Cited by 29Blood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesCardiovascular Health and Disease PreventionRenin-Angiotensin System Studies

Assessment of drug effects on blood pressure and pulse pressure using clinic, home and ambulatory measurements

Stergiou, GS, Efstathiou, SP, Skeva, II, Baibas, NM, Kalkana, CB, Mountokalakis, TD·2002·Journal of Human Hypertension

Abstract

This study investigated the differences in the effect of an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) compared with an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) on blood pressure (BP) and pulse pressure (PP) measured in the clinic (CBP and CPP, respectively), at home (HBP, HPP) and with ambulatory monitoring (ABP, APP). Twenty-seven hypertensive patients were randomised to receive lisinopril (20 mg) or losartan (50 mg) for 5 weeks, and were subsequently crossed-over to the alternative treatment for a second 5-week period. Measurements of CBP, 24-h ABP and 5-days HBP were performed before randomisation and at the end of each treatment period. All measurement methods showed that lisinopril was more effective than losartan in reducing BP. However, the difference between the two drugs was demonstrated with greater precision using HBP (P<0.001) than 24-h ABP (P<0.01), whereas the poorest precision for demonstrating this difference was provided by CBP (P<0.05). Lisinopril was also found more effective than losartan in reducing HPP (P=0.01) and 24-h APP (P=0.03) whereas no such a difference was detected using measurements of CPP. It was concluded that the antihypertensive drugs may differ in their effects not only on BP, but also on PP. HBP monitoring appears to be as reliable as 24-h ABP monitoring in detecting differences in the effect of drugs on both BP and PP. Clinic measurements seem to be the least reliable method, particularly in the detection of differences in PP.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/sj.jhh.1001477

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 35 · Cited by 29

Authors
Stergiou, G., Efstathiou, S., Skeva, II, Baibas, N., Kalkana, C., & Mountokalakis, T.
Affiliations
Sotiria General Hospital (GR)
Venue
Journal of Human Hypertension
Published
2002-10-01
Volume
16
Issue
10
Pages
729-735
ISSN
  • 0950-9240 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-5527
OpenAlex
W1991047425
Cited by
29
References
35
Citations by year
2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2013: 2
FWCI
1.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Human Hypertension (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Renin-Angiotensin System Studies
Keywords
blood pressure, pulse pressure, home blood pressure monitoring, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, clinic blood pressure measurement, lisinopril, losartan, ACE inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, antihypertensive drug comparison, hypertension, measurement reliability
MeSH terms
Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors, Antihypertensive Agents, Blood Pressure, Blood Pressure Determination, Female, Home Care Services, Humans, Hypertension, Male, Office Visits, Pulse, Reproducibility of Results, Treatment Outcome, Lisinopril, Cross-Over Studies, Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory, Losartan

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review