Trial reportJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2021
Monotherapy treatment with chlorthalidone or amlodipine in the systolic blood pressure intervention trial (SPRINT).
Trial report in Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Monotherapy treatment with chlorthalidone or amlodipine in the systolic blood pressure intervention trial (SPRINT).Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2021Trial
- Choice of antihypertensive agent in isolated systolic hypertension and isolated diastolic hypertension: A secondary analysis of the ALLHAT trial.American heart journal · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
This post hoc analysis of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) examined the performance of chlorthalidone (C) versus amlodipine (A) monotherapies. ANOVA was used to analyze the differences in systolic blood pressure (SBP) response between C and A. Logistic regression was used to examine monotherapy failure (adding a second antihypertensive agent or switching to a different antihypertensive agent) rates. Four hundred ninety-one participants were treated with C monotherapy (n = 210, mean dose = 22 mg/day) or A monotherapy (n = 281, mean dose = 7 mg/day). There was a significant difference in mean SBP reduction between the C and A monotherapies at the third visit (higher reduction with A, adjusted p = .018). Unadjusted analysis showed a higher failure with C in the standard treatment group. Although the average SBP at failure was higher and above the 140 mm Hg cutoff that indicated monotherapy failure with A (142.60) compared with C (138.40), more participants on C failed despite having SBP below the 140 cutoff. This was probably due to decisions made by the investigative teams to change the antihypertensive regimen, because, in their opinion, the clinical picture required it. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, C had higher failure than A only in the standard treatment group (1.64 odds ratio [OR], 95% CI 1.06-2.56, p = .028). A sub-analysis including participants who had never used antihypertensive treatment before randomization had similar results (2.57 OR, 95% CI 1.34-5.02, p = .004). Overall, in SPRINT chlorthalidone was associated with higher monotherapy failure than amlodipine in the standard treatment group because of decisions of the investigative teams.
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.