Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21272195›Full record

Trial reportJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2011

The comparative effects of azilsartan medoxomil and olmesartan on ambulatory and clinic blood pressure.

George L Bakris, Domenic Sica, Michael Weber, William B White, Andrew Roberts, Alfonso Perez, Charlie Cao, Stuart Kupfer

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00696241 (A Phase 3, Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of TAK-491 in Subjects With Essential Hypertension), which is not on this map. Cited by 60 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
10.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT00696241 phase3completednot on this map

A Phase 3, Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of TAK-491 in Subjects With Essential Hypertension

TypeinterventionalSponsorTakedaRan2007 to 2008Enrolled1,275ConditionsHypertensionArmsAzilsartan medoxomil and olmesartan, Olmesartan, Placebo
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

60 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 141 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Guideline
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Changeover Trial of Azilsartan and Olmesartan Comparing Effects on the Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System in Patients with Essential Hypertension after Cardiac Surgery (CHAOS Study).Annals of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery : official journal of the Association of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeons of Asia · 2016
    Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial
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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

George L BakrisHypertensive Diseases Unit, University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine, Chicago, IL 60637, USA. gbakris@gmail.com
Domenic Sica
Michael Weber
William B White
Andrew Roberts
Alfonso Perez
Charlie Cao
Stuart Kupfer
SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University · USTakeda (United States) · USUniversity of Connecticut · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The current study assesses the antihypertensive efficacy and safety of the investigational angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), azilsartan medoxomil (AZL-M), compared with placebo and the ARB olmesartan medoxomil (OLM-M). This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study assessed change from baseline in mean 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure (SBP) following 6 weeks of treatment. Patients with primary hypertension (n=1275) and baseline 24-hour mean ambulatory systolic pressure ≥ 130 mm Hg and ≤ 170 mm Hg were studied; 142 received placebo and the remainder received 20 mg, 40 mg, or 80 mg AZL-M or 40 mg OLM-M. Mean age of participants was 58 ± 11 years, baseline mean 24-hour SBP was 146 mm Hg. Dose-dependent reductions in 24-hour mean SBP at study end occurred in all AZL-M groups. Reduction in 24-hour mean SBP was greater with AZL-M 80 mg than OLM-M 40 mg by 2.1 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, -4.0 to -0.1; P=.038), while AZL-M 40 mg was noninferior to OLM-M 40 mg. The side effect profiles of both ARBs were similar to placebo. AZL-M is well tolerated and more efficacious at its maximal dose than the highest dose of OLM-M.

Indexed as

AgedAngiotensin Receptor AntagonistsArgentinaBenzimidazolesBlood PressureBlood Pressure DeterminationBlood Pressure Monitoring, AmbulatoryDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansHypertensionImidazolesMaleMexicoMiddle AgedOxadiazolesAngiotensin Receptor Antagonistsazilsartan medoxomilBenzimidazolesImidazolesolmesartanOxadiazolesTetrazoles

Identifiers

PMID21272195
PMCPMC8673073
OpenAlexW2077469844

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.