MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410301359 · doi:10.1001/jama.2025.4390

Antihypertensive Medication Timing and Cardiovascular Events and Death

2025· letter· en· W4410301359 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Scott Garrison, Jeffrey A. Bakal, Michael R. Kolber, Christina Korownyk, Lee A. Green, Jessica Kirkwood, Finlay A. McAlister, Raj Padwal, Richard Lewanczuk, Michael D. Hill, Alexander Singer, Alan Katz, Michael D. Kelmer, Armine Gayayan, Farah N. Campbell, Ana Vucenovic, Nathan Archibald, Jack M. S. Yeung, Erik Youngson, Kimberlyn McGrail, Braden O’Neill, Michelle Greiver, Donna Manca, Roni Kraut, Ting Wang, Braden Manns, Dee Mangin, Cathy MacLean, James McCormack, Sabrina T. Wong, Colleen M. Norris, G. Michael Allan

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA · 2025
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of British ColumbiaMcMaster UniversityAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineBedtimeRandomized controlled trialMorningBlood pressureStroke (engine)Adverse effectClinical endpointEmergency departmentEmergency medicineClinical trialInternal medicineAcute coronary syndromePsychological interventionPhysical therapyPediatricsMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Whether administration of blood pressure medications at bedtime instead of in the morning reduces cardiovascular risk is unknown, as findings from large clinical trials have not been consistent. There is also concern that bedtime antihypertensive use could induce glaucoma-related visual loss or other hypotensive/ischemic adverse effects. Objective: To determine the effect of bedtime vs morning administration of antihypertensive medications on major cardiovascular events and death. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, open-label, pragmatic randomized clinical trial with blinded end-point assessment and recruitment via 436 primary care clinicians across 5 Canadian provinces inviting their community-dwelling adult patients with hypertension taking at least 1 once-daily antihypertensive medication. Participants were recruited from March 31, 2017, to May 26, 2022, with final follow-up on December 22, 2023. Interventions: Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to using all once-daily antihypertensive medications either at bedtime (intervention group; n = 1677) or in the morning (control group; n = 1680). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time to first occurrence of all-cause death or hospitalization/emergency department (ED) visit for stroke, acute coronary syndrome, or heart failure. All-cause unplanned hospitalizations/ED visits, and visual, cognitive, and fall- and/or fracture-related safety outcomes were also assessed. Results: A total of 3357 adults (56.4% female; median age, 67 years; 53.7% taking monotherapy) were randomized and followed up for a median of 4.6 years in each treatment group. The composite primary outcome event occurred at a rate of 2.3 per 100 patient-years in the bedtime group and 2.4 per 100 patient-years in the morning group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.77-1.19; P = .70). Individual components of the primary outcome, all-cause hospitalizations/ED visits, and safety outcomes did not differ between groups. In particular, there was no difference in falls or fractures, new glaucoma diagnoses, or 18-month cognitive decline. Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults with hypertension in primary care, bedtime administration of antihypertensive medications was safe but did not reduce cardiovascular risk. Antihypertensive medication administration time did not affect the risks and benefits of blood pressure-lowering medication and instead should be guided by patient preferences. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02990663.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.668

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 integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.230 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations26
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMASame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207