ArticleJournal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR2014
Comparative efficacy and safety of triple therapy (ramipril, telmisartan, hydrochlorothiazide) vs dual anti hypertensive therapy (ramipril or telmisartan, hydrochlorothiazide) in stage 2 hypertensive patients.
Article in Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative efficacy and safety of dual-combination vs. triple-combination antihypertensive therapies in hypertensive patients: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
- Analysis of second- and third-line antihypertensive treatments after initial therapy with an angiotensin II receptor blocker using real-world Japanese data.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2016Article
- Dual antihypertensive strategies: A real-world comparative study of efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combinations in a tertiary care setting.Perspectives in clinical researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of ramipril 5mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5mg (R + HCTZ), telmisartan 40mg plus hydrochlorothiazide12.5mg (T + HCTZ) and ramipril 2.5mg plus telmisartan 20mg plus hydrochlorothiazide12.5mg (R + T + HCTZ) in patients with stage 2 hypertension. MATERIALS AND
methodsA prospective, open label, randomized comparative study was conducted to study the comparative efficacy and safety of R+HCTZ (group 1), T+HCTZ (group 2)and R+T+TCTZ (group3) in 88 patients with stage 2 hypertension without co-morbid conditions. Echocardiography was done to assess left ventricular function. Patients were followed up to 24 weeks and any ADR occurring in this period was recorded.
resultsAll the three treatment groups showed significant fall in both systolic and diastolic blood pressure compared to the baseline scores (p<0.0001). Intergroup comparison did not reveal any significant difference. Total number of adverse drug events reported were 15. Group III had higher percentage ADRs. Dry cough (8) was most common ADR. The echocardiography parameters did not change from baseline values with all three treatment regimens.
conclusionAll three medications were of equal efficacy in patients with stage 2 hypertension without co morbid conditions, failing to prove superiority over each other.
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.