ArticleClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2020
A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis on Clinical Effectiveness and Economic Assessment of Compound Reserpine and Hydrochlorothiazide Tablets (CRH) for Hypertension.
Article in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of administration of low-dose irbesartan and hydrochlorothiazide combined with levamlodipine at different times on the circadian rhythm of blood pressure and the levels of MMPs and TIMPs in non-dipper patients with grade 1 and 2 hypertension.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2023Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectiveAs the first generation of anti-hypertensive drug independently developed by China, Compound Reserpine and Hydrochlorothiazide Tablet (CRH) has been widely used in China for more than 40 years. However, limited studies are available for the performance of CRH for the treatment of hypertension in real-world setting in China. This study aimed to evaluate the comparative clinical effectiveness and treatment costs between CRH and three other anti-hypertensive agents that include, Triprolidine Hydrochloride (TH: Diovan), Amlodipine Besylate Tablet (ABT: Norvasc), and Nifedipine Tablets (NT: Procardin) in real-world clinical practice.
methodsThis was a multicentre, retrospective study conducted from May 2011 to May 2016 at four tertiary hospitals in China. Data from patients' electronic medical records (EMR) were retrieved and analysed. A retrospective propensity score-matched analysis was used for three pairs of comparisons. Systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and overall blood pressure (BP) control rate on the 10th and 20th days after treatment were compared. The overall cost of treatment was analysed across groups.
resultsIn three pairs of comparison, the patients who received CRH treatment obtained better blood pressure control at both day 10 and day 20. In addition, the patients who received CRH had lower total treatment costs compared with the other three anti-hypertensive drugs. Influential factor analysis showed that CRH is associated with a higher probability of BP control compared with the other three monotherapies in real-world clinical practice.
conclusionThe patients received CRH showed a higher overall BP control rate than the other three commonly prescribed anti-hypertensive drugs, which indicates that CRH has a better benefit in BP control for hypertensive patients. Also, the total cost for hypertension treatment is lower in CRH patients compared with the other three comparator drugs. These findings suggest that CRH could be an effective and cost-effective option for hypertensive patients.
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.