ArticleJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2018
A retrospective study evaluating the tolerability and effectiveness of adjunctive antihypertensive drugs in patients with inadequate response to initial treatment.
Article in Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- A retrospective study evaluating the tolerability and effectiveness of adjunctive antihypertensive drugs in patients with inadequate response to initial treatment.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2018Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Real-world tolerability and effectiveness of nebivolol as first add-on therapy were compared with hydrochlorothiazide, metoprolol, and amlodipine. Medical records of hypertensive adults initiating nebivolol, hydrochlorothiazide, metoprolol, or amlodipine as first add-on therapy between December 16, 2010 and July 21, 2011 were retrospectively abstracted (N = 1600; 400/treatment). Outcomes included medication-related side-effect rates and blood pressure (BP) reduction and control. Compared with nebivolol, metoprolol and amlodipine had significantly higher side-effect rates (incidence rate ratio [95% CI]: 1.82 [1.14-2.92] and 2.67 [1.69-4.21]), respectively); the hydrochlorothiazide-nebivolol rate ratio was not significant (1.61 [0.95-2.71]). All treatments reduced BP at 2 months. Metoprolol, amlodipine, and hydrochlorothiazide were associated with significantly lower odds of achieving 2-month BP control than nebivolol (odds ratios [95% CI]: 0.34 [0.23-0.51], 0.51 [0.35-0.75] and 0.66 [0.44-0.99], respectively). In a real-world setting, nebivolol as first add-on therapy was associated with fewer side effects than metoprolol or amlodipine and with a higher BP control rate than hydrochlorothiazide, metoprolol, or amlodipine.
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.