ANTIHYPERTENSIVE EFFICACY OF AMLODIPINE/VALSARTAN/HYDROCHLOROTHIAZIDE TRIPLE COMBINATION IN PATIENTS WITH OBESITY: A SUBGROUP ANALYSIS: PP.34.421
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (A/V/H) combination compared with V/H, A/V, A/H in obese patients. Methods: This was an 8-week, double-blind, parallel-group trial in pts with BP > = 145/100 and <200/120 mmHg, randomized to receive amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (A/V/H) 10/320/25 mg, V/H 320/25 mg, A/V 10/320 mg, or A/H 10/25 mg. Post hoc analyses were performed in subgroups of pts with BMI <30 kg/m2 (non-obese) and >=30 kg/m2 (obese) to evaluate change from baseline in mean systolic BP (SBP), diastolic BP (DBP), and BP control rate (BP<140/90) at endpoint. Results: A total of 2271 pts were randomized, of which 1270 (56%) were obese. Baseline demographics and characteristics were well balanced across the treatment arms and generally similar between obese (mean BMI = 36.1 kg/m2) and non-obese (mean BMI = 26.6 kg/m2) pts (male: 53 vs 58%, Caucasian:71 vs 74%, mean age: 52.1 vs 54.7 yrs, BP: 169.5/106.7 and 170.4/106.3 mmHg, respectively) with the exception of a slightly higher prevalence of diabetes in the obese (12 vs 6%). Reductions in SBP and DBP were significantly greater (p < 0.05, for all) with A/V/H triple therapy compared with dual therapies in both subgroups (Table). Overall, BP control rates were significantly greater (p < 0.05, for all) with A/V/H triple therapy in obese and non-obese pts (67% and 76%, respectively) compared to dual therapies V/H (44% and 53%), A/V(54% and 55%), and A/H (38% and 53%). The triple combination was well tolerated with a safety profile generally comparable across the two subgroups. Conclusion: In conclusion, A/V/H triple therapy was more effective than the dual therapies in pts with moderate to severe hypertension and obesity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".