Omapatrilat Reduces Pulse Pressure and Proximal Aortic Stiffness in Patients With Systolic Hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Increased pulse pressure, an indicator of conduit vessel stiffness, is a strong independent predictor of cardiovascular events in hypertensive cohorts, which suggests that reduction of conduit vessel stiffness may be desirable in hypertension. METHODS AND RESULTS: We assessed changes in pulse pressure and conduit vessel stiffness in a 12-week double-blind, randomized clinical trial that compared monotherapy with the ACE inhibitor enalapril 40 mg daily (n=87) versus the vasopeptidase (dual ACE and neutral endopeptidase) inhibitor omapatrilat 80 mg daily (n=80) in patients with systolic hypertension. Patients were withdrawn from antihypertensive medications 1 to 2 weeks before enrollment, and systolic pressure was confirmed to be > or =160 mm Hg. With the use of calibrated tonometry and pulsed Doppler, pulsatile hemodynamics were assessed before randomization and at 12 weeks. Characteristic impedance (Z(c)), a direct measure of the stiffness of the central aorta, was calculated from the ratio of changes in carotid pressure and aortic flow in early systole. Omapatrilat compared with enalapril produced greater reductions in peripheral (-8.2+/-12.2 versus -4.0+/-12.2 mm Hg, P<0.05) and central (-10.2+/-16.2 versus -3.2+/-16.9 mm Hg, P<0.01) pulse pressures and Z(c) (237+/-83 to 208+/-70 versus 225+/-87 to 231+/-94 dyne x s/cm(5), P<0.001); the latter remained significant (P<0.05) after adjusting for change in mean pressure. CONCLUSIONS: Greater reductions in pulse pressure and Z(c) in hypertensive subjects treated with omapatrilat compared with enalapril suggest that aortic stiffness is maintained by specific, partially reversible mechanisms and underscore a potential role for pharmacological modulation of natriuretic peptides in the treatment of hypertension.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".