Initial Combination Therapy Reduces the Risk of Cardiovascular Events in Hypertensive Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated the effects of initial versus delayed treatment with a drug combination on blood pressure (BP) control and the risk of cardiovascular (CV) events in hypertensive patients. Clinical trials suggest that the time to BP control is an important determinant of long-term outcomes, but real-world evidence is scarce. Using electronic medical charts (2005-2009), we retrospectively analyzed 1762 adult patients with BP elevation initiating combination therapy matched 1:1 with similar patients initiating monotherapy and later switched to combination therapy. Incidence rate ratios of CV events (myocardial infarction, stroke/transient ischemic attack, or hospitalization for heart failure) or all-cause death and Kaplan-Meier analyses of time to BP control were compared between cohorts. Hazard ratios indicating the effects of initial treatment on CV events and BP control were estimated using time-varying Cox proportional hazard models. Initial combination therapy was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of CV events or death (incidence rate ratio, 0.66 [95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.84]; P=0.0008). After 6 months of therapy, 40.3% and 32.6% of patients with initial versus delayed combination treatment reached BP control, respectively. Achieving target BP was associated with a statistically significant risk reduction of 23% for CV events or death (hazard ratio, 0.77 [95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.96]; P=0.0223); the residual effect of initial combination therapy did not reach statistical significance (hazard ratio, 0.84 [95% confidence interval, 0.68-1.03]; P=0.0935). Initial combination therapy was associated with a significant risk reduction of cardiovascular events. More rapid achievement of target BP was found to be the main contributor to the estimated risk reduction.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".