Trial reportJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2017
Efficacy and tolerability of initial high vs low doses of S-(-)-amlodipine in hypertension.
Trial report in Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- A randomized controlled trial on the blood pressure-lowering effect of amlodipine and nifedipine-GITS in sustained hypertension.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2019Trial
- A randomized multicenter study on ambulatory blood pressure and arterial stiffness in patients treated with valsartan/amlodipine or nifedipine GITS.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2019Trial
- Efficacy and Safety of S-Amlodipine 2.5 and 5 mg/d in Hypertensive Patients Who Were Treatment-Naive or Previously Received Antihypertensive Monotherapy.Journal of cardiovascular pharmacology and therapeutics · 2018Trial
- Efficacy and tolerability of initial high vs low doses of S-(-)-amlodipine in hypertension.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2017Trial
- Ambulatory blood pressure response to S-amlodipine in Korean adult patients with uncontrolled essential hypertension: A prospective, observational study.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2022Observational
- What is new in the 2018 Chinese hypertension guideline and the implication for the management of hypertension in Asia?Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2020Article
- S-Amlodipine: An Isomer with Difference-Time to Shift from Racemic Amlodipine.International journal of hypertension · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In an 8-week randomized trial of patients with mild or moderate hypertension, the authors investigated the efficacy and tolerability of initial high (5.0 mg/d) vs low (2.5 mg/d) doses of S-(-)-amlodipine (equivalent to 5 and 10 mg of racemic amlodipine, respectively). In the S-(-)-amlodipine 2.5-mg group (n=263), 24-hour ambulatory systolic/diastolic blood pressure (±standard deviation) decreased from 131.5±15.0/82.1±10.7 mm Hg at baseline to 126.0±13.5/78.5±9.5 mm Hg at 8 weeks of follow-up by a least square mean (±standard error) change of 6.0±0.6/3.8±0.4 mm Hg. In the S-(-)-amlodipine 5-mg group (n=260), the corresponding changes were from 133.6±13.7/83.1±9.9 mm Hg to 125.0±12.0/78.2±8.9 mm Hg by 8.1±0.6/4.7±0.4 mm Hg, respectively. The between-group differences in changes in 24-hour systolic/diastolic blood pressure were 2.1/0.9 (P=.02/.17) mm Hg. Similar trends were observed for daytime and nighttime ambulatory and clinic blood pressure. The incidence rate was similar for all adverse events. An initial high dose of S-(-)-amlodipine improved ambulatory blood pressure control with similar tolerability as an initial low dose in hypertension.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.