MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162068624 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehu079

Aliskiren alone or with other antihypertensives in the elderly with borderline and stage 1 hypertension: the APOLLO trial

2014· article· en· W2162068624 on OpenAlexaff
Koon Teo, Marc A. Pfeffer, Giuseppe Mancia, Martin O’Donnell, Gilles R. Dagenais, Rafael Díaz, Antonio Dans, Lisheng Liu, Jackie Bosch, Philip Joseph, Ingrid Copland, Hyejung Jung, Janice Pogue, Salim Yusuf

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineHydrochlorothiazideHazard ratioBlood pressurePlaceboInternal medicineRandomizationConfidence intervalRandomized controlled trialAliskirenAmlodipineAdverse effectCardiologyUrologyRenin–angiotensin system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: We studied the unclear question whether blood pressure (BP) lowering reduces cardiovascular disease (CVD) in elderly individuals with systolic BP <160 mm Hg. METHODS AND RESULTS: We initiated a randomized placebo-controlled stratified 2 × 2 factorial clinical trial evaluating the effects of BP lowering in 11 000 elderly individuals with systolic blood pressure (SBP) between 130 and 159 mm Hg, for 5 years. Following 5-week active run-in, participants were randomized to aliskiren (300 mg) or placebo, and to an additional antihypertensive [hydrochlorothiazide (25 mg) or amlodipine (5 mg)], or their respective placeboes. Study was terminated by sponsor after 1759 subjects (age 72.1 ± 5.2 years, 88% receiving at least one antihypertensive) were randomized and followed for 0.6 year. Study drugs were well tolerated with few serious adverse events during run-in and after randomization, with no significant differences between treatment groups. By design, three levels of BP reductions were achieved, adjusted mean BP reductions of 3.5/1.7 mm Hg (P < 0.001) by aliskiren, 6.8/3.3 mm Hg (P < 0.001) by hydrochlorothiazide or amlodipine, and 10.3/5.0 mm Hg (P < 0.001) by double therapy compared with placebo. Twenty-five major CVD events occurred. Non-significant trends towards fewer CVD events with greater BP reductions are evident: hazard ratios (HR) 0.82 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.37-1.81] for 3.5 mm Hg SBP reduction; HR 0.45 (95% CI: 0.19-1.04) for 6.8 mm Hg; and HR 0.25 (0.05-1.18) for 10.3 mm Hg reduction for primary composite of CV death, MI, stroke, or significant heart failure. CONCLUSIONS: Sizeable reductions in BP, with potential for substantial CVD reduction, can be safely achieved using combinations of BP drugs in the elderly with normal high and Stage 1 hypertension. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01259297.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.274
Threshold uncertainty score0.332

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations28
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207