ArticleInternational journal of nephrology and renovascular disease2013
Comparison of once daily versus twice daily olmesartan in patients with chronic kidney disease.
Article in International journal of nephrology and renovascular disease, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Understanding Efficacy of Using ACEIs and ARBs in Chronotherapeutic Treatment of Hypertension: Which Drug When?Current hypertension reviews · 2025Review
- Twice-daily versus once-daily lisinopril and losartan for hypertension: Real-world effectiveness and safety.PloS one · 2020Article
- Chronotherapy for Hypertension.Current hypertension reports · 2018Review
- Effect of Olmesartan-Based Therapies on Therapeutic Indicators Obtained Through Out-of-Office Blood Pressure.Cardiology and therapy · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe effects of olmesartan (OLM) on blood pressure and kidney function in Japanese patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) were compared between 20 mg twice daily (BID) and 40 mg once daily (QD) treatments.
methodsThe subjects were Japanese CKD patients with concurrent hypertension who had been treated with OLM 20 mg BID for at least 3 months on an outpatient basis (n=39). After a change in the treatment regimen to 40 mg OLM QD (after breakfast), blood pressure (BP) (n=39), morning home BP (n=13), estimated glomerular filtration rate (n=39), and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (n=17) were monitored for 2 months.
resultsNo significant change in office (mean ± standard deviation [SD] [mmHg], 143.9 ± 18.8/75.7 ± 12.0 to 141.6 ± 16.1/74.7 ± 11.7, not significant [ns]) or early morning home (mean ± SD [mmHg], 133.8 ± 15.9/71.2 ± 11.5 to 133.8 ± 13.9/74.5 ± 10.5, ns) BP was observed 2 months after the change in dose. The estimated glomerular filtration rate increased significantly (mean ± SD, 49.0 ± 28.0 to 51.8 ± 27.0, P<0.05), whereas urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio did not change significantly (mean ± SD, 0.551 ± 0.445 to 0.364 ± 0.5194, ns).
conclusionHigh-dose OLM administered BID and QD had similar effects on outpatient and early morning home BP in CKD patients, suggesting that the BID regimen can be safely changed to a QD regimen. For CKD patients with hypertension requiring continuous long-term treatment, the possibility that the QD regimen might bring a greater therapeutic effect was suggested. However, recognizing the best blood pressure control level for a CKD patient is still a matter of debate, and should ideally be personalized.
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.