Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27977472›Full record

Trial reportJournal of hypertension2017

Cost-effectiveness of nitrendipine and hydrochlorothiazide or metoprolol to treat hypertension in rural community health centers in China.

Zengwu Wang, Zuo Chen, Xin Wang, Guang Hao, Liyuan Ma, Xin Zhao, Yang Li, Linfeng Zhang, Manlu Zhu

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of hypertension, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 36% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Zengwu WangaDivision of Prevention and Community Health, National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Fuwai Hospital, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China bGeorgia Prevention Institute, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta University, Augusta, Georgia, USA cDivision of Information Consultation, National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Fuwai Hospital, Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China dDepartment of Cardiology, the First Hospital of Jilin University, Jilin eInstitute of Medical Information, the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.
Zuo Chen
Xin Wang
Guang Hao
Liyuan Ma
Xin Zhao
Yang Li
Linfeng Zhang
Manlu Zhu
Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CNPrevention Institute · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe objective of this article is to compare blood pressure (BP)-lowing effects of nitrendipine and hydrochlorothiazide and nitrendipine and metoprolol, and estimate the economic effect of these therapies on hypertension.

methodsOutpatients (N = 793) 18-70 years of age with stage 2 or severe hypertension (SBP ≥ 160 mmHg and/or DBP ≥ 100 mmHg) were recruited from four randomly selected rural community health centers in Beijing and Jilin. After drug wash out, they were randomly divided into nitrendipine and hydrochlorothiazide group or nitrendipine and metoprolol group. The costs of drug treatment for hypertension were calculated and general estimation, whereas effectiveness was measured as a reduction in SBP and DBP at the end of a 24-week study period.

resultsOverall, 623 patients were eligible for the study and after a 24-week follow-up, SBP and DBP were 131.2/82.2 mmHg for the nitrendipine and hydrochlorothiazide group and 131.4/82.9 mmHg for the nitrendipine and metoprolol group and these were not significantly different (P = 0.7974 SBP and P = 0.1166 DBP). Comparing with nitrendipine and metoprolol, the cost of nitrendipine and hydrochlorothiazide was less, and its effectiveness was similar. The cost/effect ratio (US$/mmHg) was 1.4 for SBP and 2.8 for DBP for the nitrendipine and hydrochlorothiazide group, and 1.9 and 3.8 for the nitrendipine and metoprolol group's SBP and DBP values, respectively. The incremental cost per patient for achieving target BP was 5.1. Adverse events were mild or moderate and there were no differences between treatment groups.

conclusionTreating hypertension with nitrendipine and hydrochlorothiazide was cost-effective than nitrendipine and metoprolol, and these data will allow more reasonable and efficient allocation of limited resources in low-income countries.

Indexed as

Community Health CentersRural Health ServicesAdolescentAdultAgedAntihypertensive AgentsBeijingBlood PressureCost-Benefit AnalysisDrug Therapy, CombinationFemaleHealth Care CostsHumansHydrochlorothiazideHypertensionMaleAntihypertensive AgentsHydrochlorothiazideMetoprololNitrendipine

Identifiers

PMID27977472
PMCPMC5338889
OpenAlexW2520193722

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.