Eprosartan mesylate effectively reduces systolic and diastolic blood pressure in a Canadian primary care setting.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that antihypertensive agents may have differential effects on systolic blood pressure (SBP) and that home BP monitoring (HBPM) may enhance the antihypertensive effects. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of eprosartan mesylate in the treatment of hypertension, particularly on SBP in older subjects, and to assess the role of HBPM. METHODS: A randomized, open-label, 10-week study was conducted in 35 primary care centres across Canada. One hundred ninety-eight subjects (aged 60 to 84 years) with mild to moderate hypertension (SBP 140 mmHg to 179 mmHg, diastolic BP [DBP] 109 mmHg or less) were included in the analysis. All subjects received open-label eprosartan mesylate 600 mg once daily, and were randomly assigned to eprosartan treatment alone or eprosartan plus HBPM. Hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg once daily could be added after week 4. The primary outcomes were the change in SBP at study end and the effect of HBPM on SBP. RESULTS: In the eprosartan and eprosartan plus HBPM groups, SBP was reduced by 17.6 mmHg and 19.9 mmHg, and DBP was reduced by 8.7 mmHg and 8.5 mmHg, with a systolic pressure response of 58% and 65%, respectively. HBPM had no additional benefits. Eprosartan was well tolerated, with the majority of adverse events being mild to moderate. CONCLUSIONS: Eprosartan alone or in combination with hydrochlorothiazide was highly effective and safe in lowering blood pressure, notably SBP, in older subjects with mild to moderate hypertension.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".