ReviewCurrent hypertension reports2003
Lessons from trials in hypertensive type 2 diabetic patients.
Review in Current hypertension reports, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is incontrovertible evidence that association of type 2 diabetes with hypertension markedly increases the risk of cardiovascular events, death, and nephropathy. In type 2 diabetes, even blood pressure values usually considered below the threshold for hypertension (ie, 140/90 mm Hg) in nondiabetic subjects represent an additional risk of clinical relevance. Evidence that more intensive blood pressure lowering is beneficial in type 2 diabetes over less intensive lowering is also overwhelming. However, most published trials show the need for combination therapy in the great majority of patients, and even with combination therapy it is difficult to attain the expected goal blood pressure, in particular goal systolic blood pressure. It should be recognized that the systolic blood pressure goal of less than 130 mm Hg is a very difficult one to achieve in diabetics. Evidence of the superiority or inferiority of different drug classes is vague and contradictory. Recent evidence concerning angiotensin II receptor antagonists has shown a significant reduction of cardiovascular events, cardiovascular death, and total mortality when losartan was compared with atenolol, but not when irbesartan was compared with amlodipine. If renal endpoints are considered, evidence of the benefit of angiotensin II receptor antagonists in type 2 diabetes is more robust than that available with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. Primary prevention of development of microalbuminuria seems to be greatly facilitated by strict blood pressure control. However, by attaining normal blood pressure levels (< 130/80 mm Hg), better preservation of glomerular filtration rate does not seem to be insured.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.