ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2026
Amlodipine Besylate-Folic Acid demonstrates superior efficacy to Enalapril Maleate-Folic Acid in treating H-type hypertension.
Article in American journal of translational research, 2026. 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis retrospective research was designed to compare the treatment outcomes of H-type hypertension (HTH) patients treated with Amlodipine Besylate-Folic Acid Tablets (Amlo-FA) vs. Enalapril Maleate-Folic Acid Tablets (Ena-FA).
methodsThis investigation comprised 155 HTH cases. The control group was treated with the Ena-FA regimen, while the observation group received Amlo-FA therapy. Patients' clinical data were comparatively analyzed.
resultsCompared to controls, the observation group demonstrated superior overall treatment effectiveness (90.48% vs. 71.83%, P=0.003). Following treatment, systolic blood pressure (SBP; (129.86±6.24) mmHg vs. (139.66±8.04) mmHg, P<0.001), diastolic blood pressure (DBP; (80.26±7.46) mmHg vs. (89.00±9.68) mmHg, P<0.001), homocysteine (Hcy; (13.06±3.18) μmol/L vs. (19.39±3.37) μmol/L, P<0.001), carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT; (1.11±0.28) mm vs. (1.29±0.27) mm, P<0.001), fasting blood glucose (FPG; (5.74±1.68) mmol/L vs. (6.40±2.02) mmol/L, P=0.028), glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c; (5.85±1.85)% vs. (6.93±1.90)%, P<0.001), urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR; (53.64±15.44) mg/L vs. (74.17±16.96) mg/L, P<0.001), total cholesterol (TC; (4.92±1.61) mmol/L vs. (6.42±1.63) mmol/L, P<0.001), TG (triglycerides; (1.66±0.72) mmol/L vs. (2.44±0.68) mmol/L, P<0.001), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C; (2.35±0.70) mmol/L vs. (2.99±0.84) mmol/L, P<0.001) were markedly reduced in the observation cohort relative to the control group outcomes. Conversely, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C; (1.78±0.69) mmol/L vs. (1.47±0.50) mmol/L, P=0.002), Medication Adherence Self-Efficacy Scale (MASES; (89.31±8.87) score vs. (79.70±7.61) score, P<0.001), and the 8-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8; 5.00 (3.00, 6.00) score vs. 6.00 (4.00, 7.00) score, P<0.001) scores showed a significant increase under the same comparisons. The overall side effect profile was significantly more favorable in the observation group (5.95% vs. 16.90%, P=0.030). No significant inter-group differences were observed in the incidence of various individual and total adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (4.76% vs. 12.68%, P>0.05). Finally, comorbid diabetes (B=1.447, OR=4.250, P=0.010) and treatment methods (B=-1.196, OR=0.303, P=0.013) were factors independently influencing patients' curative effects.
conclusionAmlo-FA is effective in treating HTH.
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.