Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26101644›Full record

ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2015

Benefit of initial dual-therapy on stroke prevention in Chinese hypertensive patients: a real world cohort study.

Jin-Ming Yu, Qun-Yu Kong, Tian Shen, Yu-Song He, Ji-Wei Wang, Yan-Ping Zhao

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jin-Ming Yu1 Institute of Clinical Epidemiology, Key Laboratory of Public Health Safety, Ministry of Education, School of Public Health, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China ; 2 Medical Affairs of Great China Region of Novartis, Shanghai 201101, China ; 3 Shanghai Minhang Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Shanghai 201101, China.
Qun-Yu Kong1 Institute of Clinical Epidemiology, Key Laboratory of Public Health Safety, Ministry of Education, School of Public Health, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China ; 2 Medical Affairs of Great China Region of Novartis, Shanghai 201101, China ; 3 Shanghai Minhang Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Shanghai 201101, China.
Tian Shen1 Institute of Clinical Epidemiology, Key Laboratory of Public Health Safety, Ministry of Education, School of Public Health, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China ; 2 Medical Affairs of Great China Region of Novartis, Shanghai 201101, China ; 3 Shanghai Minhang Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Shanghai 201101, China.
Yu-Song He1 Institute of Clinical Epidemiology, Key Laboratory of Public Health Safety, Ministry of Education, School of Public Health, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China ; 2 Medical Affairs of Great China Region of Novartis, Shanghai 201101, China ; 3 Shanghai Minhang Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Shanghai 201101, China.
Ji-Wei Wang1 Institute of Clinical Epidemiology, Key Laboratory of Public Health Safety, Ministry of Education, School of Public Health, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China ; 2 Medical Affairs of Great China Region of Novartis, Shanghai 201101, China ; 3 Shanghai Minhang Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Shanghai 201101, China.
Yan-Ping Zhao1 Institute of Clinical Epidemiology, Key Laboratory of Public Health Safety, Ministry of Education, School of Public Health, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China ; 2 Medical Affairs of Great China Region of Novartis, Shanghai 201101, China ; 3 Shanghai Minhang Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Shanghai 201101, China.
Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsStudies have shown that combination anti-hypertensive therapy is superior to mono-therapy in blood pressure control and prevention of cardiovascular events. However, whether such advantage exists in the prevention of stroke in Chinese hypertensive patients remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the impact of initial combination versus mono-therapy on stroke events in a large cohort of Chinese hypertensive patients. METHODS AND

resultsHypertensive patients with uncontrolled blood pressure and without a history of stroke were screened from the Shanghai Community-dwelling Hypertensive Population Follow-up Database. Based on the initial treatment, individuals were divided into an initial mono-therapy group and initial dual combination group. Patients were followed for 42 months. 32,682 and 4,926 patients were included in the initial mono- and dual-therapy group. The achieved target blood pressure control rates of mono vs. combination groups at 6, 12, 24, and 42 months of follow-up, were 59.47% vs. 60.05%, 78.23% vs. 77.06%, 85.51% vs. 84.02%, and 86.90% vs. 85.44%, respectively. Their corresponding incidence densities of stroke were 0.792 vs. 0.489, 1.49 vs. 1.15, 2.79 vs. 2.38, and 4.25 vs. 4.32 (cases per 100 person-year), respectively. The 6-month incidence of stroke in dual-therapy group was significantly lower than mono-therapy group (adjusted HR 0.64; 95% CI: 0.30-0.93). However, no significant group differences in the incidence density were observed at 12, 24, and 42 months.

conclusionsOur study demonstrates that, for patients with uncontrolled hypertension, initial dual therapy is more effective in the prevention of stroke during the first 6 months of treatment, but not thereafter. Combination antihypertensive therapy may be a beneficial initial strategy for early stroke prevention.

Indexed as

combination-therapydual-therapyHypertensionmono-therapystroke

Identifiers

PMID26101644
PMCPMC4454863
OpenAlexW2215936386

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.