Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29338113›Full record

Trial reportJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2018

Efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with essential hypertension uncontrolled by olmesartan: A randomized, double-blind, 8-week study.

Deanna G Cheung, Diego Aizenberg, Vladimir Gorbunov, Kudsia Hafeez, Chien-Wei Chen, Jack Zhang

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled TrialEquivalence Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 70 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Network meta-analysis of sacubitril/valsartan for the treatment of essential hypertension.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2023
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

6 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Deanna G CheungLong Beach Center for Clinical Research, Long Beach, CA, USA.
Diego AizenbergCentro Medico Viamonte, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Vladimir GorbunovNational Medical Research Center for Preventive Medicine, Moscow, Russia.
Kudsia HafeezNovartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, NJ, USA.
Chien-Wei ChenNovartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, NJ, USA.
Jack ZhangAlcon Laboratories, Inc., Fort Worth, TX, USA.
Alcon (United States) · USInstituto Médico Platense · ARLong Beach City College · USNational Research Center for Preventive Medicine · RUNovartis (United States) · USTris Pharma (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A majority of patients with hypertension fail to achieve blood pressure (BP) control despite treatment with commonly prescribed drugs. This randomized, double-blind phase III trial assessed the superiority of sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg (97/103 mg) to continued olmesartan 20 mg in reducing ambulatory systolic BP after 8-week treatment in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension uncontrolled with olmesartan 20 mg alone. A total of 376 patients were randomized to receive either sacubitril/valsartan (n = 188) or olmesartan (n = 188). Superior reductions in 24-hour mean ambulatory systolic BP were observed in the sacubitril/valsartan group vs the olmesartan group (-4.3 mm Hg vs -1.1 mm Hg, P < .001). Reductions in 24-hour mean ambulatory diastolic BP and pulse pressure and office systolic BP and diastolic BP were significantly greater with sacubitril/valsartan vs olmesartan (P < .014). A greater proportion of patients achieved BP control with sacubitril/valsartan vs olmesartan. The overall incidence of adverse events was comparable between the groups. Compared with continued olmesartan, sacubitril/valsartan was more effective and generally safe in patients with hypertension uncontrolled with olmesartan 20 mg.

Indexed as

AminobutyratesHypertensionImidazolesTetrazolesAgedAngiotensin Receptor AntagonistsBiphenyl CompoundsBlood PressureBlood Pressure Monitoring, AmbulatoryDouble-Blind MethodDrug CombinationsDrug MonitoringDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsDrug ResistanceFemaleHumansAminobutyratesAngiotensin Receptor AntagonistsBiphenyl CompoundsDrug CombinationsImidazolesolmesartansacubitril and valsartan sodium hydrate drug combinationTetrazolesValsartanblood pressureefficacyhypertensionolmesartansacubitril/valsartansafety

Identifiers

PMID29338113
PMCPMC8031201
OpenAlexW2784157249

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.