Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36240838›Full record

Trial reportLancet (London, England)2022

Cardiovascular outcomes in adults with hypertension with evening versus morning dosing of usual antihypertensives in the UK (TIME study): a prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint clinical trial.

Isla S Mackenzie, Amy Rogers, Neil R Poulter, Bryan Williams, Morris J Brown, David J Webb, Ian Ford, David A Rorie, Greg Guthrie, J W Kerr Grieve and 8 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialPragmatic Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Lancet (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 102 papers, 13 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
102citing papers in PubMed, 13 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

102 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Timing of antihypertensive medication (bedtimeFrontiers in pharmacology · 2026
    Pooled it
  6. Bedtime Versus Morning Dosing of Anti-hypertensives: A GRADE-Assessed Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials with Trial Sequential Evidence.High blood pressure & cardiovascular prevention : the official journal of the Italian Society of Hypertension · 2026
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Guideline
  10. Chronotherapy for Hypertension: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of RCTs.American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions · 2025
    Pooled it
  11. Guideline
  12. Pooled it
  13. Guideline
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Review

42 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors.

Isla S MackenzieMEMO Research, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.
Amy RogersMEMO Research, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.
Neil R PoulterSchool of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Bryan WilliamsNIHR University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre and University College London, London, UK.
Morris J BrownQueen Mary University of London, London, UK.
David J WebbBritish Heart Foundation/University Centre for Cardiovascular Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Ian FordThe Robertson Centre for Biostatistics, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
David A RorieMEMO Research, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.
Greg GuthrieMEMO Research, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.
J W Kerr GrieveDepartment of Neurology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK.
Filippo PigazzaniMEMO Research, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.
Peter M RothwellWolfson Centre for Prevention of Stroke and Dementia, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Robin YoungThe Robertson Centre for Biostatistics, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Alex McConnachieThe Robertson Centre for Biostatistics, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Allan D StruthersDivision of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.
Chim C LangDivision of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.
Thomas M MacDonaldMEMO Research, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK. Electronic address: t.m.macdonald@dundee.ac.uk.
TIME Study Group

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_17228Medical Research Council MC_QA137853
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStudies have suggested that evening dosing with antihypertensive therapy might have better outcomes than morning dosing. The Treatment in Morning versus Evening (TIME) study aimed to investigate whether evening dosing of usual antihypertensive medication improves major cardiovascular outcomes compared with morning dosing in patients with hypertension.

methodsThe TIME study is a prospective, pragmatic, decentralised, parallel-group study in the UK, that recruited adults (aged ≥18 years) with hypertension and taking at least one antihypertensive medication. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1), without restriction, stratification, or minimisation, to take all of their usual antihypertensive medications in either the morning (0600-1000 h) or in the evening (2000-0000 h). Participants were followed up for the composite primary endpoint of vascular death or hospitalisation for non-fatal myocardial infarction or non-fatal stroke. Endpoints were identified by participant report or record linkage to National Health Service datasets and were adjudicated by a committee masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was assessed as the time to first occurrence of an event in the intention-to-treat population (ie, all participants randomly assigned to a treatment group). Safety was assessed in all participants who submitted at least one follow-up questionnaire. The study is registered with EudraCT (2011-001968-21) and ISRCTN (18157641), and is now complete.

findingsBetween Dec 17, 2011, and June 5, 2018, 24 610 individuals were screened and 21 104 were randomly assigned to evening (n=10 503) or morning (n=10 601) dosing groups. Mean age at study entry was 65·1 years (SD 9·3); 12 136 (57·5%) participants were men; 8968 (42·5%) were women; 19 101 (90·5%) were White; 98 (0·5%) were Black, African, Caribbean, or Black British (ethnicity was not reported by 1637 [7·8%] participants); and 2725 (13·0%) had a previous cardiovascular disease. By the end of study follow-up (March 31, 2021), median follow-up was 5·2 years (IQR 4·9-5·7), and 529 (5·0%) of 10 503 participants assigned to evening treatment and 318 (3·0%) of 10 601 assigned to morning treatment had withdrawn from all follow-up. A primary endpoint event occurred in 362 (3·4%) participants assigned to evening treatment (0·69 events [95% CI 0·62-0·76] per 100 patient-years) and 390 (3·7%) assigned to morning treatment (0·72 events [95% CI 0·65-0·79] per 100 patient-years; unadjusted hazard ratio 0·95 [95% CI 0·83-1·10]; p=0·53). No safety concerns were identified.

interpretationEvening dosing of usual antihypertensive medication was not different from morning dosing in terms of major cardiovascular outcomes. Patients can be advised that they can take their regular antihypertensive medications at a convenient time that minimises any undesirable effects.

fundingBritish Heart Foundation.

Indexed as

HypertensionMyocardial InfarctionAdolescentAdultAgedAntihypertensive AgentsFemaleHumansMaleProspective StudiesState MedicineTime and Motion StudiesTreatment OutcomeUnited KingdomAntihypertensive Agents

Identifiers

PMID36240838
PMCPMC9631239

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.