MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effect of indapamide/perindopril fixed-dose combination on 24-hour blood pressure and cognitive functions in treatment-naive middle-aged patients with essential arterial hypertension

2018· article· en· W2900008117 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Т. М. Оstroumova, В. А. Парфенов, О. Д. Остроумова, Е. В. Борисова

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology neuropsychiatry Psychosomatics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndapamidePerindoprilMedicineBlood pressureAmbulatory blood pressureCardiologyEssential hypertensionInternal medicineMontreal Cognitive AssessmentMorningDementia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: to investigate the effect of indapamide/perindopril fixed-dose combination (FC) on 24-hour blood pressure (BP) and cognitive functions in antihypertensive treatment-naive middle-aged patients with uncomplicated grade 1–2 essential arterial hypertension (EAH) . Patients and methods. The open prospective study enrolled 25 patients (9 men and 16 women) aged 40–59 years with a diastolic BP of 90–109 mm Hg and/or a systolic BP of 140–179 mm Hg, as evidenced by routine measurements. As starting antihypertensive therapy, the patients received indapamide 1.25/perindopril 5 mg FC once daily in the morning; if necessary, after 2 weeks (if the routine blood pressure was ≥140/90 mm Hg) they took indapamide 2.5/perindopril 10 mg once daily in the morning. The follow-up period was 14–16 weeks. Before and at the end of the follow-up, the patients underwent 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) and evaluation of cognitive functions using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), ten-words test (immediate and delayed word recall), verbal association test (literal and categorical associations), number connecting test (Trail making test (TMT), part A and numbers and letters connecting test (TMT) part B), and Stroop test. Results. At the end of the follow-up period, treatment with indapamide/perindopril fixed-dose combination showed a statistically significant reduction in BPs, as evidenced by routine measurements and ABPM (during 24-hour, and awake and sleep periods); a statistically significant cognitive improvement: an increase in the number of the so-called words in the ten-words test during both immediate (from 5.5±1.6 6.5±1.5 words; p=0.02 vs baseline) and delayed (from 6.2±1.7 to 7.4±1.4 words; p=vs baseline) recalls, a decrease in the performance time of TMTB (from 112.6±42.5 to 90.4±28.4 sec; p=0.02) and Stroop test Part 3 (from 135.5±50.1 to 112.6±19.6 sec; p=0.02), and a larger number of called words in the categorical associations test (from 6.5±2.4 to 8.1±2.9 words; p=0.02). Conclusion. The results obtained indicate that in treatment-naive middle-aged patients with EAH, indapamide/perindopril fixed-dose combination assures an effective reduction in BPs, as evidenced by routine measurements and ABPM, also improves cognitive functions, particularly attention, information processing speed, semantic memory, cognitive flexibility, and short-term and long-term memory.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.226 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurology neuropsychiatry PsychosomaticsSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207