Paper Details

  1. Home
  2. Paper Details

A randomized, controlled, multicenter study to compare prazosin GITS with enalapril in hypertensive patients with diabetes mellitus. Bombay Hypertension Study Group.

Author: JoglekarS J, NanivadekarA S

Clinical TrialA clinical trial is a planned study conducted on humans to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and treatment methods. It aims to explore the possibilities of new treatments and improve the health of patients.
Multicenter StudyResearch conducted in collaboration with multiple research institutions. It aims to collect a wide range of data and obtain more generalizable results.
Journal ArticleAn article published in an academic or professional journal that reports original research or scholarly analysis.
Comparative StudyResearch that compares multiple groups/interventions to determine differences/similarities in outcomes/characteristics.
Randomized Controlled TrialA clinical trial that randomly assigns participants to treatment and control groups to evaluate the effects of an intervention.

Overview

Prazosin GITS and enalapril were both effective in controlling hypertension in patients with diabetes mellitus. A randomized, controlled study involving 89 patients found that both drugs effectively lowered blood pressure. Prazosin GITS had a beneficial effect on serum triglycerides, while enalapril had a favorable effect on triglycerides but a detrimental effect on LDL cholesterol. Both drugs increased fasting blood sugar and 2-hour post-meal blood sugar levels, but this was more significant in the prazosin GITS group. Prazosin GITS was also associated with fewer adverse events compared to enalapril.
Paper Details　
Original Abstract of the Article :
OBJECTIVE: To compare the long-term antihypertensive efficacy, tolerability, and metabolic effects of prazosin GITS and enalapril. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled, multicenter study of 26 weeks duration. SETTING: Office practices of 20 physicians in Mumbai, India. PATIENTS: Males and females, aged...See full text at original site
Dr.Camel IconDr.Camel's Paper Summary Blogラクダ博士について

ラクダ博士は、Health Journal が論文の内容を分かりやすく解説するために作成した架空のキャラクターです。
難解な医学論文を、専門知識のない方にも理解しやすいように、噛み砕いて説明することを目指しています。

* ラクダ博士による解説は、あくまで論文の要点をまとめたものであり、原論文の完全な代替となるものではありません。詳細な内容については、必ず原論文をご参照ください。
* ラクダ博士は架空のキャラクターであり、実際の医学研究者や医療従事者とは一切関係がありません。
* 解説の内容は Health Journal が独自に解釈・作成したものであり、原論文の著者または出版社の見解を反映するものではありません。


引用元：
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11233387

データ提供：米国国立医学図書館（NLM）
in preparation
Date :
  1. Date Completed 2001-05-03
  2. Date Revised 2013-11-21
Further Info :

Pubmed ID

11233387

DOI: Digital Object Identifier

11233387

SNS
PICO Info
in preparation
Languages

English

Positive IndicatorAn AI analysis index that serves as a benchmark for how positive the results of the study are. Note that it is a benchmark and requires careful interpretation and consideration of different perspectives.

This site uses cookies. Visit our privacy policy page or click the link in any footer for more information and to change your preferences.