MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045245889 · doi:10.1097/hjh.0b013e3282f2d625

Effect of rimonabant on blood pressure in overweight/obese patients with/without co-morbidities: analysis of pooled RIO study results

2008· article· en· W2045245889 on OpenAlexaff
Luís M. Ruilope, Jean‐Pierre Després, André Scheen, Xavier Pi‐Sunyer, Guiseppe Mancia, Alberto Zanchetti, Luc Van Gaal

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hypertension · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRimonabantOverweightBlood pressureObesityInternal medicineCannabinoid receptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Rimonabant, the first selective cannabinoid type 1 (CB1) receptor blocker, has been shown to improve multiple cardiometabolic risk factors in overweight/obese patients. This analysis assessed the impact of rimonabant on blood pressure in the pooled population from four large trials with similar design - the Rimonabant-In-Obesity (RIO) programme. METHODS: RIO-Europe (n = 1507) and RIO-North America (n = 3040) recruited overweight/obese patients, and RIO-Lipids (n = 1033) and RIO-Diabetes (n = 1045) recruited overweight/obese patients with untreated dyslipidaemia or type 2 diabetes, respectively. At study entry (screening), 37.2% (n = 2463) of patients had hypertension, 71.4% (n = 1757) of whom were taking an antihypertensive treatment. RESULTS: After 1 year of treatment, mean change in systolic blood pressure (SBP) from baseline was -0.8 mmHg for rimonabant 20 mg versus +0.3 mmHg for placebo (P = 0.007); diastolic blood pressure (DBP) decreased by -0.8 versus -0.3 mmHg (P = 0.029) respectively. In the subgroup of patients with high blood pressure at baseline, SBP change was -7.5 mmHg for rimonabant 20 mg versus -4.7 mmHg for placebo (P = 0.005); DBP change was -5.2 versus -3.0 mmHg (P < 0.001). Reductions were more pronounced in patients with dyslipidaemia and type 2 diabetes. There was no effect of rimonabant 20 mg on blood pressure beyond that expected from weight loss alone. Overall, there was a similar incidence of adverse events (AEs) at 1 year in the placebo (81.8%) and rimonabant 20 mg (86.0%). The most common AEs occurring with rimonabant were nausea, dizziness, arthralgia and diarrhoea. A slightly higher proportion of patients in the rimonabant 20 mg group discontinued as a result of AEs (13.8%) versus placebo (7.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Rimonabant 20 mg led to modest, but significant SBP and DBP reductions in overweight/obese patients. The effect of rimonabant on blood pressure appears to be mediated by weight loss.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.443

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations70
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HypertensionSame topicCannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchFrench-language works237,207