Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,166

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Effect of Nisoldipine as Compared with Enalapril on Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients with Non-Insulin-Dependent Diabetes and Hypertension

Open access
Estacio, Raymond O., Jeffers, Barrett W., Hiatt, William R., Biggerstaff, Stacy L., Gifford, Nancy, Schrier, Robert W.·1998·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: It has recently been reported that the use of calcium-channel blockers for hypertension may be associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular complications. Because this issue remains controversial, we studied the incidence of such complications in patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus and hypertension who were randomly assigned to treatment with either the calcium-channel blocker nisoldipine or the angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor enalapril as part of a larger study. METHODS: The Appropriate Blood Pressure Control in Diabetes (ABCD) Trial is a prospective, randomized, blinded trial comparing the effects of moderate control of blood pressure (target diastolic pressure, 80 to 89 mm Hg) with those of intensive control of blood pressure (diastolic pressure, 75 mm Hg) on the incidence and progression of complications of diabetes. The study also compared nisoldipine with enalapril as a first-line antihypertensive agent in terms of the prevention and progression of complications of diabetes. In the current study, we analyzed data on a secondary end point (the incidence of myocardial infarction) in the subgroup of patients in the ABCD Trial who had hypertension. RESULTS: Analysis of the 470 patients in the trial who had hypertension (base-line diastolic blood pressure, > or = 90 mm Hg) showed similar control of blood pressure, blood glucose and lipid concentrations, and smoking behavior in the nisoldipine group (237 patients) and the enalapril group (233 patients) throughout five years of follow-up. Using a multiple logistic-regression model with adjustment for cardiac risk factors, we found that nisoldipine was associated with a higher incidence of fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarctions (a total of 24) than enalapril (total, 4) (risk ratio, 9.5; 95 percent confidence interval, 2.7 to 33.8). CONCLUSIONS: In this population of patients with diabetes and hypertension, we found a significantly higher incidence of fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarction among those assigned to therapy with the calcium-channel blocker nisoldipine than among those assigned to receive enalapril. Since our findings are based on a secondary end point, they will require confirmation.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejm199803053381003

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 1,166

Metadata

Authors
Estacio, R. O., Jeffers, B. W., Hiatt, W. R., Biggerstaff, S. L., Gifford, N., & Schrier, R. W.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
1998-03-05
Volume
338
Issue
10
Pages
645-652
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2312999996
Cited by
1,166
References
2
FWCI
88.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Effect of Nisoldipine as Compared with Enalapril on Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients with Non-Insulin-Dependent Diabetes and Hypertension. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm199803053381003
The paper
Estacio, R. O., Jeffers, B. W., Hiatt, W. R., Biggerstaff, S. L., Gifford, N., & Schrier, R. W. (1998). The Effect of Nisoldipine as Compared with Enalapril on Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients with Non-Insulin-Dependent Diabetes and Hypertension. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199803053381003

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.