Amlodipine and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor combination versus amlodipine monotherapy in hypertension: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to estimate the efficacy and tolerability of the combination of amlodipine and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors as compared with amlodipine monotherapy in the treatment of hypertension. METHODS: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and Embase were searched for relevant articles. A random effect model of meta-analysis was used for the selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs). RESULTS: A total of 17 randomized controlled trials involving 3291 patients were identified using predefined criteria. The combination treatment of amlodipine and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors resulted in a greater reduction of both systolic blood pressure (SBP) [weighted mean difference (WMD) 5.72, 95% CI: (confidence interval) 4.10-7.33] and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (WMD 3.62, 95% CI: 4.85-2.39) than monotherapy. The combination treatment also generated significantly greater reductions for the mean ambulatory SBP and DBP during the full 24 hours (WMD: SBP 4.24, 95% CI: 6.82-1.67; DBP 2.23, 95% CI: 3.73-0.69), but not for the trough (WMD: SBP 4.52, 9.56 to -0.51; DBP 3.7, 7.65 to -0.25). The hypertension therapeutic control (SPB <140, DBP <90 mmHg) rate for the combination treatment is higher than that for monotherapy [relative risk (RR): 1.36, 95% CI: 1.07-1.73]. The combination treatment also resulted in a lower overall rate of adverse events (RR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.75-0.99) and edema (RR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.29-0.56), but a higher rate of cough (RR: 3.28, 95% CI: 2.03-5.29) as compared with monotherapy. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis suggests that the combination treatment provides superior BP control, fewer adverse events, and better tolerability in hypertensive patients than monotherapy. Further research should explore the mechanism of the combination therapy and whether it is associated with the reduction of cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality.
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 | 0.027 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.031 | 0.065 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".