Trial reportThe Kaohsiung journal of medical sciences2013
Efficacy and tolerability between an olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination and an amlodipine double dose in mild to moderate hypertension.
Trial report in The Kaohsiung journal of medical sciences, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 7 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
- High-dose calcium channel blocker (CCB) monotherapy vs combination therapy of standard-dose CCBs and angiotensin receptor blockers for hypertension: a meta-analysis.Journal of human hypertension · 2017Pooled it
- Efficacy of Olmesartan/Amlodipine Single-Pill Combination on 24-h Mean Systolic Blood Pressure Measured by Ambulatory Monitoring in Non-Responders to Valsartan or Candesartan Monotherapy.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2025Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) are one of the options for improving blood pressure (BP) goal attainment. We enrolled 141 patients and evaluated the efficacy and safety between a fixed dose of olmesartan/amlodipine (OA) and a double dose of amlodipine (DA) for treating mild to moderate hypertension after amlodipine monotherapy failure. After at least 2 weeks of monotherapy failure, the patients were randomized to receive either OA or DA for 8 weeks. We compared the systolic blood pressure (SBP)-lowering efficacy of the OA and DA using both an office BP and an ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) device. The intent-to-treat analysis found that the early (2nd week) and final visit (8th week) SBP reductions were significantly greater in those patients receiving OA (n = 70) than DA (n = 71) (17.57 ± 15.49 vs. 10.46 ± 13.36 and 24.89 ± 14.09 vs. 17.03 ± 13.27 mmHg, p = 0.002 and 0.001, respectively). Among those using ABPM, the patients with 8-week OA had a greater SBP-lowering effect in comparison with those on DA (14.08 ± 10.74 vs. 6.32 ± 10.21, p = 0.018). Both treatment strategies were well tolerated. This study showed that an OA FDC is more effective than DA in reducing SBP for mild to moderate hypertension after the failure of amlodipine monotherapy.
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.