Trial reportPloS one2015
Comparison of Azelnidipine and Trichlormethiazide in Japanese Type 2 Diabetic Patients with Hypertension: The COAT Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of cardiovascular diseases in people with type 2 diabetes and prediabetes: a consensus statement jointly from the Japanese Circulation Society and the Japan Diabetes Society.Diabetology international · 2021Guideline
- Consensus on the management of hypertension in individuals with diabetes by Asian-Pacific Society of hypertension (APSH) & Diabetes Asia Study Group (DASG).Journal of human hypertension · 2026Article
- Azelnidipine and its role in decreasing urinary albumin creatinine ratio in people with type 2 diabetes and hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of diabetes and metabolic disorders · 2025Review
- Azelnidipine inhibits esophageal squamous cell carcinoma proliferationMolecular therapy oncolytics · 2022Article
- Therapeutic Usefulness of a Novel Calcium Channel Blocker Azelnidipine in the Treatment of Hypertension: A Narrative Review.Cardiology and therapy · 2022Review
- Thiazide Diuretic-Induced Change in Fasting Plasma Glucose: a Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.Journal of general internal medicine · 2020Review
- Comparative Effect of Calcium Channel Blockers on Glomerular Function in Hypertensive Patients with Diabetes Mellitus.Drugs in R&D · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study compared the efficacy and safety of azelnidipine with that of trichlormethiazide in Japanese type 2 diabetic patients with hypertension.
methodsIn a multicenter, open-label trial, 240 patients with adequately controlled diabetes (HbA1c ≤ 7.0%) under lifestyle modification and/or administration of hypoglycemic agents and inadequately controlled hypertension (systolic blood pressure [sBP] ≥ 130 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure [dBP] ≥ 80 mmHg) who were being treated with olmesartan were enrolled. Participants were randomly assigned to an azelnidipine group or a trichlormethiazide group and were followed up for 48 weeks. Main outcome measure was the difference in the change in HbA1c levels from the baseline values at 48 weeks between these two groups.
resultsOf the 240 subjects that were enrolled, 209 subjects (azelnidipine group: 103 patients, trichlormethiazide group: 106 patients) completed this trial. At 48 weeks, the following changes were observed in the azelnidipine and trichlormethiazide groups, respectively: HbA1c levels, 0.19 ± 0.52% and 0.19 ± 0.54%; sBP/dBP, -10.7 ± 9.6/-6.6 ± 6.6 mmHg and -7.1 ± 7.7/-3.3 ± 6.1 mmHg (P < 0.001 for both sBP and dBP). In both groups, dizziness (12 patients [11.7%] and 16 patients [15.1%]) and edema (16 patients [15.5%] and 7 patients [6.6%], P = 0.047) were observed during the 48-week follow-up period.
conclusionsAzelnidipine was more effective for controlling blood pressure than trichlormethiazide in Japanese type 2 diabetes patients, whereas trichlormethiazide was more effective for reducing albuminuria than azelnidipine. Both of these agents, however, similarly exacerbated glycemic control in type 2 diabetic patients with hypertension.
trial registrationUMIN 000006081.
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.