MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3001770977 · doi:10.2147/dddt.s231293

<p>Effect of Fimasartan versus Valsartan and Olmesartan on Office and Ambulatory Blood Pressure in Korean Patients with Mild-to-Moderate Essential Hypertension: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Active Control, Three-Parallel Group, Forced Titration, Multicenter, Phase IV Study (Fimasartan Achieving Systolic Blood Pressure Target (FAST) Study)</p>

2020· article· en· W3001770977 on OpenAlexaff
Woo‐Baek Chung, Sang‐Hyun Ihm, Sung‐Won Jang, Sung‐Ho Her, Chul Soo Park, Jong Min Lee, Kiyuk Chang, Doo‐Soo Jeon, Ki‐Dong Yoo, Ki‐Bae Seung

Bibliographic record

VenueDrug Design Development and Therapy · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOlmesartanValsartanMedicineAmbulatory blood pressureBlood pressurePlaceboClinical endpointAmbulatoryEssential hypertensionInternal medicineDiastoleRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Head-to-head comparison of the blood pressure (BP) lowering effect of fimasartan versus valsartan, with olmesartan as a reference, on office blood pressure and ambulatory BP. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Of the 369 randomly assigned patients in this study, 365 hypertensive patients were referred as the full analysis set and divided into 3 groups with a 3:3:1 ratio (fimasartan group: 155, valsartan group: 157, olmesartan group: 53). After the 2-week single-blind placebo run-in period, initial standard doses of 60-mg fimasartan, 80-mg valsartan, and 10-mg olmesartan were administered for 2 weeks, then forcibly up-titrated higher doses (fimasartan 120 mg, valsartan 160 mg, olmesartan 20 mg) were given for 4 weeks. ABP was measured before and after the 6-week treatment. Primary endpoint was reduction of sitting office systolic BP (SiSBP) of fimasartan compared to valsartan after 6 weeks. Secondary endpoints were reduction of sitting office diastolic BP (SiDBP) and 24 hrs, day-time, and night-time mean systolic and diastolic ABP (ASBP, ADBP) after 6 weeks. RESULTS: Patients' mean age was 58.34±7.68 years, and 289 patients were male (79.18%). After the 6-week treatment, SiSBP reduction of fimasartan and valsartan were -16.26±15.07 and -12.81±13.87 (p=0.0298) and SiDBP were -7.63±9.67 and -5.14±8.52 (p=0.0211). Reductions in 24 hrs mean ASBP were -15.22±13.33 and -9.45±12.37 (p=0.0009), and ADBPs were -8.74±7.55 and -5.98±7.85 (p=0.0140). Reductions of night-time ASBPs were -16.80±15.81 and -10.32±14.88 (p=0.0012), and those of night-time ADBPs were -8.89±9.93 and -5.55±9.70 (p=0.0152). Reduction of BP in olmesartan group did not demonstrate significant difference with fimasartan group in all end-points. CONCLUSION: Fimasartan 120-mg treatment demonstrated superior efficacy in reduction of SiSBP, SiDBP, and 24 hrs ASBP and ADBP compared to valsartan 160 mg. Reduction of night-time ASBP from baseline was largest in fimasartan group, suggesting that fimasartan may be effective for recovering dipping pattern. NCT NUMBER: NCT02495324 (Fimasartan Achieving SBP Target (FAST) study).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDrug Design Development and TherapySame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207