Candesartan cilexetil is not associated with cough in hypertensive patients with enalapril-induced cough
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the occurrence of dry cough during treatment with candesartan cilexetil, enalapril, or placebo in patients with hypertension and a history of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE)-inhibitor-related cough. Patients with confirmed cough during an enalapril (10 mg) challenge period, followed by no cough during a placebo dechallenge period were randomized to 8 weeks of double-blind treatment with candesartan cilexetil (8 mg) (n = 62), enalapril (10 mg) (n = 66), or placebo (n = 26). Incidence and severity of dry cough was evaluated by the symptom assessment questionnaire, frequency of dry cough by a visual analog scale, and the possible impact on quality of life by the minor symptom evaluation (MSE) profile. The percentage of patients with cough was significantly lower with candesartan cilexetil (35.5%) than with enalapril (68.2%, P < .001), and did not differ between candesartan cilexetil and placebo (26.9%, P > .20). Patients coughed less frequently and with less severe cough with candesartan cilexetil than with enalapril, and similarly with candesartan cilexetil and placebo. Changes in the MSE profile were minor, although candesartan cilexetil had better scores for contentment than placebo (P = .03), and also tended to be associated with better sleep than enalapril (P = .08). In hypertensive patients with ACE-inhibitor-induced cough, the incidence, frequency, and severity of dry cough was significantly lower with candesartan cilexetil than with enalapril, and no different from that found with placebo.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".