Comparative dose-response and safety of eplerenone, enalapril, losartan, and amlodipine in patients with essential hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comparative efficacy data are useful in evaluating the utility of new therapeutic agents. Data from 3 titration-to-effect antihypertensive trials comparing eplerenone (EPL) with enalapril (ENAL), losartan (LOS), and amlodipine (AML), respectively, of 16 to 24 weeks in duration were summarized to evaluate efficacy and safety data from a setting that closely mimics clinical practice. Each study provided guidelines for dose escalation if BP remained uncontrolled: EPL 50–200 mg, ENAL 10–40 mg, LOS 50–100 mg, and AML 2.5–10 mg. BP reduction and safety at each dose level were evaluated. Results demonstrated comparable efficacy between EPL and the comparator agents at the initial and second dose levels: (See Table) WHT = white patients, BLK = black patients. Event profiles were comparable between EPL and the comparative agents at each dosage level. Incidence of diarrhea was greater for ENAL 10 mg versus EPL 50 mg (P=0.029). There were no differences between EPL versus LOS, or EPL versus AML for any single event at a given dose. In conclusion, the efficacy and safety of EPL compared favorably to that of widely used antihypertensive agents. BP reductions were similar to agents compared to EPL monotherapy in these studies.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".