Effect of Switching to Azilsartan From Fixed-Dose Combination of an Angiotensin II Receptor Blocker and Calcium Channel Blocker or a Thiazide in Patients With Hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the availability of antihypertensive treatments, fewer than half of patients who receive treatment successfully achieve blood pressure (BP) goals. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of switching to azilsartan 40 mg from a fixed-dose combination tablet of an angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) and amlodipine at 5 mg or azelnidipine at 16 mg (ARB/CCB) or an ARB and hydrochlorothiazide (HCT) at 6.25 mg or 12.5 mg (ARB/HCT) on BP. METHODS: This prospective, multicenter, open-labeled, single-arm study included 40 patients treated with a fixed-dose combination tablet of an ARB/CCB or an ARB/HCT, which was switched to azilsartan 40 mg after enrollment. The primary outcome was the change in BP from baseline to the 24-week follow-up. RESULTS: Of the 40 patients who completed this study, 33 did not require changes in their antihypertensive medications after switching to azilsartan, and their BP did not change from baseline to follow-up. However, the systolic BP in seven patients was elevated at 12 weeks, and amlodipine at 5 mg was therefore added; these patients' baseline medications were an ARB/CCB (n = 6) and an ARB/HCT (n = 1). In all patients, the serum potassium level was slightly increased after switching to azilsartan at 6 months, while the serum creatinine, hemoblobinA1c, and lipid profile did not change. CONCLUSIONS: Azilsartan at 40 mg did not result in a greater decrease in BP than a fixed-dose combination tablet of an ARB/CCB or an ARB/HCT. However, our findings suggest a substantial BP-lowering effect of azilsartan at 40 mg in patients with hypertension.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".