ArticleJACC. Advances2026
Comparative Efficacy of Treatments for Resistant or Uncontrolled Hypertension: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.
Article in JACC. Advances, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany patients with hypertension fail to achieve recommended blood pressure targets despite treatment with 2 or more antihypertensive drugs.
objectivesWe aimed to compare the efficacy of add-on treatments for the management of resistant or uncontrolled hypertension.
methodsWe searched Embase and MEDLINE through November 2025. We included randomized trials comparing add-on treatments for resistant or uncontrolled hypertension. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the Confidence In Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) framework. The primary outcome was the change in office systolic blood pressure from baseline. Summary mean differences were estimated using random-effects network meta-analysis within a Bayesian framework in patients with resistant hypertension and in the broader population with uncontrolled hypertension.
resultsWe included 35 trials (8,648 patients and 12 individual treatments) in the systematic review and 30 trials (8,187 patients and 10 individual treatments) in the network meta-analysis. In patients with resistant hypertension, spironolactone (mean difference: -12.43 mm Hg; 95% credible interval: -17.68 to -7.18; CINeMA moderate) and radiofrequency renal denervation (mean difference: -8.74 mm Hg; 95% credible interval: -12.96 to -4.52; CINeMA moderate) were more effective than baseline treatment in reducing office systolic blood pressure. Similar findings were observed in patients with uncontrolled hypertension. No intervention demonstrated clear superiority over another because most head-to-head comparisons included the possibility of no effect.
conclusionsIn head-to-head comparisons, no significant differences were observed between add-on treatments in reducing blood pressure among patients with resistant or uncontrolled hypertension. Treatment selection should prioritize treatments with demonstrated superiority over baseline treatment, including spironolactone, baxdrostat, and radiofrequency renal denervation.
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.