Impact of telmisartan on cardiovascular outcome in hypertensive patients at high risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the Telmisartan Randomised AssessmeNt Study in ACE iNtolerant subjects with cardiovascular Disease, all patients were at high cardiovascular risk, and a substantial proportion were hypertensive. We performed a post-hoc analysis to explore the hypothesis that telmisartan has a differential action in hypertensive vs. nonhypertensive patients. METHODS: The primary four-fold endpoint (composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure), the secondary three-fold endpoint (cardiovascular death, MI, and stroke), the individual components, new onset of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), and new onset of albuminuria were analyzed. RESULTS: There was no evidence for a significantly differential treatment effect of telmisartan in hypertensive and nonhypertensive patients for any endpoints, although the occurrence of the secondary three-fold endpoint was significantly lower in the telmisartan group (13.0%) compared with placebo (15.0%, P < 0.05) only in hypertensive patients. Moreover, data from this post-hoc analysis suggest that MI may be less frequent in hypertensive patients treated with telmisartan (3.8 vs. 5.1%; P < 0.05). Telmisartan may also reduce new onset of LVH (nonhypertensive patients P < 0.05; hypertensive patients P < 0.001) in both subgroups, and new onset of microalbuminuria and macroalbuminuria in hypertensive patients (P < 0.001 and P < 0.01, respectively).The effect of telmisartan in hypertensive and nonhypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk was not different. This post-hoc analysis suggests that MI may be further reduced by telmisartan in hypertensive patients. Further investigations are needed to study the hypotheses raised by this explanatory analysis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".