Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28681550›Full record

Trial reportJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2017

Comparison of long-term safety of fixed-dose combinations azilsartan medoxomil/chlorthalidone vs olmesartan medoxomil/hydrochlorothiazide.

Joel M Neutel, William C Cushman, Eric Lloyd, Bruce Barger, Alison Handley

Open access · bronzeAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

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 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Renal denervation in the management of hypertension in adults. A clinical consensus statement of the ESC Council on Hypertension and the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI).EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Long-term safety of different antihypertensive regimens: The risk of unfair comparisons.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2018
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Joel M NeutelUniversity of California, Irvine, CA, USA.
William C CushmanUniversity of Tennessee College of Medicine, Memphis, TN, USA.
Eric LloydTakeda Development Center Americas, Inc., Deerfield, IL, USA.
Bruce BargerTakeda Development Center Americas, Inc., Deerfield, IL, USA.
Alison HandleyTakeda Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., Deerfield, IL, USA.
Takeda (United States) · USUniversity of California, Irvine · USUniversity of Memphis · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This 52-week, randomized, open-label study evaluated long-term safety/tolerability of fixed-dose combination azilsartan medoxomil/chlorthalidone (AZL-M/CLD) vs fixed-dose combination olmesartan medoxomil/hydrochlorothiazide (OLM/HCTZ) in patients with essential hypertension (stage 2; clinic systolic blood pressure 160-190 mm Hg). Initial AZL-M/CLD 40/12.5 mg/d (n=418) or OLM/HCTZ 20/12.5 mg/d (n=419) could be uptitrated during weeks 4 to 52 (AZL-M/CLD to 80/25 mg; OLM/HCTZ to 40/25 mg [United States] or 20/25 mg [Europe]) to meet blood pressure targets. Treatment-emergent adverse events/serious adverse events occurred in 78.5%/5.7% of patients taking AZL-M/CLD vs 76.4%/6.2% taking OLM/HCTZ. The most frequent adverse events were dizziness (16.3% vs 12.6%), blood creatinine increase (21.5% vs 8.6%), headache (7.4% vs 11.0%), and nasopharyngitis (12.2% vs 11.5%). Hypokalemia was uncommon (1.0% vs 0.7%). Greater blood pressure reductions with AZL-M/CLD by week 2 were maintained throughout the study, despite less uptitration (32.3% vs 48.9% with OLM/HCTZ). Fixed-dose combination AZL-M/CLD showed an encouraging benefit-risk profile when used per standard clinical practice in a titrate-to-target strategy.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overAngiotensin II Type 1 Receptor BlockersAntihypertensive AgentsBenzimidazolesBlood PressureChlorthalidoneDiureticsDose-Response Relationship, DrugDrug Therapy, CombinationEssential HypertensionFemaleHumansHydrochlorothiazideMaleMiddle AgedAngiotensin II Type 1 Receptor BlockersAntihypertensive Agentsazilsartan medoxomilBenzimidazolesChlorthalidoneDiureticsHydrochlorothiazideOlmesartan MedoxomilOxadiazolesangiotensin receptor blockerazilsartanchlorthalidonediureticfixed-dose combination

Identifiers

PMID28681550
PMCPMC8031288
OpenAlexW2728663687

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.