Gender influence on the dose-ranging of a low-dose perindopril–indapamide combination in hypertension: effect on systolic and pulse pressure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dose-ranging of antihypertensive agents have been done to optimize diastolic blood pressure (DBP) reduction, but with little information on systolic (SBP), mean (MBP), or pulse (PP) pressures. A low-dose combination of perindopril (Per) and indapamide (Ind) has been shown to reduce more SBP than atenolol for the same DBP reduction. However, the possible influence of gender on this finding has never been tested. PURPOSE: A database of five randomized, double-blind, dose-ranging studies was established to determine the optimal dose of the Per/Ind combination in hypertensive men and women. A total of 2907 patients were treated by either placebo or various combinations associating Per (2, 4, 8 mg) and Ind (0.625, 1.25, 2.5 mg). RESULTS: In the overall population, there was a significant 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 SBP, DBP, MBP. When men and women were analyzed by dose, SBP, DBP and MBP (but not PP) decreased significantly more in women than in men until the Per 4/Ind 1.25 dosage was reached. Thereafter, with higher dosages, generating a slight but significant hypokalemia, the finding was reversed, resulting in a gender interaction in the overall population. CONCLUSION: In hypertensive subjects, the low-dose combinations Per 2/Ind 0.625 and Per 4/Ind 1.25 are the most effective in reducing blood pressure and avoiding hypokalemia. This effect is more pronounced in women, in which increased SBP and PP are predominant hemodynamic features.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".