Pharmacokinetic and Antihypertensive Profile of Amlodipine and Felodipine-ER in Younger Versus Older Patients With Hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To evaluate the impact of age on the pharmacokinetics and blood pressure (BP) responses of a dihydropyridine (DHP) with large versus small first-pass metabolism in hypertensive subjects, younger (n = 28) and older (n = 35) patients with hypertension were randomized to placebo, felodipine-ER 5 mg/d, or amlodipine 5 mg/d. In the young subjects, the first dose of either DHP did not decrease BP and chronic dosing decreased BP by approximately 10 mm Hg, which had disappeared by 24 hours. In the older group, felodipine-ER decreased systolic BP by approximately 10 mm Hg after the first dose and by approximately 20 mm Hg after chronic dosing, which had disappeared after 24 hours. The first dose of amlodipine caused a gradual fall in BP and chronic dosing by approximately 20 mm Hg and still by approximately 10 mm Hg at 120 hours. Older subjects showed approximately 30% higher area under the concentration–time curves and plasma concentrations of felodipine and amlodipine, but (apparent) elimination half-lives did not differ between younger and older subjects. The chronic antihypertensive responses correlated well with both plasma levels and pretreatment BP. Age has only a modest impact on the pharmacokinetics of amlodipine and felodipine-ER but markedly affects the BP response to the first dose of either DHP and the duration of action after chronic dosing of amlodipine.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".