Effects of eplerenone on resistance to antihypertensive medication in patients with primary or secondary hyperaldosteronism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and Objectives Resistant hypertension is an important problem; nearly half of diagnosed hypertensives are not controlled to target blood pressure levels, and approximately 90% of strokes occur among patients with resistant hypertension. Primary aldosteronism accounts for approximately 20% of resistant hypertension, but the role of secondary hyperaldosteronism in resistant hypertension is seldom considered. We assessed the effects of eplerenone in patients with hypertension and either primary or secondary hyperaldosteronism. Methods Patients with a history of resistant hypertension and a supine plasma aldosterone level ≥ 360 pmol/L were randomized to eplerenone versus placebo in a fully blinded study for one year. A medication intensity score was developed to assess the resistance of hypertension to medication (blood pressure × medication intensity). We assessed the effects of eplerenone on blood pressure and on resistance to concomitant medication. Results Final results were available in 37 patients (19 on eplerenone and 18 on placebo). Resistance to medication, as assessed by the intensity of concomitant medication required to maintain blood pressure control, was markedly reduced by eplerenone: medication intensity scores declined by –0.50 ± 1.04 (SD) on placebo versus –2.11 ± 1.45 with eplerenone ( P = 0.0001), the Systolic Resistance Score declined by –80.00 ± 122.93 on placebo versus –334.05 ± 21.73 on eplerenone ( P = 0.0001), and the Diastolic Resistance Score increased by 1.28 ± 31.65 on placebo and declined by –40.74 ± 57.08 on eplerenone ( P = 0.009). Conclusions Eplerenone significantly reduced resistance to concomitant antihypertensive medication in both primary and secondary hyperaldosteronism.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".