The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Outcome Results of the Fosinopril Versus Amlodipine Cardiovascular Events Randomized Trial (FACET) in Patients With Hypertension and NIDDM
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: ACE inhibitors and calcium antagonists may favorably affect serum lipids and glucose metabolism. The primary aim of the Fosinopril Versus Amlodipine Cardiovascular Events Randomized Trial (FACET) was to compare the effects of fosinopril and amlodipine on serum lipids and diabetes control in NIDDM patients with hypertension. Prospectively defined cardiovascular events were assessed as secondary outcomes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Inclusion criteria included a diagnosis of NIDDM and hypertension (systolic blood pressure of >140 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure of >90 mmHg). Exclusion criteria included a history of coronary heart disease or stroke, serum creatinine >1.5 mg/dl, albuminuria >40 μg/min, and use of lipid-lowering drugs, aspirin, or antihypertensive agents other than beta-blockers or diuretics. A total of 380 hypertensive diabetics were randomly assigned to open-label fosinopril (20 mg/day) or amlodipine (10 mg/day) and followed for up to 3.5 years. If blood pressure was not controlled, the other study drug was added. RESULTS: Both treatments were effective in lowering blood pressure. At the end of followup, between the two groups there was no significant difference in total serum cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, HbA1c, fasting serum glucose, or plasma insulin. The patients receiving fosinopril had a significantly lower risk of the combined outcome of acute myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalized angina than those receiving amlodipine (14/189 vs. 27/191; hazards ratio = 0.49, 95% CI = 0.26–0.95). CONCLUSIONS: Fosinopril and amlodipine had similar effects on biochemical measures, but the patients randomized to fosinopril had a significantly lower risk of major vascular events, compared with the patients randomized to amlodipine.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Brenner, B. M., Cooper, M. E., de Zeeuw, D., Keane, W. F., Mitch, W. E., Parving, H.-H., Remuzzi, G., Snapinn, S. M., Zhang, Z., & Shahinfar, S. (2001) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa011161 · Cited by 7,493
Cosentino, F., Grant, P. J., Aboyans, V., Bailey, C. J., Ceriello, A., Delgado, V., Federici, M., Filippatos, G., Grobbee, D. E., Hansen, T. B., et al. (2020) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehz486 · Cited by 4,763
Standards of medical care in diabetes—2014
American Diabetes Association (2014) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc14-s014 · Cited by 4,572
Standards of medical care in diabetes—2013
American Diabetes Association (2013) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc13-s011 · Cited by 4,369
Standards of medical care in diabetes 2010
American Diabetes Association (2010) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc10-s011 · Cited by 3,470
Metadata
- Authors
- Tatti, P., Pahor, M., Byington, R. P., Mauro, P. D., Guarisco, R., Strollo, G., & Strollo, F.
- Venue
- Diabetes Care
- Publisher
- American Diabetes Association
- Published
- 1998-04-01
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 597-603
- ISSN
- 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
- 1935-5548
- OpenAlex
- W2138119952
- Cited by
- 850
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 65.31
- 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: Outcome Results of the Fosinopril Versus Amlodipine Cardiovascular Events Randomized Trial (FACET) in Patients With Hypertension and NIDDM. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2337/diacare.21.4.597
- The paper
- Tatti, P., Pahor, M., Byington, R. P., Mauro, P. D., Guarisco, R., Strollo, G., & Strollo, F. (1998). Outcome Results of the Fosinopril Versus Amlodipine Cardiovascular Events Randomized Trial (FACET) in Patients With Hypertension and NIDDM. Diabetes Care. https://doi.org/10.2337/diacare.21.4.597
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.