Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26793346›Full record

ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2015

Meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of adding an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) to a calcium channel blocker (CCB) following ineffective CCB monotherapy.

Jin Ma, Xiao-Yan Wang, Zhi-De Hu, Zhi-Rui Zhou, Paul Schoenhagen, Hao Wang

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
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
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Pharmacogenetic association of theFrontiers in pharmacology · 2023
    Article
  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 Ma1 Department of Cardiology, Yangpu Hospital, Tongji University, Shanghai 20090, China ; 2 Graduate School, Dalian Medical University, Dalian 116044, China ; 3 Department of Laboratory Medicine, General Hospital of Ji'nan Military Region, Ji'nan 250031, China ; 4 Department of Radiation Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai 200032, China ; 5 Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China ; 6 Cleveland Clinic, Imaging Institute and Heart&Vascular Institute, Cleveland, USA.
Xiao-Yan Wang1 Department of Cardiology, Yangpu Hospital, Tongji University, Shanghai 20090, China ; 2 Graduate School, Dalian Medical University, Dalian 116044, China ; 3 Department of Laboratory Medicine, General Hospital of Ji'nan Military Region, Ji'nan 250031, China ; 4 Department of Radiation Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai 200032, China ; 5 Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China ; 6 Cleveland Clinic, Imaging Institute and Heart&Vascular Institute, Cleveland, USA.
Zhi-De Hu1 Department of Cardiology, Yangpu Hospital, Tongji University, Shanghai 20090, China ; 2 Graduate School, Dalian Medical University, Dalian 116044, China ; 3 Department of Laboratory Medicine, General Hospital of Ji'nan Military Region, Ji'nan 250031, China ; 4 Department of Radiation Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai 200032, China ; 5 Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China ; 6 Cleveland Clinic, Imaging Institute and Heart&Vascular Institute, Cleveland, USA.
Zhi-Rui Zhou1 Department of Cardiology, Yangpu Hospital, Tongji University, Shanghai 20090, China ; 2 Graduate School, Dalian Medical University, Dalian 116044, China ; 3 Department of Laboratory Medicine, General Hospital of Ji'nan Military Region, Ji'nan 250031, China ; 4 Department of Radiation Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai 200032, China ; 5 Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China ; 6 Cleveland Clinic, Imaging Institute and Heart&Vascular Institute, Cleveland, USA.
Paul Schoenhagen1 Department of Cardiology, Yangpu Hospital, Tongji University, Shanghai 20090, China ; 2 Graduate School, Dalian Medical University, Dalian 116044, China ; 3 Department of Laboratory Medicine, General Hospital of Ji'nan Military Region, Ji'nan 250031, China ; 4 Department of Radiation Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai 200032, China ; 5 Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China ; 6 Cleveland Clinic, Imaging Institute and Heart&Vascular Institute, Cleveland, USA.
Hao Wang1 Department of Cardiology, Yangpu Hospital, Tongji University, Shanghai 20090, China ; 2 Graduate School, Dalian Medical University, Dalian 116044, China ; 3 Department of Laboratory Medicine, General Hospital of Ji'nan Military Region, Ji'nan 250031, China ; 4 Department of Radiation Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai 200032, China ; 5 Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China ; 6 Cleveland Clinic, Imaging Institute and Heart&Vascular Institute, Cleveland, USA.
Yangpu Hospital of Tongji University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe conducted this meta-analysis to systematically review and analyze the clinical benefits of angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) combined with calcium channel blocker (CCB) following ineffective CCB monotherapy.

methodsPubMed was searched for articles published until August 2015. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the clinical benefits of ARB combined with CCB following ineffective CCB monotherapy were included. The primary efficacy endpoint of the studies was normal rate of blood pressure, the secondary efficacy endpoints were the response rate and change in blood pressure from baseline. The safety endpoint of the studies was incidence of adverse events. Differences are expressed as relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes and weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% CIs for continuous outcomes. Heterogeneity across studies was tested by using the I(2) statistic.

resultsSeven RCTs were included and had sample sizes ranging from 185 to 1,183 subjects (total: 3,909 subjects). The pooled analysis showed that the on-target rate of hypertension treatment was significantly higher in the amlodipine + ARB group than in the amlodipine monotherapy group (RR =1.59; 95% CI, 1.31-1.91; P<0.01). The response rate of systolic blood pressure (SBP) (RR =1.28; 95% CI, 1.04-1.58; P<0.01) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (RR =1.27; 95% CI, 1.12-1.44; P=0.04) were significantly higher in the amlodipine + ARB group than in the amlodipine monotherapy group. The change in SBP (RR =-3.56; 95% CI, -7.76-0.63; P=0.10) and DBP (RR =-3.03; 95% CI, -6.51-0.45; P=0.09) were higher in hypertensive patients receiving amlodipine + ARB but the difference did not reach statistical significance. ARB + amlodipine treatment carried a lower risk of adverse events relative to amlodipine monotherapy (RR =0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.96; P<0.01).

conclusionsThe results of our meta-analysis demonstrate that adding an ARB to CCB after initial ineffective CCB monotherapy, significantly improved blood pressure control and the percentage of on-target hypertension treatment with significantly reduced incidence of adverse events compared with continued CCB monotherapy.

Indexed as

angiotensin receptor antagonistscalcium channel blockers (CCB)drug combinationsHypertensionmeta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID26793346
PMCPMC4703641
OpenAlexW2210815739

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.