MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Adherence to Antihypertensive Treatment and the Blood Pressure–Lowering Effects of Renal Denervation in the Renal Denervation for Hypertension (DENERHTN) Trial

2016· article· en· W2510212662 on OpenAlexaff
Michel Azizi, Héléna Pereira, Idir Hamdidouche, Philippe Gosse, Matthieu Monge, Guillaume Bobrie, Pascal Delsart, Claire Mounier‐Véhier, Pierre‐Yves Courand, Pierre Lantelme, Thierry Denolle, Caroline Dourmap-Collas, Xavier Girerd, Jean‐Michel Halimi, Faı̈ez Zannad, Olivier Ormezzano, B. Vaı̈sse, D Herpin, Jean Ribstein, B Chamontin, Jean‐Jacques Mourad, Émile Ferrari, Pierre‐Francois Plouin, Vincent Jullien, Marc Sapoval, Gilles Châtellier, Laurence Amar, Aurélien Lorthioir, Jean-Yves Pagny, G. Claisse, Marco Midulla, Raphaël Dauphin, Jean‐Pierre Fauvel, Olivier Rouvière, Antoine Crémer, N. Grenier, Y. Lebras, Hervé Trillaud, J.F. Heautot, A. Larralde, François Paillard, Philippe Cluzel, Dieter Rosenbaum, D. Alison, M. Claudon, Batric Popovic, Patrick Rossignol, J.-P. Baguet, Frédéric Thony, J.M. Bartoli, J Drouineau, P. Sosner, J.P. Tasu, Sonia Velasco, H. Vernhet-Kovacsik, Béatrice Bouhanick, H. Rousseau, Sylvain Le Jeune, Marilucy Lopez‐Sublet, L. Bellmann, Vincent Esnault, Isabelle Durand‐Zaleski, Jean Paul Beregi, M. Lièvre, Alexandre Persu

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsBell (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBlood pressureAmbulatory blood pressureIrbesartanAmlodipineDenervationUrologyAntihypertensive drugRandomizationInternal medicineSpironolactoneIndapamideAnesthesiaCardiologyRandomized controlled trialAldosterone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The DENERHTN trial (Renal Denervation for Hypertension) confirmed the blood pressure-lowering efficacy of renal denervation added to a standardized stepped-care antihypertensive treatment for resistant hypertension at 6 months. We report the influence of adherence to antihypertensive treatment on blood pressure control. METHODS: One hundred six patients with hypertension resistant to 4 weeks of treatment with indapamide 1.5 mg/d, ramipril 10 mg/d (or irbesartan 300 mg/d), and amlodipine 10 mg/d were randomly assigned to renal denervation plus standardized stepped-care antihypertensive treatment, or the same antihypertensive treatment alone. For standardized stepped-care antihypertensive treatment, spironolactone 25 mg/d, bisoprolol 10 mg/d, prazosin 5 mg/d, and rilmenidine 1 mg/d were sequentially added at monthly visits if home blood pressure was ≥135/85 mm Hg after randomization. We assessed adherence to antihypertensive treatment at 6 months by drug screening in urine/plasma samples from 85 patients. RESULTS: The numbers of fully adherent (20/40 versus 21/45), partially nonadherent (13/40 versus 20/45), or completely nonadherent patients (7/40 versus 4/45) to antihypertensive treatment were not different in the renal denervation and the control groups, respectively (P=0.3605). The difference in the change in daytime ambulatory systolic blood pressure from baseline to 6 months between the 2 groups was -6.7 mm Hg (P=0.0461) in fully adherent and -7.8 mm Hg (P=0.0996) in nonadherent (partially nonadherent plus completely nonadherent) patients. The between-patient variability of daytime ambulatory systolic blood pressure was greater for nonadherent than for fully adherent patients. CONCLUSIONS: In the DENERHTN trial, the prevalence of nonadherence to antihypertensive drugs at 6 months was high (≈50%) but not different in the renal denervation and control groups. Regardless of adherence to treatment, renal denervation plus standardized stepped-care antihypertensive treatment resulted in a greater decrease in blood pressure than standardized stepped-care antihypertensive treatment alone. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01570777.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.730
Threshold uncertainty score0.275

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.230 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations154
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207