Telmisartan versus ramipril in 24-h ambulatory blood pressure: A pooled analysis of 2 prospective, randomized trials in mild-to-moderate hypertensive patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To compare the antihypertensive efficacy of telmisartan and ramipril in the last 6-h of the dosing interval. Blood pressure control over a 24-h period is fundamental to achieving optimal risk reduction. Antihypertensives with shorter durations of action may lose efficacy towards the end of the dosing interval, despite good control of office blood pressure. Data from two 14-week, prospective, open-label, blinded-endpoint, randomized studies of identical design were pooled. Patients had seated SBP 95–109 mmHg, seated DBP <180 mmHg, and 24-h mean DBP ≥85 mmHg. They were started on telmisartan 40 mg (n=802) or ramipril 2.5 mg (n=811), force titrated to telmisartan 80 mg or ramipril 5 mg after 2 weeks. At Week 8, ramipril was further up titrated to 10 mg. Blood pressure was measured using ABPM. At 14 weeks, telmisartan 80 mg was superior to ramipril 10 mg in the last 6-h mean ambulatory SBP/DBP (adjusted mean reductions ±SE from baseline 12.0±0.43/8.7±0.33 versus 7.9±0.43/5.5±0.32 mmHg respectively, P<0.0001). Telmisartan was also superior to ramipril on 24-h, daytime and night-time mean ambulatory SBP and DBP (P<0.001). Changes in cuff trough seated blood pressure were also significantly greater with telmisartan. Both drugs were well tolerated and no serious drug-related adverse events occurred. Telmisartan 80 mg afforded superior ambulatory blood pressure reductions in the last 6-h of the dosing interval and in the 24-h mean compared with ramipril 10 mg. The magnitude of the benefit was greatest towards the end of the dosing interval.
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 | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".