Trial-Results center  
Clinical trial results database Feedback    Home


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
    		•  

    AASK (vs ramipril) study, 2002

    Treatments

    Studied treatment Amlodipine 5-10 mg/d
    Control treatment ramipril 2.5-10 mg/d
    Remarks compare the effects of 2 levels of blood pressure (BP) control and 3 antihypertensive drug classe

    Patients

    Patients African Americans aged 18 to 70 years with hypertensive renal disease (GFR, 20-65 mL/min per 1.73m2)
    Inclusion criteria African Americans; hypertension; aged 18 to 70 years; glomerular filtration rate (GFR) between 20 and 65 mL/min per 1.73 m2; no other identified causes of renal insufficiency
    Baseline characteristics
    Inclusion SBP none 
    Inclusion DBP >=95 mmHG 
    baseline BP 150/96 
    Female (%) 39% 
    Age 54.5y 

    Method and design

    Randomized effectives 217 / 436 (studied vs. control)
    Design Factorial plan
    Blinding Double blind
    Follow-up duration 3�0
    Number of centre 21
    Geographic area US
    Primary endpoint rate of change in GFR (GFR slope)
    Remarks

    Remarks / Comments



    Results

    Endpoint Studied treat.
    n/N     Control treat.
    n/N     Graph RR [95% CI]

    All cause death

    13 / 217
         29 / 436
         0,90 [0,48;1,70]     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 13 / 217 (6,0%) 29 / 436 (6,7%) 0,90 [0,48;1,70]    
    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 5,99% 6,65% -6,6‰


    Reference(s)

    Trials register # NA
    • Wright JT Jr, Bakris G, Greene T, Agodoa LY, Appel LJ, Charleston J, Cheek D, Douglas-Baltimore JG, Gassman J, Glassock R, Hebert L, Jamerson K, Lewis J, Phillips RA, Toto RD, Middleton JP, Rostand SG. Effect of blood pressure lowering and antihypertensive drug class on progression of hypertensive kidney disease: results from the AASK trial.. JAMA 2002;288:2421-31
      Pubmed | Hubmed | Fulltext

    (c) 2004-2010 TrialResults-center - All Rights Reserved

    Tweet this  |  notify a friend