Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27094460›Full record

Observational studyJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2016

Benefits and Risks of Aliskiren Treatment in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: Analyses of the 3A Registry.

Iris Kistner, Uwe Zeymer, Ralf Dechend, Ina Hagedorn, Thomas Riemer, Peter Bramlage, David Pittrow, Jochen Senges, Roland E Schmieder

Open access · greenAbstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 38% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Blood Pressure Management Strategies and Podocyte Health.American journal of hypertension · 2025
    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

9 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Iris KistnerNephrologie und Hypertensiologie, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany.
Uwe ZeymerInstitut für Herzinfarktforschung Ludwigshafen, Ludwigshafen, Germany.
Ralf DechendMedizinische Klinik mit Schwerpunkt Molekulare and Klinische Kardiologie, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Ina HagedornClinical and Regulatory Affairs, Novartis Pharma GmbH, Nürnberg, Germany.
Thomas RiemerInstitut für Herzinfarktforschung Ludwigshafen, Ludwigshafen, Germany.
Peter BramlageInstitut für Pharmakologie and präventive Medizin, Mahlow, Germany.
David PittrowInstitute for Clinical Pharmacology, Medical Faculty, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Jochen SengesInstitut für Herzinfarktforschung Ludwigshafen, Ludwigshafen, Germany.
Roland E SchmiederNephrologie und Hypertensiologie, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany. roland.schmieder@uk-erlangen.de.
Stiftung Institut für Herzinfarktforschung · DEUniversitätsklinikum Erlangen · DECharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEMahlo (Germany) · DENovartis (Germany) · DETU Dresden · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The authors sought to retrospectively analyze the real-world evidence on aliskiren in diabetic patients with or without concomitant renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blocker use based on the Registry for Ambulant Therapy With RAS Inhibitors in Hypertension Patients in Germany (3A). Of 14,986 patients included, 3772 patients had diabetes and 28.5% received aliskiren, 14.3% received angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), 35.4% received aliskiren plus an ACE inhibitor/ARB, and 10.5% received other drugs. Ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring (baseline BP 148±15.8/84.0±10.9 mm Hg) revealed stronger diastolic BP reduction for aliskiren plus ACE inhibitor/ARB than aliskiren alone in the low (2.8±0.5 vs 0.6±0.6; P=.004) and intermediate (5.9±0.5 vs 4.5±0.5; P=.04) baseline BP groups. There was a lesser ambulatory BP reduction observed for patients receiving non-RAS in the high baseline category for both systolic (12.5±1.8 vs 17.1±1.0; P=.02) and diastolic (6.9±1.0 vs 9.8±0.6; P=.01) BP. In patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes, aliskiren was beneficial in lowering BP, with no observed increases in major adverse effects compared with RAS-blocking therapy alone.

Indexed as

AgedAmidesAngiotensin-Converting Enzyme InhibitorsAngiotensin Receptor AntagonistsAntihypertensive AgentsBlood Pressure Monitoring, AmbulatoryDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Drug Therapy, CombinationFemaleFumaratesGermanyHumansHypertensionMaleMiddle AgedRegistriesaliskirenAmidesAngiotensin-Converting Enzyme InhibitorsAngiotensin Receptor AntagonistsAntihypertensive AgentsFumarates

Identifiers

PMID27094460
PMCPMC8031948
OpenAlexW2339447962

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.