Post Hoc Analysis of the CONFIDENCE II, PROTECT I, SHAKE THE HABIT I and SHAKE THE HABIT II Observational Studies in Mild to Moderate Hypertensive Patients Treated with Perindopril and Atorvastatin Concomitantly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Management of hypertension and dyslipidemia is important when considering cardiovascular disease risk; however, achievement of optimal lipid and blood pressure (BP) targets in clinical practice remains inadequate. This analysis sought to estimate the frequency, effectiveness, and safety of co-administrated atorvastatin and perindopril in routine care. METHODS: We conducted a post hoc analysis of four Canadian, prospective, multi-center, observational studies assessing real-life effectiveness and safety of perindopril + atorvastatin in mild-to-moderate hypertensive patients with concomitant dyslipidemia over 16 weeks. The safety population comprised patients receiving one or more doses of free combination perindopril + atorvastatin; the full analysis set (FAS) received perindopril + atorvastatin at baseline, with one or more post-baseline systolic BP measurements while on treatment. RESULTS: A total of 3541 and 3172 patients were included in the safety population and FAS, respectively. At the last observation carried forward, significant reductions in mean systolic BP (- 18.0 mmHg; p < 0.001) and diastolic BP (- 8.9 mmHg; p < 0.001) were observed; target BP was achieved by 73.1% of patients. Emergent adverse events (AEs) were reported in 8.0% of patients, the most common being cough (4.5% of patients), headache (0.9%), and dizziness (0.8%). Four serious AEs were reported among three (0.1%) patients. No differences were observed in effectiveness or safety between studies. CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant perindopril + atorvastatin therapy demonstrated similar efficacy across all studies, with significant reductions in BP and achievement of target BP levels observed in a real-world setting. Results align with known safety profiles of atorvastatin and perindopril, with no unexpected AEs observed when compared with data from treatment with the individual drugs.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".