MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2284361374 · doi:10.14288/1.0069978

The effects of antihypertensive drugs in different clinical settings : lessons learned from two systematic reviews and a clinical trial

2010· article· en· W2284361374 on OpenAlexaff
P. Quintero Garcia

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Collections · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineClinical trialSystematic reviewAntihypertensive drugAlternative medicineMEDLINEIntensive care medicineInternal medicineBlood pressurePolitical sciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context: The ultimate goal when using anti-hypertensive drugs is to reduce adverse health outcomes. In acute clinical settings, total all-cause mortality is the best measure of net health effect (benefit minus harm). Objectives: a) To determine the effects of anti-hypertensive drugs on all-cause mortality compared to a control in hypertensive emergencies and acute cardiovascular events b) To learn randomized controlled trial (RCT) methodology. Methods: Two systematic reviews were conducted of published RCTs evaluating blood pressure (BP) lowering drugs. The first review was limited to patients with a hypertensive emergency. The second was limited to patients treated within 24 hours of an acute cardiovascular event. A parallel RCT was conducted in hypertensive outpatients comparing the blood pressure lowering effect of hydrochlorothiazide with two psychological interventions. Results: In hypertensive emergency patients, 15 RCTs (N=869) studying nitrates, ACE inhibitors, calcium channel blockers (CCBs), alpha-1 adrenergic antagonists, diuretics, and direct vasodilators were analyzed. There was no evidence for an effect on mortality with any of these drug classes. In the acute cardiovascular event review, sixty-five RCTs (N=166,206) were analyzed, involving four classes of anti-hypertensive drugs. Acute stroke was studied in 6 RCTs and acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in 59 RCTs. Immediate treatment with nitrates in patients with AMI significantly reduced all-cause mortality at 2 days (RR 0.81, 95%CI [0.74, 0.89], p<0.0001, ARR 0.4 %). Immediate treatment with ACE-inhibitors significantly reduced mortality only when continued for 10 days (RR 0.93, 95%CI [0.87, 0.98] p=0.01, ARR 0.4%). The other classes did not reduce all-cause mortality. Conducting the RCT assisted with and improved the critical appraisal of RCTs analyzed in the systematic reviews and prepared me to design and conduct a large high-quality RCT. Conclusion: In patients with suspected or definite acute myocardial infarction nitrates administered immediately and continued for 2 days reduce all-cause mortality at 2 days. In the same clinical setting ACE inhibitors started within 24 hours and continued for 10 days reduce mortality at 10 days. There is no RCT evidence that anti-hypertensive drugs reduce mortality in hypertensive emergencies.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.502
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.143
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.290 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen CollectionsSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207