Trial reportDrug design, development and therapy2026
Efficacy and Safety of Telmisartan 20 mg/S-Amlodipine 2.5 mg versus Telmisartan 40 mg in Patients with Hypertension, Inadequately Controlled on Telmisartan 20 mg Monotherapy: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter, Phase 3 Trial.
Trial report in Drug design, development and therapy, 2026. 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This 8-week, randomized, double-blind study evaluated the efficacy and safety of low-dose combination of telmisartan 20 mg/S-amlodipine 2.5 mg (T20/SA2.5) versus telmisartan 40 mg (T40) monotherapy in patients with essential hypertension inadequately controlled on T20. Patients and Methods: After a 4-week run-in period with T20 (baseline), patients with uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) were randomized (1:1) to T20/SA2.5 or T40 for 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (MSSBP) from baseline to week 8. Secondary endpoints included changes in MSSBP and mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (MSDBP) at weeks 4 and 8, BP control rate, response rate (≥20 mmHg reduction in MSSBP and ≥10 mmHg in MSDBP), and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Results: Overall, 108 patients were randomized. At week 8, least squares (LS) mean (standard error [SE]) reduction in MSSBP from baseline was greater with T20/SA2.5 than with T40 (-16.97 [2.06] mmHg vs. -7.42 [2.04] mmHg; P<0.001). LS mean (SE) reductions in MSDBP at week 8 were also greater with T20/SA2.5 than with T40 (-7.98 [1.17] mmHg vs. -4.01 [1.15] mmHg; P=0.006). The BP control rate was significantly higher with T20/SA2.5 than with T40 (53.70% vs. 29.63%; P=0.010); the response rate was numerically higher with T20/SA2.5 (12.96% vs. 5.56%; P=0.182). The incidence of TEAEs was lower with T20/SA2.5 than with T40 (9.26% vs. 20.37%, P=0.104); most events were mild. Conclusion: T20/SA2.5 demonstrated superior BP-lowering efficacy and favorable tolerability compared with T40 in patients inadequately controlled on T20, supporting the value of early low-dose combination therapy.
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.