MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Hemodynamic and metabolic responses to valsartan and atenolol in obese hypertensive patients

2005· article· en· W2045285495 on OpenAlexaff
Jens Jordan, Stefan Engeli, Michael Boschmann, Gottfried Weidinger, Friedrich C. Luft, Arya M. Sharma, Ursula Kreuzberg

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hypertension · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityHamilton General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAtenololValsartanHemodynamicsCardiologyInternal medicinePharmacologyBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: None of the current hypertension guidelines provides specific guidance regarding pharmacological management of obese hypertensive patients. Treatment recommendations for lean hypertensives may not be simply extrapolated to obese hypertensive persons. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study with a 13-week treatment period. SETTING: Multicenter study in Germany. PATIENTS: Obese patients with mild to moderate uncomplicated essential hypertension. INTERVENTION: Patients were treated with valsartan at a maximal dose of 160 mg/day or with atenolol at a maximal dose of 100 mg/day. Hydrochlorothiazide at doses of 12.5-25 mg was added in patients with blood pressure > 140/90 mmHg on monotherapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Blood pressure, lipid and glucose metabolism, and highly sensitive C-reactive protein (hsCRP) were monitored. RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients were randomized to valsartan and 65 patients to atenolol. With valsartan, systolic blood pressure (SBP) decreased from 160.8 +/- 8.9 to 140.5 +/- 13.3 mmHg and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) from 96.1 +/- 7.0 to 85.1 +/- 8.1 mmHg by the end of the study. With atenolol, SBP decreased from 159.3 +/- 6.8 to 139.8 +/- 14.5 mmHg and DBP from 95.0 +/- 6.8 to 83.5 +/- 7.5 mmHg (P = 0.91 for SBP and P = 0.34 for DBP between interventions). Body weight did not change with either treatment. We did not see a significant difference in the response of lipid levels or hsCRP between interventions. To assess the cumulative effect of each intervention on glucose metabolism over the trial duration, we calculated individual areas under the curve for homeostasis model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) over time. The resulting area under the curve was significantly smaller with valsartan compared with atenolol (P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Beta-adrenoreceptor blockers and AT1-receptor blockers, particularly in combination with low-dose diuretics, effectively lower blood pressure in obese hypertensives. However, metabolic responses differ between both treatment strategies, with beneficial effects of AT1-receptor blockers. AT1-receptor blockers are a good choice in obese hypertensives, given the profoundly increased diabetes risk in this population.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.394
Threshold uncertainty score0.520

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations41
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HypertensionSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207