Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 171

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Spironolactone Versus Clonidine as a Fourth-Drug Therapy for Resistant Hypertension: The ReHOT Randomized Study (Resistant Hypertension Optimal Treatment)

Krieger, Eduardo M., Drager, Luciano F., Giorgi, Dante M.A., Pereira, Alexandre C., Barreto-Filho, José Augusto Soares, Nogueira, Armando R., Mill, José Geraldo, Lotufo, Paulo A., Amodeo, Celso, Batista, Marcelo C., Bodanese, Luiz C., Carvalho, Antônio C.C., Castro, Iran, Chaves, Hilton, Costa, Eduardo A.S., Feitosa, Gilson S., Franco, Roberto J.S., Fuchs, Flávio D., Guimarães, Armênio C., Jardim, Paulo C., Machado, Carlos A., Magalhães, Maria E., Mion, Décio, Nascimento, Raimundo M., Nobre, Fernando, Nóbrega, Antônio C., Ribeiro, Antônio L.P., Rodrigues-Sobrinho, Carlos R., Sanjuliani, Antônio F., Teixeira, Maria do Carmo B., Krieger, Jose E., Betito, Alessandro, Fagundes Moia, Diogo Duarte, de Souza, Silvia Beatriz Paulino Cavasin, Júnior, Hilton de Castro Chaves·2018·Hypertension

Abstract

The aim of this study is to compare spironolactone versus clonidine as the fourth drug in patients with resistant hypertension in a multicenter, randomized trial. Medical therapy adherence was checked by pill counting. Patients with resistant hypertension (no office and ambulatory blood pressure [BP] monitoring control, despite treatment with 3 drugs, including a diuretic, for 12 weeks) were randomized to an additional 12-week treatment with spironolactone (12.5–50 mg QD) or clonidine (0.1–0.3 mg BID). The primary end point was BP control during office (<140/90 mm Hg) and 24-h ambulatory (<130/80 mm Hg) BP monitoring. Secondary end points included BP control from each method and absolute BP reduction. From 1597 patients recruited, 11.7% (187 patients) fulfilled the resistant hypertension criteria. Compared with the spironolactone group (n=95), the clonidine group (n=92) presented similar rates of achieving the primary end point (20.5% versus 20.8%, respectively; relative risk, 1.01 [0.55–1.88]; P =1.00). Secondary end point analysis showed similar office BP (33.3% versus 29.3%) and ambulatory BP monitoring (44% versus 46.2%) control for spironolactone and clonidine, respectively. However, spironolactone promoted greater decrease in 24-h systolic and diastolic BP and diastolic daytime ambulatory BP than clonidine. Per-protocol analysis (limited to patients with ≥80% adherence to spironolactone/clonidine treatment) showed similar results regarding the primary end point. In conclusion, clonidine was not superior to spironolactone in true resistant hypertensive patients, but the overall BP control was low (≈21%). Considering easier posology and greater decrease in secondary end points, spironolactone is preferable for the fourth-drug therapy. Clinical Trial Registration—: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01643434.

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 · 10.1161/hypertensionaha.117.10662

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Research works printed but not linked: 21

  1. 10.1001/jama.1997.03550160092044 · DOI
  2. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.788497 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1371/journal.pone.0012065 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.111.179788 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1161/01.CIR.0000013953.41667.09 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.192644 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.107.100701 · DOI
  8. 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.108.189141 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.111.068064 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.1136/bmj.d4891 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1093/eurheartj/eht151 · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.1001/jama.2013.284427 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00257-3 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1002/clc.22228 · DOI
  15. 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.111.169961 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 10.1097/HJH.0b013e3283551e98 · DOI
  17. 10.1097/HJH.0000000000001025 · DOI
  18. 10.1097/00005344-198709002-00013 · doi:10.1097/00005344-198709002-00013
  19. 10.2165/00003088-198814050-00002 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.1016/0002-9343(89)90107-1 · DOI
  21. 10.1111/jch.12433 · DOI

Cited by

See all 171

Metadata

Authors
Krieger, E. M., Drager, L. F., Giorgi, D. M. A., Pereira, A. C., Barreto-Filho, J. A. S., Nogueira, A. R., Mill, J. G., Lotufo, P. A., Amodeo, C., Batista, M. C., Bodanese, L. C., Carvalho, A. C. C., Castro, I., Chaves, H., Costa, E. A. S., Feitosa, G. S., Franco, R. J. S., Fuchs, F. D., Guimarães, A. C., Jardim, P. C., Machado, C. A., Magalhães, M. E., Mion, D., Nascimento, R. M., Nobre, F., Nóbrega, A. C., Ribeiro, A. L. P., Rodrigues-Sobrinho, C. R., Sanjuliani, A. F., Teixeira, M. D. C. B., Krieger, J. E., Betito, A., Fagundes Moia, D. D., de Souza, S. B. P. C., & Júnior, H. D. C. C.
Venue
Hypertension
Published
2018-04
Volume
71
Issue
4
Pages
681-690
ISSN
  • 0194-911X (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4563
OpenAlex
W2910511370
Cited by
171
References
3
FWCI
14.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Spironolactone Versus Clonidine as a Fourth-Drug Therapy for Resistant Hypertension: The ReHOT Randomized Study (Resistant Hypertension Optimal Treatment). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/hypertensionaha.117.10662
The paper
Krieger, E. M., Drager, L. F., Giorgi, D. M. A., Pereira, A. C., Barreto-Filho, J. A. S., Nogueira, A. R., Mill, J. G., Lotufo, P. A., Amodeo, C., Batista, M. C., Bodanese, L. C., Carvalho, A. C. C., Castro, I., Chaves, H., Costa, E. A. S., Feitosa, G. S., Franco, R. J. S., Fuchs, F. D., Guimarães, A. C., . . . Júnior, H. D. C. C. (2018). Spironolactone Versus Clonidine as a Fourth-Drug Therapy for Resistant Hypertension: The ReHOT Randomized Study (Resistant Hypertension Optimal Treatment). Hypertension. https://doi.org/10.1161/hypertensionaha.117.10662

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.