Trial reportBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2026
Sequential nephron blockade vs. sequential renin-angiotensin system blockade on central and ambulatory blood pressure in resistant hypertension: A randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Sequential nephron blockade vs. sequential renin-angiotensin system blockade on central and ambulatory blood pressure in resistant hypertension: A randomized clinical trial.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThis study compares sequential nephron blockade (SNB) and renin-angiotensin system sequential blockade (RASSB) in patients with resistant hypertension (RHTN), evaluating central systolic pressure, arterial stiffness, pulse pressure and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM).
methodsA total of 72 patients with resistant hypertension were recruited from the Hypertension Outpatient Clinic and randomly allocated to two treatment groups: SNB (n = 35; 22 women, 13 men) and RASSB (n = 37; 22 women, 15 men). Central systolic blood pressure (CSBP), augmentation index (AI) and AI75 were assessed using validated non-invasive tonometry. ABPM was performed over 24 h to evaluate systolic, diastolic and pulse pressure changes.
resultsOffice blood pressure reductions were significant in both groups (p < .0001). SNB: SBP from 174.5 to 127.0 mmHg; DBP from 105.3 to 78.11 mmHg. RASSB: SBP from 178.4 to 134.4 mmHg; DBP from 102.7 to 77.33 mmHg. ABPM confirmed 24-h reductions (p < .0001). SNB showed greater pulse pressure reduction (Δ = 22.99 vs. 15.93 mmHg, p = .024) and central systolic pressure reduction (Δ = -10.3 vs. -5.1 mmHg, p = .036). RASSB elicited a significant decrease in heart rate (Δ = -12.4 bpm, p < .0001). No treatment-related discontinuations occurred.
conclusionSNB demonstrated superior efficacy in reducing CSBP and pulse pressure, while RASSB more effectively lowered heart rate. These distinct haemodynamic responses support individualized treatment strategies for patients with RHTN.
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.