Trial reportJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2018
Long-term efficacy and tolerability of azilsartan medoxomil/chlorthalidone vs olmesartan medoxomil/hydrochlorothiazide in chronic kidney disease.
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 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of azilsartan medoxomil in the treatment of hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Long-term efficacy and tolerability of azilsartan medoxomil/chlorthalidone vs olmesartan medoxomil/hydrochlorothiazide in chronic kidney disease.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2018Trial
- Current perspectives and trends of the research on hypertensive nephropathy: a bibliometric analysis from 2000 to 2023.Renal failure · 2024Review
- Review
- Treatment of hypertension in CKD patients with azilsartan/chlorthalidone vs olmesartan/hydrochlorothiazide.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
An open-label, long-term study evaluated safety and tolerability of azilsartan medoxomil/chlorthalidone (AZL-M/CLD) vs olmesartan/hydrochlorothiazide (OLM/HCTZ) in hypertensive participants with stage 3 chronic kidney disease. Initial therapy was AZL-M/CLD 20/12.5 mg (n = 77) or OLM/HCTZ 20/12.5 mg (n = 76), but could be up-titrated (AZL-M/CLD to 40/25 mg; OLM/HCTZ to 40/25 mg [US] or 20/25 mg [Europe]) with other agents added during weeks 4-52. Primary endpoint was proportion of participants with ≥ 1 adverse event (AE) through week 52. Baseline demographics were similar. AEs did not differ between groups (88.3%, AZL-M/CLD vs 76.3%, OLM/HCTZ; P = .058). AZL-M/CLD showed greater systolic BP reductions after initial dosing (P = .037) but not during long-term follow-up (P = .588). A greater proportion of participants up-titrated to the highest dose with OLM/HCTZ (48.7%) vs AZL-M/CLD (29.9%) (P = .021) and were taking additional antihypertensive medications (26.3% vs 16.9%). Both AZL-M/CLD and OLM/HCTZ showed similar efficacy and tolerability.
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.