Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29273586›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2017

Incremental effects of antihypertensive drugs: instrumental variable analysis.

Adam A Markovitz, Jacob A Mack, Brahmajee K Nallamothu, John Z Ayanian, Andrew M Ryan

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Adam A MarkovitzDepartment of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Jacob A MackDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Brahmajee K NallamothuVA Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
John Z AyanianDepartment of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Andrew M RyanDepartment of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
University of Michigan–Ann Arbor · USVA Center for Clinical Management Research · US

Funding

Research BaseP30DK092926 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI MARY ELLEN MICHELE HEISLER, ADESUWA B OLOMU · 2011 to 2026
$10.0M
NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK092926
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess the incremental effects of adding extra antihypertensive drugs from a new class to a patient's regimen.

designInstrumental variable analysis of data from SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial). To account for confounding by indication-when treatments seem less effective if they are administered to sicker patients-randomization status was used as the instrumental variable. Patients' randomization status was either intensive (systolic blood pressure target <120 mm Hg) or standard (systolic blood pressure target <140 mm Hg) treatment. Results from instrumental variable models were compared with those from standard multivariable models.

settingSecondary data analysis of a randomized clinical trial conducted at 102 sites in 2010-15.

participants9092 SPRINT participants with hypertension and increased cardiovascular risk but no history of diabetes or stroke. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Systolic blood pressure, major cardiovascular events, and serious adverse events.

resultsIn standard multivariable models not adjusted for confounding by indication, addition of an antihypertensive drug from a new class was associated with modestly lower systolic blood pressure (-1.3 mm Hg, 95% confidence interval -1.6 to -1.0) and no change in major cardiovascular events (absolute risk of events per 1000 patient years, 0.5, 95% confidence interval -1.5 to 2.3). In instrumental variable models, the addition of an antihypertensive drug from a new class led to clinically important reductions in systolic blood pressure (-14.4 mm Hg, -15.6 to -13.3) and fewer major cardiovascular events (absolute risk -6.2, -10.9 to -1.3). Incremental reductions in systolic blood pressure remained large and similar in magnitude for patients already taking drugs from zero, one, two, or three or more drug classes. This finding was consistent across all subgroups of patients. The addition of another antihypertensive drug class was not associated with adverse events in either standard or instrumental variable models.

conclusionsAfter adjustment for confounding by indication, the addition of a new antihypertensive drug class led to large reductions in systolic blood pressure and major cardiovascular events among patients at high risk for cardiovascular events but without diabetes. Effects on systolic blood pressure persisted across all levels of baseline drug use and all subgroups of patients.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overAntihypertensive AgentsBlood PressureCardiovascular DiseasesFemaleHumansHypertensionMaleMiddle AgedOutcome Assessment, Health CareRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRisk FactorsSystoleTreatment OutcomeAntihypertensive Agents

Identifiers

PMID29273586
PMCPMC5736968
OpenAlexW2776544043

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.