MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049809968 · doi:10.1097/mbp.0b013e32832a9da7

Effects of force-titrated valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide versus amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide on ambulatory blood pressure in patients with stage 2 hypertension: the EVALUATE study

2009· article· en· W2049809968 on OpenAlexaff
Yves Lacourcière, Jackson T. Wright, Rita Samuel, Dion Zappe, Das Purkayastha, Henry R. Black

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood Pressure Monitoring · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsCentre hospitalier de l'Université Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydrochlorothiazideMedicineAmlodipineAmbulatory blood pressureBlood pressureValsartanAmbulatoryInternal medicineCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Previous studies using the combination of angiotensin-receptor blockers and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) have shown superior ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) reduction in study participants with stage 2 hypertension compared with monotherapy. OBJECTIVE: This multicenter, double-blind, parallel group, forced-titration study of individuals with stage 2 hypertension, compared the efficacy of valsartan and amlodipine in combination with HCTZ on ABP reduction. METHODS: After a 2-week washout period, participants (n=482) with mean office sitting systolic BP >or=160 mmHg and <or=200 mmHg were randomized to receive treatment with either valsartan 160 mg (n=241) or amlodipine 5 mg (n=241), force-titrated to a maximum dose of valsartan/HCTZ 320/25 mg or amlodipine/HCTZ 10/25 mg over 6 weeks and continued through week 10. The primary endpoint was change in mean 24-h ambulatory systolic BP from baseline to week 10. RESULTS: At week 10, changes from baseline in mean office BP were significantly (P<0.0001) decreased by both valsartan/HCTZ (-34.2/-14.2 mmHg) and amlodipine/HCTZ (-34.1/-14.7 mmHg). Changes from baseline in mean 24-h ABP were significantly (P<0.0001) decreased by both valsartan/HCTZ (-21.1/-12.5 mmHg) and amlodipine/HCTZ (-18.1/-9.9 mmHg). However, treatment with valsartan/HCTZ provided significant additional systolic BP (-3.8 mmHg; P=0.0042) and diastolic BP (-2.7 mmHg; P=0.0002) reduction compared with the amlodipine/HCTZ group. The proportion of individuals reaching the office goal BP (<140/80 mmHg) were similar in the valsartan/HCTZ (55.3%) versus amlodipine/HCTZ (54.9%) group, ABP control rates for the recommended ABP goal (<130/80 mmHg) were greater (P=0.0170) in the valsartan/HCTZ group (54.3%) than the amlodipine/HCTZ group (42.7%). Both treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: On the basis of ABP monitoring but not office measurements, the fixed-dose combination of valsartan/HCTZ is a significantly more effective treatment regimen than amlodipine/HCTZ, with similar tolerability.

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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designRandomized 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

Citations19
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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