MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sustained antihypertensive activity of telmisartan compared with valsartan

2004· article· en· W2031335602 on OpenAlexaff
Yves Lacourci re, Jean-Marie Krzesinski, William B. White, Giora Davidai, Helmut Schumacher

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood Pressure Monitoring · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsCentre hospitalier universitaire de QuébecCegep de Sainte Foy
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTelmisartanValsartanAmbulatory blood pressureBlood pressurePlaceboDosingPopulationAmbulatoryMorningEssential hypertensionInternal medicineUrology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Early morning blood pressure (BP) surge and 24 h mean BP are linked to target-organ damage and cardiovascular events. Antihypertensive agents should sustain BP control, particularly in the last 6 h of the dosing interval or if dosing is missed. The efficacies of the long half-life telmisartan compared with shorter half-life valsartan in the last 6 h of the dosing interval following active treatment and during 24 h after a missed dose were compared. METHODS: In two identically designed multinational, randomized, double-blind, forced-titration studies, hypertensive patients (seated diastolic blood pressure (DBP), 95-109 mm Hg, 24 h mean ambulatory DBP, > or = 85 mm Hg) received once-daily telmisartan (40- 80 mg) or valsartan (80-160 mg) for a total of 8 weeks; uptitration occurred after 2 weeks low-dose treatment. After 4 weeks high-dose treatment, patients were given either 1 days double-blind active therapy or placebo (that is, missed dose). Following a further 2 weeks active treatment, a cross-over was performed: patients who had previously received 1 days placebo received active therapy and vice versa. At baseline and after the two active or missed doses, 24 h ambulatory BP monitoring was performed. Data from the studies were pooled, as prospectively planned and analyzed using the intent-to-treat population. RESULTS: After active therapy, last 6 h mean DBP was reduced by 7.6+/-7.9 mm Hg with telmisartan (n=447) compared with 5.8+/-7.8 mm Hg with valsartan (n=430) (P=0.0044). Last 6 h mean systolic blood pressure (SBP) was reduced by 11.1 mm Hg with telmisartan compared with 9.1 mm Hg with valsartan (P=0.0066). After a missed dose, 24 h mean DBP was reduced by 7.2+/-6.5 mm Hg with telmisartan (n=437) compared with 5.5+/-6.2 mm Hg with valsartan (n=431) (P=0.0004). The reduction in 24 h mean SBP after a missed dose was 10.7 mm Hg with telmisartan and 8.7 mm Hg with valsartan (P=0.0024). Absence of treatment-by-study interaction indicated that pooling of studies was appropriate. All 24 hourly mean reductions in DBP and SBP were greater for telmisartan than valsartan. Both treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Due to its longer half-life, telmisartan offers more sustained BP control, especially at the end of the dosing period and provides sustained efficacy in poorly compliant patients in the event of a missed dose with a statistical superiority compared with valsartan.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations94
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood Pressure MonitoringSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207