MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Bedtime vs Morning Antihypertensive Medications in Frail Older Adults

2025· article· en· W4410301372 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Scott Garrison, Erik Youngson, Danielle A. Perry, Farah N. Campbell, Christina Korownyk, Lee A. Green, Michael R. Kolber, Jessica Kirkwood, G. Michael Allan, Roni Kraut, Finlay A. McAlister, Michael D. Hill, Jeffrey A. Bakal

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Network Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsCollege of Family Physicians of CanadaAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineBedtimeStroke (engine)Adverse effectPopulationRandomized controlled trialEmergency departmentMorningDementiaCoronary artery diseaseEmergency medicineDiabetes mellitusPhysical therapyInternal medicinePediatricsDiseasePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: The effect of antihypertensive administration time on major adverse cardiovascular events is unclear, and has never been studied in frail older adults, for whom risks and benefits may differ from the general population. Objective: To determine, in frail seniors, the effect of bedtime vs morning administration of antihypertensive medications on major cardiovascular events and death, as well as on potentially ischemic or hypotensive adverse events. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, open-label, pragmatic randomized clinical trial recruited from 13 continuing care facilities in Canada (17 wards; 14 long-term care and 3 supportive-living wards) from May 25, 2020, to September 18, 2023, with follow-up until February 29, 2024. Residents with hypertension and at least 1 once-daily antihypertensive medication were included. Data analysis was from March to August 2024. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to taking all once-daily antihypertensive medications either at bedtime (intervention) or per usual care control (largely morning use). Main Outcomes and Measures: The composite primary outcome was first occurrence of all-cause death or either hospitalization or emergency department (ED) visit for stroke, acute coronary syndrome, or heart failure. All-cause unplanned hospitalization or ED visits, falls and fractures, decubitus ulcers, and worsening cognition or behavioral problems were also assessed. Results: A total of 776 older adults (median [IQR] age, 88 [81-92] years; 562 female [72.4%]; 664 [85.6%] with some degree of dementia; 367 [47.3%] with diabetes; 307 [39.6%] with coronary artery disease) were randomized to bedtime (394 participants) vs usual care (382 participants) administration and were followed-up for a median (IQR) of 415 (251-735) days. Of 320 primary outcome events, 293 (91.6%) were deaths; there was no difference in primary outcomes for bedtime vs usual care in a modified intention-to-treat analysis (29.4 vs 31.5 events per 100 patient-years; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.71-1.11; P = .28). Other outcomes were similarly no different between groups, excepting all-cause unplanned hospitalization and ED visits, which favored bedtime (22.6 vs 30.0 events per 100 patient-years; aHR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.57-0.96; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial of antihypertensive medication timing, switching antihypertensives to bedtime failed to reduce a composite of death or major cardiovascular events that were primarily all-cause death, and had no effect on potentially ischemic and hypotensive adverse events, suggesting that in a population of frail older adults, administration time had little or no influence on the benefits and risks of antihypertensive medication. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04054648.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.619
Threshold uncertainty score0.526

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.279 · 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
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

Citations18
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Network OpenSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207