Proteinuria reduction was consistently observed in the normotensive (-34.4% losartan; 2.6% placebo) and hypertensive (-41.5% losartan; 2.4% amlodipine) strata, and in all prespecified subgroups, including age, gender, race, Tanner stage, weight, prior therapy with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, as well as among the most common etiologies of proteinuria. Adverse event incidence was low and comparable in all groups.

conclusionsLosartan significantly lowered proteinuria and was well tolerated after 12 weeks in children aged 1 to 17 years with proteinuria with or without hypertension, a population that has not previously been rigorously studied.

Indexed as

AdolescentAmlodipineAngiotensin II Type 1 Receptor BlockersAntihypertensive AgentsBiomarkersBlood PressureCalcium Channel BlockersChildChild, PreschoolCreatinineDouble-Blind MethodEuropeFemaleHumansHypertensionInfantAmlodipineAngiotensin II Type 1 Receptor BlockersAntihypertensive AgentsBiomarkersCalcium Channel BlockersCreatinineLosartan

Identifiers

PMID20089489
PMCPMC2827569
OpenAlexW2133533440

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.