MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Original Papers. Success and Predictors of Blood Pressure Control in Diverse North American Settings: The Antihypertensive and Lipid‐Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT)

2002· article· en· W2404212513 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
William C. Cushman, Charles E. Ford, Jeffrey A. Cutler, Karen L. Margolis, Barry R. Davis, Richard H. Grimm, Henry R. Black, Bruce P. Hamilton, Joanne Holland, Chuke Nwachuku, Vasilios Papademetriou, Jeffrey L. Probstfield, Jackson I. Wright, Michael H. Alderman, Robert Weiss, Linda B. Piller, Judy Bettencourt, Sandra Walsh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Hypertension · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteAstraZenecaPfizerBristol-Myers Squibb
KeywordsMedicineBlood pressureLisinoprilAmlodipineChlorthalidoneInternal medicinePopulationClinical trialPrehypertensionCardiologyRandomized controlled trialEmergency medicineAngiotensin-converting enzymeEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Blood pressure control (<140/90 mm Hg) rates for hypertension fall far short of the US national goal of 50% or more. Achievable control rates in varied practice settings and geographic regions and factors that predict improved blood pressure control are not well identified. OBJECTIVE: To determine the success and predictors of blood pressure control in a large hypertension trial involving a multiethnic population in diverse practice settings. DESIGN: The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial is a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled clinical trial with a mean follow-up of 4.9 years. Participant enrollment began in February 1994 and follow-up was completed in March 2002. SETTING: A total of 623 centers in the United States, Canada, and the Caribbean. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 33,357 participants (aged > or =55 years) with hypertension and at least one other coronary heart disease risk factor. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly assigned to receive (double-blind) chlorthalidone, 12.5-25 mg/d (n=15,255), amlodipine 2.5-10 mg/d (n=9048), or lisinopril 10-40 mg/d (n=9054) after other medication was discontinued. Doses were increased within these ranges and additional drugs from other classes were added as needed to achieve blood pressure control (<140/90 mm Hg). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcome measures for this report are systolic and diastolic blood pressure, the proportion of participants achieving blood pressure control (<140/90 mm Hg), and the number of drugs required to achieve control in all three groups combined. RESULTS: Mean age was 67 years, 47% were women, 35% black, 36% diabetic; 90% were on antihypertensive drug treatment at entry. At the first of two pre-randomization visits, blood pressure was <140/90 mm Hg in only 27.4% of participants. After 5 years of follow-up, the percent controlled improved to 66%. Systolic blood pressure was <140 mm Hg in 67% of participants, diastolic blood pressure was <90 mm Hg in 92%, the mean number of drugs prescribed was 2.0+/-1.0, and the percent on > or =2 drugs was 63%. Blood pressure control varied by geographic regions, practice settings, and demographic and clinical characteristics of participants. CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate that blood pressure may be controlled in two thirds of a multiethnic hypertensive population in diverse practice settings. Systolic blood pressure is more difficult to control than diastolic blood pressure, and at least two antihypertensive medications are required for most patients to achieve blood pressure control. It is likely that the majority of people with hypertension could achieve a blood pressure <140/90 mm Hg with the antihypertensive medications available today.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.002

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations985
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical HypertensionSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207