Related trials
Ruilope, 2010 - LCZ696 vs
KYOTO HEART Study, 2009 - valsartan vs non ARB strategy
Schmieder (vs HCTZ), 2009 - aliskiren vs hydrochlorothiazide
ALLAY, 2009 - aliskiren vs losartan
AVOID, 2008 - aliskiren vs placebo
HYVET, 2008 - indapamide vs placebo
ACCOMPLISH, 2008 - amlodipine plus benazepril vs hydrochlorothiazide plus benazepril
Andersen, 2008 - aliskiren vs ramipril
PROPHESS, 2008 - telmisartan vs placebo
ASCOT-BPLA, 2005 - amlodipine vs atenolol
ASCOT-BPLA, 2005 - atenolol vs amlodipine
VALUE, 2004 - valsartan vs amlodipine
SHELL, 2003 - lacidipine vs chlorthalidone
ANBP2, 2003 - enalapril vs diuretics
CONVINCE, 2003 - Atenolol or hydrochlorothiazide vs verapamil
SCOPE, 2003 - candesartan vs placebo
INVEST (Pepine), 2003 - verapamil vs atenolol
INVEST, 2003 - atenolol vs verapamil
CONVINCE, 2003 - verapamil vs diuretic or beta-blocker
ELSA, 2002 - atenolol vs lacidipine
LIFE, 2002 - losartan vs atenolol
ELSA, 2002 - lacidipine vs atenolol
LIFE, 2002 - atenolol vs Losartan
JMIC-B, 2002 - various ACEI vs nifedipine
ALLHAT (vs chlorthalidone), 2002 - lisinopril vs diuretics
See also:
All hypertension clinical trials
All clinical trials of anti hypertensive agent
All clinical trials of amlodipine
|
|
Treatments
Studied treatment |
Amlodipine 10mg/d
|
Control treatment |
placebo
|
Patients
Patients |
hypertensive patients with nephropathy due to type 2 diabetes |
Inclusion criteria |
age between 30 and 70 years;type 2 diabetes mellitus; hypertension
(systolic blood pressure of more than 135 mm Hg while
sitting, a diastolic blood pressure of more than 85 mm Hg while sitting,
or documented treatment with antihypertensive agents);
proteinuria, with urinary protein excretion of at least 900 mg per
24 hours; serum creatinine
between 1.0 and 3.0 mg per deciliter (88 and 265 ìmol per liter)
in women and 1.2 and 3.0 mg per deciliter (106 and 265 ìmol per
liter) in men. |
Baseline characteristics |
baseline BP |
159/87 mmHg |
Female (%) |
32% |
Age |
58.6y |
prior cardiovascular disease |
29% |
|
Method and design
Randomized effectives |
567 / 569 (studied vs. control) |
Design |
Parallel groups |
Blinding |
Double blind |
Follow-up duration |
2·6 |
Number of centre |
210 |
Results
Endpoint
Studied treat. n/N
Control treat. n/N
Graph
RR [95% CI]
All cause death
83 / 567
93 / 569
0,90 [0,68;1,18]
0
2
1.0
Relative risks
|
Endpoint |
Events (%) |
Relative Risk |
95% CI |
Endpoint definition in the trial |
Ref |
Studied treat. |
Control treat. |
All cause death
|
83 / 567 (14,6%) |
93 / 569 (16,3%) |
0,90 |
[0,68;1,18] |
|
|
The primary endpoint (if exists) appears in blod characters
|
Reference(s) used for data extraction:
|
Endpoint |
studied treat. |
control treat. |
mean diff |
Absolute risk reduction
|
Endpoint |
Events rate |
Absolute risk reduction (ARR) |
Studied treat. |
Control treat. |
All cause death |
14,64% |
16,34% |
-17,1‰
|
Reference(s)
-
Lewis EJ, Hunsicker LG, Clarke WR, Berl T, Pohl MA, Lewis JB, Ritz E, Atkins RC, Rohde R, Raz I.
Renoprotective effect of the angiotensin-receptor antagonist irbesartan in patients with nephropathy due to type 2 diabetes..
N Engl J Med 2001;345:851-60
Pubmed
|
Hubmed
| Fulltext
|