ABPM Comparison of the Anti-Hypertensive Profiles of Telmisartan and Enalapril in Patients with Mild-to-Moderate Essential Hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this multicentre, prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint (PROBE) study, the efficacy of 12 weeks' treatment with once-daily telmisartan 40-80 mg and enalapril 10-20 mg was evaluated using ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) in 522 patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. Patients were titrated to the higher dose of study drug at week 6 if mean seated diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was > or = 90 mmHg. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in ambulatory DBP in the last 6 h of the 24-h dosing interval after 12 weeks' treatment. Telmisartan and enalapril produced similar reductions from baseline in DBP and systolic blood pressure (SBP) over all ABPM periods evaluated (last 6 h, 24-h, daytime and night-time). Telmisartan produced a significantly greater reduction in mean seated trough DBP, measured unblinded with an automated ABPM device in the clinic, amounting to a difference of -2.02 mmHg (P < 0.01). A significantly greater proportion of patients achieved a seated diastolic response with telmisartan than enalapril (59% versus 50%; P < 0.05), also measured with the same ABPM device. Both treatments were well tolerated. Compared with telmisartan, enalapril was associated with a higher incidence of cough (8.9% versus 0.8%) and hypotension (3.9% versus 1.1%). Therefore, telmisartan may provide better long-term compliance and, consequently, better blood pressure control than enalapril.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".