MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2955484889 · doi:10.1161/hyp.70.suppl_1.p480

Abstract P480: Effects Of Long And Intermediate Acting Dihydropyridine Calcium Channel Blockers In Hypertension: A Systematic Review And Aeta-analysis Of 18 Prospective, Actively Controlled, Randomized Clinical Trials

2017· review· en· W2955484889 on OpenAlexaff
Sandip Chaugai, Hisatomi Arima, Lhamo Yangchen Sherpa, Amir A. Sepehry

Bibliographic record

VenueHypertension · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPharmacological Receptor Mechanisms and Effects
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmlodipineMedicineNifedipineDihydropyridineFelodipineInternal medicineRelative riskHeart failureMyocardial infarctionRandomized controlled trialStroke (engine)Lower riskCalcium channel blockerCardiologyCalciumBlood pressureConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers are a heterogeneous group of antihypertensive drugs. Long acting dihydropyridine agent Amlodipine is widely used for mono and combination therapy for hypertension in clinical practice, while intermediate acting dihydropyridine agents such as Felodipine, Nifedipine-GITS etc. have shown inconsistent results in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Methods and Results: A meta-analysis of 18 prospective, actively controlled RCTs enrolling a total of 80,069 hypertensive patients followed for a mean of 51.7 months was performed. Amlodipine therapy was associated with 24% higher risk of heart failure (RR: 1.24, [95%CI: 1.04 to 1.48], p= 0.019) but 16% lower risk of stroke (RR: 0.84, [95%CI: 0.73 to 0.95], p=0.009) without statistically significant effect on acute myocardial infarction (AMI) (RR: 0.90, [95%CI: 0.78 to 1.03], p=0.128) or cardiovascular event (CVE) (RR: 0.99, [95%CI: 0.93 to 1.06], p=0.814). Intermediate acting dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker therapy was associated with 24% higher risk of heart failure (RR: 1.24, [95%CI: 1.07 to 1.44], p=0.005), 27% higher risk of AMI (RR: 1.27, [95%CI: 1.04 to 1.55], p=0.019), 14% higher risk of CVE (RR: 1.14, [95%CI: 1.01 to 1.29], p=0.034) without statistically significant effect against stroke (RR: 1.03, [95%CI: 0.87 to 1.21], p=0.580). Amlodipine showed higher risk of heart failure (RR: 1.20, [95%CI: 1.00 to 1.43], p=0.045) and lower risk of stroke (RR; 0.85, [95%CI: 0.75 to 0.96], p= 0.007) compared to Renin-angiotensin-system (RAS) blockers. Intermediate acting dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker showed higher risk of heart failure (RR: 1.31, [95%CI: 1.09 to 1.57], p=0.004) and AMI (RR: 1.46, [95%CI: 1.00 to 2.14], p=0.050) compared to RAS blockers. Multivariate meta-regression suggested that the effect size may differ between intermediate and long acting agents for stroke (B: -0.27, [95%CI: -0.50 to -0.05], p=0.012) and AMI (B: -0.42, [95%CI: -0.69 to -0.16], p=0.002) after adjustment for baseline presence of diabetes. Conclusions: This study suggests that Amlodipine offers greater protection against major complications of hypertension compared to intermediate acting dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.019
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.167
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHypertensionSame topicPharmacological Receptor Mechanisms and EffectsFrench-language works237,207