Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26956148›Full record

Observational studyBMC cardiovascular disorders2016

Azilsartan compared to ACE inhibitors in anti-hypertensive therapy: one-year outcomes of the observational EARLY registry.

Anselm K Gitt, Peter Bramlage, Sebastian A Potthoff, Peter Baumgart, Felix Mahfoud, Hartmut Buhck, Martina Ehmen, Taoufik Ouarrak, Jochen Senges, Roland E Schmieder and 1 more

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. RSSDI Guidelines for the management of hypertension in patients with diabetes mellitus.International journal of diabetes in developing countries · 2022
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Use of azilsartan medoxomil in the primary-care setting in Germany: A real-world evidence study
.International journal of clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2019
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
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

11 authors.

Anselm K GittInstitut für Herzinfarktforschung, Bremser Strasse 79, 67063, Ludwigshafen, Germany. gitta@klilu.de.
Peter BramlageInstitut für Pharmakologie und präventive Medizin, Mahlow, Germany. peter.bramlage@ippmed.de.
Sebastian A PotthoffUniversitätsklinikum Düsseldorf, Klinik für Nephrologie, Düsseldorf, Germany. sebastian.potthoff@med.uni-duesseldorf.de.
Peter BaumgartClemens-Hospital Münster, Klinik für Innere Medizin I, Münster, Germany. p.baumgart@clemenshospital.de.
Felix MahfoudUniversitätsklinikum des Saarlandes, Klinik für Innere Medizin III, Homburg/Saar, Germany. felix.mahfoud@uniklinikum-saarland.de.
Hartmut BuhckMedCommTools, Medical-scientific consultancy, Hannover, Germany. dr.buhck@medcommtools.de.
Martina EhmenTakeda Pharma Vertriebs GmbH, Berlin, Germany. martina.ehmen@takeda.com.
Taoufik OuarrakInstitut für Herzinfarktforschung, Bremser Strasse 79, 67063, Ludwigshafen, Germany. ouarrak@ihf.de.
Jochen SengesInstitut für Herzinfarktforschung, Bremser Strasse 79, 67063, Ludwigshafen, Germany. senges@ihf.de.
Roland E SchmiederUniversitätsklinikum Erlangen, Medizinische Klinik 4, Schwerpunkt Nephrologie / Hypertensiologie, Erlangen, Germany. roland.schmieder@uk-erlangen.de.
EARLY Registry Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAzilsartan medoxomil (AZL-M), has been demonstrated to be more effective than the other sartans currently in use; however, there is insufficient information available comparing it with ACE-inhibitors. Therefore, we aimed to compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of AZL-M with that of ACE-inhibitors in a real life clinical setting.

methodsThe EARLY registry is a prospective, observational, national, multicentre registry with a follow-up period of 12 months. There were two principal objectives: 1) documentation of the achievement of target BP values set according to recent national and international guidelines, and 2) description of the safety profile of AZL-M.

resultsA total of 3 849 patients with essential arterial hypertension were recruited from primary care offices in Germany. Patients who initiated monotherapy at baseline comprising either AZL-M or an ACE-inhibitor were included at a ratio of seven to three. Results demonstrated that a blood pressure target of <140/90 mmHg was achieved by a significantly greater proportion of patients in the AZL-M group (61.1 %) compared with the ACE-inhibitor group (56.4 %; p < 0.05; OR, 1.21; 95 % CI, 1.03-1.42), with this finding maintained after adjusting for differences in baseline characteristics. AZL-M appeared to have an equivalent safety profile to the ACE-inhibitors, with a similar incidence of adverse events in the two patient groups (p = 0.73).

conclusionsThese data add to the results of previous randomized controlled clinical trials suggesting that, compared with other agents that target the renin-angiotensin system, AZL-M provides statistically significant albeit small improvements in blood pressure control.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAngiotensin-Converting Enzyme InhibitorsAngiotensin II Type 1 Receptor BlockersAntihypertensive AgentsArterial PressureBenzimidazolesChi-Square DistributionFemaleGermanyHumansHypertensionMaleMedication AdherenceMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisAngiotensin-Converting Enzyme InhibitorsAngiotensin II Type 1 Receptor BlockersAntihypertensive AgentsazilsartanBenzimidazolesOxadiazoles

Identifiers

PMID26956148
PMCPMC4784379

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.