ReviewDrugs1995
Goals of antihypertensive therapy.
Review in Drugs, 1995. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 45 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of eprosartan in combination with HCTZ in patients with essential hypertension.Journal of human hypertension · 2002Trial
- Pulse pressure and coronary mortality in elderly men and women from general population.Journal of human hypertension · 2002Article
- Review
- Review
- Calcium antagonists in the elderly. A risk-benefit analysis.Drugs & aging · 1996Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Antihypertensive therapy has been used for almost 40 years to reduce blood pressure and to prevent morbidity and mortality related to the hypertensive state. Cardiovascular events are related to the initial elevation of blood pressure; the benefits of treating malignant, severe or moderate hypertension are well established. Although large scale clinical trials have demonstrated a decrease in morbid events when mildly elevated blood pressures is treated, the benefits are neither universal or dramatic and treatment is certainly less cost effective than no treatment. Recently it has been emphasised that the absolute risk of cardiovascular events is determined only in part by blood pressure, and that it is also influenced by age, gender, race and the presence of other cardiovascular risk factors. For example, in older individuals where the absolute risk of vascular complications is greater than in younger individuals for any given level of blood pressure, the benefits of therapy will be greater. It has been suggested that in younger individuals with mild hypertension and a low absolute risk of developing cardiovascular morbid events it may be more appropriate to monitor the effects of drug therapy on measures of cardiac and vascular damage that are associated with the hypertensive state. Drug therapy has been shown to be extremely effective in reducing the incidence of stroke, congestive cardiac failure and renal failure associated with elevated blood pressure. Meta-analysis of randomised large scale clinical trials indicates that drug therapy may not reduce coronary events to the extent expected in patients with hypertension. One plausible explanation is that the trials have been of insufficient duration to detect the benefit of blood pressure lowering on coronary heart disease. It has also been suggested that certain adverse metabolic effects associated with the use of thiazide diuretics and beta-blockers employed in these trials may have partially offset the benefits of blood pressure reduction. However, the clinical significance of these drug-induced metabolic disturbances remains unclear. Experimental data suggesting differences in the ability of antihypertensive drugs to inhibit atherosclerosis in animal models are also of interest, but again the relation of the findings to the clinical situation is unknown. Thiazide diuretics, beta-blockers, calcium antagonists, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and alpha-blockers can produce regression of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH). While LVH is clearly a strong and independent predictor for coronary disease, it remains to be shown that a lower risk for coronary morbid events exists in patients whose LVH has undergone regression over and above that attributable to blood pressure reduction.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)
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.