ArticleClinical hypertension2024
Real-world efficacy of fimasartan vs. other angiotensin receptor blockers in combination with calcium channel blockers: a nationwide cohort study.
Article in Clinical hypertension, 2024. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe antihypertensive efficacy of fimasartan was assessed based on the transition rate from a combination of calcium channel blockers (CCB) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) to three-drug combination therapy, as compared to other ARBs.
methodsThis nationwide cohort study used data obtained from the Korean National Health Insurance Service database. Patients who had received national health checkups within 2 years prior to January 1, 2017, and were concurrently prescribed ARBs and CCBs for > 30 days during the 6 months from January 1, 2017, to June 30, 2017 were included in the study. Patients were categorized into the 'fimasartan group' (those prescribed fimasartan) and the 'non-fimasartan group' (those prescribed ARBs other than fimasartan). The index date was set as the last day of a 30-day prescription period for ARBs and CCBs, with a subsequent 2.5-year follow-up to observe the potential addition of a third drug, such as beta-blockers or diuretics.
resultsThe study included 34,422 patients with a mean age of 60.3 years and 58.3% being male. The fimasartan group constituted 2.7% (n = 928) of the total, and the non-fimasartan group, 97.3% (n = 33,494). During the follow-up period, 38 patients in the fimasartan group (14.3 per 1,000 person-years) and 3,557 patients in the non-fimasartan group (42.8 per 1,000 person-years) required additional antihypertensive medications. After multivariate adjustment for age, sex, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, cancer, heart failure, systolic blood pressure, and diastolic blood pressure, the fimasartan group showed a significantly lower rate of adding a third medication (hazard ratio 2.68, 95% confidence interval 1.95-3.69) compared to that of the non-fimasartan group.
conclusionsFimasartan is associated with a lower need for additional antihypertensive drugs compared to other ARBs. This implies its greater effectiveness in hypertension management, potentially enhancing cardiovascular outcomes, and minimizing polypharmacy.
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.