Fixed low-dose combination therapy in hypertension - a dose response study of perindopril and indapamide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To establish the optimal dose of the perindopril/indapamide combination (Per/Ind) in the treatment of mild or moderate hypertension. DESIGN: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, seven-way parallel-group, dose-ranging study, set in multicenter, outpatient offices/clinics in Europe and Canada. PATIENTS: A total of 438 patients aged between 18 and 75 years whose supine diastolic blood pressure was between 95 and 114 mmHg were randomly assigned to an 8-week double-blind treatment with either placebo, Per 2/Ind 0.625, Per 4/Ind 1.25, Per 8/Ind 2.5, Per 0/Ind 1.25, Per 2/Ind 1.25 or Per 8/Ind 1.25 mg. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Systolic and diastolic blood pressure measured in the clinic approximately 24 h after dosing. RESULTS: There was a linear dose-response relationship (P<0.001) for doubling the dose of Per 2/Ind 0.625 mg up to Per 8/Ind 2.5 mg with a progressive fall in supine diastolic blood pressure (-9.3 to -15.0 mmHg). Combining 1.25 mg Ind with increasing doses of Per (0, 2, 4 and 8 mg) also showed a linear dose-response relationship (P<0.001), with supine diastolic blood pressure falling by -8.0 to -12.0 mmHg compared with a fall of -5.2 mmHg for the placebo group. Similar findings were noted for supine systolic blood pressure, standing blood pressure and ambulatory blood pressure. Hypokalemia was more common (9.7%) in the Per 8/Ind 2.5 mg group than in the groups receiving other doses (0-4.6%). CONCLUSION: The combinations of Per 2/Ind 0.625 mg and Per 4/Ind 1.25 mg were effective in reducing blood pressure without producing clinically important side effects.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".