ArticlePerspectives in clinical research
Dual antihypertensive strategies: A real-world comparative study of efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combinations in a tertiary care setting.
Article in Perspectives in clinical research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combinations of amlodipine 5 mg + hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg (A+H) (Group 1), telmisartan 40 mg + hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg (T+H) (Group 2), and ramipril 5 mg + hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg (R+H) (Group 3) in patients of essential hypertension. Materials and Methods: A prospective, randomized, open-labeled study was conducted for a period of 12 months (April 2023-March 2024), at a single tertiary care center involving 327 patients that were newly diagnosed with essential hypertension without any comorbid conditions. Patients were assessed at baseline, 15 days, 1 month, and then followed up at monthly intervals up to 6 months. Results: In the study, significant reductions in systolic blood pressure (SBP) were noted for A+H with R+H at 3 and 4 months and for T+H with R+H from 3 to 6 months. Diastolic blood pressure (DBP) reductions were significant for A+H with R+H at 15 days and 1 month. T+H was significantly more effective than A+H and R+H in reducing SBP, while all groups showed comparable efficacy in reducing DBP over 6 months. Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were highest in the A+H group at 29.4% and lowest in the T+H group at 19.8%. Conclusion: This real-world clinical study provided valuable insights into the comparative efficacy of different antihypertensive drug combinations, with T+H being most effective in reducing SBP; in terms of DBP, all the groups were equally efficacious.
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.