ArticleJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2012
Comparative effectiveness analysis of amlodipine/renin-angiotensin system blocker combinations.
Article in Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Single Pill Regimen Leads to Better Adherence and Clinical Outcome in Daily Practice in Patients Suffering from Hypertension and/or Dyslipidemia: Results of a Meta-Analysis.High blood pressure & cardiovascular prevention : the official journal of the Italian Society of Hypertension · 2020Pooled it
- Effects of combining azilsartan medoxomil with amlodipine in patients with stage 2 hypertension.Blood pressure monitoring · 2014Trial
- A Retrospective, Observational, EMR-Based Real-World Evidence Study to Assess the Incidence of Pedal Edema in Essential Hypertensive Patients on Amlodipine or Cilnidipine.International journal of hypertension · 2022Article
- Effectiveness of Amlodipine on Blood Pressure Control in Hypertensive Patients in India: A Real-World, Retrospective Study from Electronic Medical Records.Drugs - real world outcomes · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A comparative effectiveness analysis of antihypertensive therapy amlodipine (AML) and angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) fixed- and loose-dose combinations (FDCs and LDCs) in achieving blood pressure (BP) reduction and Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC 7) goal attainment was made using retrospective electronic medical record (EMR) data. Treatment goal rates ranged from 35.0% for LDC AML/losartan to 45.7% for FDC AML/olmesartan (OM). FDC AML/OM achieved significantly greater reductions in systolic BP than FDC AML/benazepril (BEN), FDC AML/valsartan (VAL), and LDC AML/ARBs, respectively, and significantly greater reductions in diastolic BP than FDC AML/VAL and LDC therapy, respectively. Compared with patients treated with AML/OM, patients prescribed AML/VAL and LDC AML/ARB were significantly less likely to attain JNC 7 BP goal. Among subpopulations, AML/OM yielded higher rates of goal attainment among both African Americans and obese/overweight patients relative to AML/VAL and combined LDCs. Switchers from monotherapy with AML, OM, or VAL to AML/OM were significantly more likely to attain JNC 7 goals than those switching to AML/VAL or AML/BEN.
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.