Reported trial results for Hypertension

104 trials have reported results.

AI generated results summary. Written by an AI model from the official source data and checked on a sample basis. It can contain mistakes, so confirm anything important against the original source. How we use AI

• NCT03298802 · results posted 24 June 2026

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 400 participants — 201 in the hydrochlorothiazide 50mg tablet group and 199 in the placebo (dummy tablet) group — with 196 in each group completing the study. The trial was looking at what happened to women with high blood pressure in the weeks after giving birth (the period from one to six weeks postpartum). The two main things being measured were: how many participants needed to return to hospital for a visit or urgent assessment, and how many needed extra blood pressure medication during that period. The reported data shows that for hospital re-admission or urgent triage visits, 3 participants in the hydrochlorothiazide group and 10 in the placebo group had such a visit. For the need for additional blood pressure medication, 6 participants in each group required it. On the secondary (additional) measures, the reported data shows the average length of hospital stay was 2.25 days in the hydrochlorothiazide group and 2.18 days in the placebo group. The number of participants who received one extra dose of blood pressure medication was 6 in each group. Regarding high blood pressure readings above 150/90 mmHg during the follow-up window, 21 participants in the hydrochlorothiazide group and 15 in the placebo group recorded such a reading. For serious complications — including ICU admission, severe conditions such as eclampsia, stroke, or organ failure, and maternal death — the reported data shows zero participants in either group experienced any of these events. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT06764277 · results posted 3 February 2026

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 32 people in total who were on dialysis, divided into three groups based on their average blood pressure readings: 15 people in Group A (blood pressure below 130/80), 7 people in Group B (blood pressure between 130–139/80–89), and 10 people in Group C (blood pressure at or above 140/90). All 32 participants completed the study. The trial was measuring several things related to how the heart and blood vessels were functioning between dialysis sessions, as well as certain substances in the blood that can affect blood pressure and the immune system. The reported data shows the following numbers across the three blood pressure groups. For heart output (the amount of blood the heart pumps per minute), the figures were 3.9, 4.10, and 4.6 litres per minute for Groups A, B, and C respectively. For the resistance in the blood vessels (a measure of how hard the vessels are squeezing), the numbers were 1,513, 2,045, and 1,751 in the units used. Weight gained between dialysis sessions (expressed as a percentage) was reported as 2.90%, 3.22%, and 2.98% across the three groups. For the secondary measures, blood levels of angiotensin II (a substance involved in blood pressure regulation) were 105.3, 158.3, and 231.5 pg/ml; levels of norepinephrine (another substance linked to blood pressure) were 81.4, 82.4, and 82.6 pg/ml; and a ratio reflecting certain immune cells in the blood was 0.88, 0.73, and 1.11 for Groups A, B, and C respectively. It is worth noting that the reported data does not include information about variability or statistical comparisons between the groups, so those figures were not reported and cannot be described here. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT06017102 · results posted 23 January 2026

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial compared two types of stomach examination procedures in 50 adults — 25 people underwent a standard upper endoscopy (called esophagogastroduodenoscopy, or EGD, where a flexible tube with a camera is passed down the throat) and 25 people underwent a newer approach called Wired Magnetic Assisted Capsule Endoscopy (WMACE, where a small swallowable camera capsule is guided by a magnet). All 50 participants completed the trial. The main thing the trial was measuring was the amount of tiny airborne particles (aerosols) produced during each procedure, which is relevant to infection control. The trial also looked at procedure duration, patient-reported pain, willingness to repeat the procedure, and findings such as varicose veins in the oesophagus or stomach. The reported data shows that, for the primary measure of aerosol particles generated, the standard endoscopy group produced figures across different particle sizes ranging from 433 to 13,296 particles, while the capsule endoscopy group produced figures ranging from 0 to 3,506 particles. For particles generated per minute (a secondary measure), the standard endoscopy group's figures ranged from 69 to 2,060 per minute, compared with 0 to 1,493 per minute for the capsule group. The reported data also shows that the standard endoscopy took a median of 7 minutes and the capsule procedure took a median of 15 minutes. On the patient-reported pain scale (0–10, where 0 is no pain), the standard endoscopy group recorded a score of 0 and the capsule group recorded a score of 3. On willingness to repeat the procedure (0–5, where 5 is very willing), both groups recorded a score of 4. Regarding findings during the examinations, the reported data shows that esophageal varices (enlarged veins in the food pipe) were detected in 22 out of 25 participants in the standard endoscopy group and 10 out of 25 in the capsule group, while gastric varices (enlarged veins in the stomach) were found in 2 participants in the standard endoscopy group and 3 in the capsule group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT05562934 · results posted 24 October 2025

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT05562934) enrolled 189 adults across five groups to test different doses of a medicine called XXB750 against a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient) for high blood pressure. The groups received either placebo or one of four doses of XXB750: 30 mg, 60 mg, 120 mg, or a higher dose of 120 mg/240 mg. The main thing the trial was measuring was the change in 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure (the "top number" in a blood pressure reading, averaged over a full day using a monitoring device) after 12 weeks of treatment. Most participants completed the study, with small numbers dropping out across the active treatment groups. The reported data shows that all five groups, including the placebo group, had reductions in their average 24-hour systolic blood pressure from the start of the trial to week 12. The placebo group's reading dropped by around 5.8 mmHg (millimetres of mercury, the unit used to measure blood pressure). The XXB750 groups showed reductions ranging from approximately 5.4 mmHg (highest dose group) to 6.7 mmHg (120 mg group). For a secondary measure looking at blood pressure control — defined as reaching specific target numbers for both the top and bottom readings — the reported data shows that an estimated 13.2% of the placebo group reached that target, compared with figures ranging from around 15% to 25.9% across the XXB750 dose groups. These percentages were produced using a mathematical modelling approach rather than being simple counts of participants. The reported data also shows that when comparing the highest XXB750 dose directly against placebo at week 12, the placebo group had a reduction of about 6.0 mmHg while the highest dose group had a reduction of about 4.6 mmHg. A similar pattern was seen when measurements from weeks 9 and 12 were averaged together. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT03733145 · results posted 24 August 2025

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 32 people in total across three groups, all of whom had high blood pressure (hypertension) and were already taking blood pressure-lowering medication. Ten were taking a type of medication called ACE inhibitors, eleven were taking a type called ARBs (angiotensin receptor blockers), and eleven were on other types of blood pressure medication. The trial was measuring how much of a substance called angiotensin II (a natural hormone that can raise blood pressure) was needed to bring each person's blood pressure back up to near their baseline level, and also looked at the levels of several related substances in the blood. Not everyone completed the study — seven, eight, and nine participants finished in each group respectively. The reported data shows that the median dose of angiotensin II needed to bring blood pressure back up to near baseline was 35 nanograms per kilogram per minute in the ACE inhibitor group, 43 in the ARB group, and 45 in the group on other medications. ("Median" simply means the middle value when all results are lined up from lowest to highest.) For the blood substance measurements, the reported data shows the ACE inhibitor group had higher median blood levels of two bradykinin fragments (proteins involved in blood pressure regulation) — 127,043 and 24,457 pmol/L for bradykinin 1-8 and 1-7 respectively — compared to the ARB group (105,405 and 19,335 pmol/L) and the other medications group (101,169 and 17,438 pmol/L). For a third bradykinin fragment (1-5), the ACE inhibitor group's median level was notably higher at 2,341 pmol/L, compared with 353 and 375 pmol/L in the other two groups. Median aldosterone levels (another hormone linked to blood pressure) were reported as 293 pmol/L in both the ACE inhibitor and ARB groups, and 230 pmol/L in the other medications group. Median angiotensin I levels were 8.7, 1.8, and 0 pmol/L across the three groups respectively. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT05800145 · results posted 5 August 2025

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 60 participants across six groups, each receiving a different combination of support: information and resource referrals only, support from a Community Health Worker (CHW — a trained local health support person), medically tailored meals (MTM — meals designed to suit specific health conditions), or combinations of these. The trial was designed to test whether these approaches were practical to run (for example, how many people agreed to join and stayed until the end), and also to track participants' blood pressure readings over a six-month period using blood pressure monitoring cuffs. The reported data shows that 98% of people who were screened agreed to join the study. For staying in the study until the end, the retention rate (the share who completed all follow-up check-ins) was reported as 50% for the resource referral group and 62.5% for the Community Health Worker group. Blood pressure was measured at two separate time points. In the first set of readings, systolic blood pressure (the top number in a blood pressure reading, reflecting the pressure when the heart beats) ranged from 136.8 to 151.7 mmHg across the six groups, and diastolic blood pressure (the bottom number, reflecting pressure between beats) ranged from 81.6 to 89.8 mmHg. The second set of readings showed a wider spread, with systolic figures ranging from 123.2 to 171.6 mmHg and diastolic figures ranging from 78.8 to 103.8 mmHg across the groups. The reported data does not include information about what participants' blood pressure was before the study began, so no before-and-after comparison can be drawn from the numbers provided. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT02373163 · results posted 29 July 2025

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 166 people across three groups, each receiving a different type of blood pressure medication: a diuretic (a fluid-removing tablet), a calcium-channel blocker, or an angiotensin receptor blocker. There were 56 people in the diuretic group and 55 in each of the other two groups. All participants completed the study — none dropped out. The trial was measuring how much each medication changed blood pressure and related measures over a 24-hour period, comparing readings taken at the start of the study to readings taken after four weeks. The reported data shows that average blood pressure readings (the "top" number, called systolic) fell over the four weeks in all three groups. The diuretic group saw an average drop of 5.9 mmHg (millimetres of mercury, the unit used to measure blood pressure), the calcium-channel blocker group dropped by 7.5 mmHg, and the angiotensin receptor blocker group dropped by 8.4 mmHg. For the "bottom" blood pressure number (diastolic), the reported drops were 3.5, 4.7, and 5.6 mmHg respectively. Similar reductions were also reported for two other blood pressure-related measures — mean arterial pressure (an overall average pressure) and pulse pressure (the gap between the top and bottom numbers) — across all three groups. The reported data also shows changes in a measure of arterial stiffness called pulse wave velocity (how fast a pressure wave travels through blood vessels), with drops of 0.4, 0.3, and 0.6 metres per second in the diuretic, calcium-channel blocker, and angiotensin receptor blocker groups respectively. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT05928624 · results posted 22 July 2025

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 69 people in total — 34 in a standard care group and 35 in a group that used home blood pressure monitors and scales to help guide their clinical care. All 69 participants completed the study with no dropouts reported. The trial was looking at two things: changes in a measure called mean arterial pressure (a way of calculating the average pressure in the blood vessels during a heartbeat cycle), and changes in the burden of fluid build-up in the abdomen (known as ascites), measured by how much fluid was drained over the study period. The reported data shows that average blood pressure (mean arterial pressure) changed by 0.5 mmHg in the standard care group and by 1 mmHg in the home monitoring group. For the fluid build-up measure, the reported data shows that the standard care group had a total of 6.1 litres of fluid drained on average, while the home monitoring group had 4.7 litres drained on average. These are the numbers as submitted; the trial report does not provide further context about what these differences mean clinically. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT05161481 · results posted 15 June 2025

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT05161481) enrolled 80 people in total — 26 in the placebo group, 27 in the avenciguat 2 mg twice-daily group, and 27 in the avenciguat 3 mg twice-daily group. The trial was measuring changes in a reading called the Hepatic Venous Pressure Gradient (HVPG) — a measure of pressure inside the liver's blood vessels, taken via a specialised procedure. The study ran for 24 weeks and was testing whether avenciguat, at two different doses, changed that pressure reading compared to a dummy treatment (placebo). The reported data shows that for the main outcome — the percentage change in liver pressure after 24 weeks — the placebo group's pressure reading went up by about 7%, while the 2 mg avenciguat group's reading went down by about 1.3%, and the 3 mg avenciguat group's reading went down by about 7.1%. At the 8-week mark, the reported figures were a 5.4% decrease in the placebo group, a 1.9% decrease in the 2 mg group, and a 2.7% decrease in the 3 mg group. For a separate measure — the number of people whose pressure dropped by more than 10% after 24 weeks — the reported data shows 5 out of 19 in the placebo group, 11 out of 23 in the 2 mg group, and 4 out of 17 in the 3 mg group achieved that reduction. Regarding serious drops in blood pressure or fainting over the first 8 weeks, the reported data shows this occurred in 0 people in the placebo group, 0 in the 2 mg group, and 1 person in the 3 mg group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT05401409 · results posted 8 June 2025

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 60 people in total — 30 in each group. Participants were randomly assigned to drink either nitrate-rich beetroot juice or nitrate-depleted beetroot juice (a comparison drink with the nitrates removed) every day for four weeks. The trial was measuring changes in blood pressure, as well as several markers in blood and urine that relate to how blood vessels function. One person in the nitrate-rich group did not complete the study; everyone in the nitrate-depleted group finished. The reported data shows that both groups had lower clinic blood pressure readings at four weeks compared to the start of the study. For the top number in a blood pressure reading (systolic), the nitrate-rich group's average change was −5.36 mmHg (millimetres of mercury, the standard unit for blood pressure) and the nitrate-depleted group's was −7.65 mmHg. For the bottom number (diastolic), the nitrate-rich group changed by −3.55 mmHg and the nitrate-depleted group by −2.73 mmHg. At-home daily blood pressure readings also showed small week-by-week reductions in both groups, ranging from about −0.24 to −0.55 mmHg per week depending on the group and reading type. For a blood and urine marker called nitric oxide metabolites — a substance linked to how blood vessels relax — the nitrate-rich group showed a reported change of +20.08 µM in the blood, compared with +0.97 µM in the nitrate-depleted group. A urine marker of kidney function (albumin-to-creatinine ratio) and a blood vessel health marker called ADMA showed modest differences between groups across the study period. Results for salivary nitric oxide metabolites were not reported in the submitted data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT03557502 · results posted 4 June 2025

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial compared two groups of people: one group received heat therapy and the other did aerobic exercise. In the first part of the study (Protocol 1), 21 people started and completed the heat therapy group, and 20 started and completed the aerobic exercise group. In the second part (Protocol 2), 17 heat therapy participants and 14 aerobic exercise participants started, with 15 and 12 respectively completing it. The trial was measuring changes in blood pressure and arterial stiffness (a measure of how flexible the blood vessels are) after 30 sessions of either heat therapy or exercise over roughly 8 to 10 weeks. The reported data shows that for blood pressure — measured over a full 24-hour period using a portable monitoring device — the heat therapy group had an average change of −1 mmHg (millimetres of mercury, the unit used to measure blood pressure) in the upper (systolic) reading, while the aerobic exercise group had an average change of 0 mmHg. For the lower (diastolic) reading, the heat therapy group showed an average change of 0 mmHg and the aerobic exercise group showed an average change of +1 mmHg. These figures represent the difference between each participant's reading before and after the intervention. The reported data also shows that arterial stiffness — measured by tracking how fast a pulse wave travels through the body, where a lower speed can suggest more flexible arteries — changed by approximately 0.0 metres per second in the heat therapy group and −0.1 metres per second in the aerobic exercise group. These are small numerical changes, and no further breakdown of this data was reported. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT04518306 · results posted 3 June 2025

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04518306) tested two different dose strengths of a combination blood pressure pill called GMRx2 — one at a lower dose (called "Triple ¼") and one at a higher dose (called "Triple ½") — against a placebo (a dummy pill with no active ingredients). The trial first ran a lead-in phase where 755 people took a placebo, and 295 of those went on to the main comparison phase. In that main phase, 113 people were assigned to the lower-dose GMRx2, 119 to the higher-dose GMRx2, and 63 to placebo. The trial measured changes in blood pressure — both taken at home and measured in a clinic — over four weeks. The reported data shows that for the main (primary) outcome — the change in average systolic blood pressure (the "top number" in a blood pressure reading) measured at home — participants in the lower-dose group had an average reduction of 9.6 mmHg (millimetres of mercury, the standard unit for blood pressure), those in the higher-dose group had an average reduction of 10.4 mmHg, and those in the placebo group had an average reduction of 2.2 mmHg. For the clinic-measured systolic blood pressure, the reported reductions were 6.6 mmHg (lower dose), 8.2 mmHg (higher dose), and a small average *increase* of 1.3 mmHg in the placebo group. For the "bottom number" (diastolic blood pressure) measured in the clinic, reported average changes were a reduction of 3.5 mmHg (lower dose), 4.3 mmHg (higher dose), and a small increase of 0.5 mmHg (placebo). The reported data also shows that at four weeks, 73% of participants in the lower-dose group and 83% in the higher-dose group had clinic blood pressure readings below 140/90 mmHg (a commonly used threshold), compared with 23% in the placebo group. When a stricter threshold of below 130/80 mmHg was applied, the reported figures were 23% (lower dose), 36% (higher dose), and 2% (placebo). These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT04518293 · results posted 3 June 2025

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04518293) looked at blood pressure readings in people with high blood pressure. The trial compared a triple-combination treatment called GMRx2 (three blood pressure medicines in one pill) against three different two-medicine combinations: one called Dual-TA, one called Dual-TI, and one called Dual-AI. The trial began with a run-in phase where 2,244 people took a single active treatment for four weeks; 1,385 completed that phase. From there, 1,385 people moved into the main double-blind phase (where neither participants nor doctors knew which treatment was being taken), split across the four groups: 551 on GMRx2, 282 on Dual-TA, 276 on Dual-TI, and 276 on Dual-AI. The main thing being measured was the change in blood pressure readings taken at home over 12 weeks. The reported data shows the following changes in home systolic blood pressure (the "top number" in a blood pressure reading) from the start of the double-blind phase to week 12: the GMRx2 group's average reading went down by 4.0 mmHg (millimetres of mercury, the standard unit for blood pressure), while the Dual-TA group's average went up by 1.4 mmHg, the Dual-TI group's went down by 1.5 mmHg, and the Dual-AI group's went up by 0.4 mmHg. For clinic blood pressure readings (taken by a health professional), the reported data shows similar patterns at week 12: GMRx2 down 5.5 mmHg, Dual-TA up 0.1 mmHg, Dual-TI down 1.2 mmHg, and Dual-AI up 0.9 mmHg. At week 12, the number of participants whose clinic blood pressure fell below the commonly used threshold of 140/90 mmHg was reported as 407 out of 527 in the GMRx2 group, 173 out of 273 in Dual-TA, 167 out of 259 in Dual-TI, and 146 out of 259 in Dual-AI. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT06104423 · results posted 24 April 2025

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT06104423) involved people with high blood pressure that was not well controlled on a single blood pressure medicine. In the first stage, 128 people took nebivolol 5 mg and 138 people took ramipril 5 mg on their own for about four weeks. Those who did not reach their blood pressure target then moved into the second stage, where 255 people took a combination of both medicines (nebivolol 5 mg together with one of three doses of ramipril: 2.5 mg, 5 mg, or 10 mg) for 12 weeks. The trial's main goal was to measure how much sitting systolic blood pressure (the top number in a blood pressure reading) changed over that 12-week combination period. The reported data shows that, on average across the combination group, sitting systolic blood pressure changed by –19.2 mmHg (millimetres of mercury, the standard unit for measuring blood pressure) from the start of the combination period to the end of the 12 weeks. In other words, the top number in the blood pressure reading was reported to be about 19 points lower on average at week 12 compared to the start of that stage. Breakdown figures for each individual ramipril dose (2.5 mg, 5 mg, and 10 mg) were not reported separately in the submitted data. No secondary outcome measure results were included in the data submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov, so those figures cannot be described here. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT02235909 · results posted 25 February 2025

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02235909) involved multiple phases and several hundred participants across different treatment groups. In the first (double-blind) phase, 215 people were enrolled across four groups — one receiving a comparison medication called losartan, three receiving different doses of azilsartan medoxomil (AZM), and a placebo group was used in a later withdrawal phase. In the withdrawal phase, 203 people took part, and in a final open-label phase, 197 people participated. The trial was measuring changes in blood pressure readings — specifically looking at what happened to blood pressure when participants were switched from their treatment to a placebo, compared with those who stayed on AZM. The reported data shows the following changes in seated diastolic blood pressure (the lower number in a blood pressure reading) between around week 6 and week 8 of the withdrawal phase. Among those switched to placebo, the average diastolic reading went up by 3.9 mmHg (millimetres of mercury, the standard unit for blood pressure). Among those who stayed on AZM, it went down by 1.6 mmHg. For the upper blood pressure number (systolic), the placebo group saw an average increase of 4.4 mmHg, while the AZM group saw an average decrease of 2.3 mmHg. The reported data also shows a measure called mean arterial pressure (an average of the pressure throughout each heartbeat): this went up by 4.1 mmHg in the placebo group and down by 1.8 mmHg in the AZM group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT05765253 · results posted 11 December 2024

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT05765253) enrolled a total of three people. Two participants underwent a procedure called TIPS (a type of internal shunt created in the liver to redirect blood flow) using a device called the Scorpion Portal Vein Access Kit, while one participant had the same procedure performed using a Cook Transjugular Liver Access Set. The trial was measuring whether the procedure could be completed successfully and whether any serious complications occurred, as well as tracking how long different steps of the procedure took and how many needle attempts were needed. The reported data shows that all three participants — both in the Scorpion group and the one in the Cook group — achieved what the trial defined as procedural success (creating the necessary internal channel confirmed by imaging) and technical success (placing a stent to connect the relevant blood vessels). For major complications — defined as serious events leading to a higher level of care, longer hospital stay, lasting harm, or death — the reported data shows zero such events in the Scorpion group and one such event in the Cook group. Regarding the time taken to access the portal vein (a key step in the procedure), the reported data shows 7 and 8 minutes for the two Scorpion participants and 52 minutes for the Cook participant. The number of needle passes needed was 1 and 1 for the Scorpion group and 3 for the Cook participant. Total procedure duration was reported as 35 and 49 minutes for the Scorpion group and 93 minutes for the Cook participant. It is important to note that only three people took part in this trial, which is an extremely small number, and the reported data should be understood in that context. No conclusions about broader patterns can be drawn from results this limited, and the trial itself does not claim otherwise in its reported figures. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT04790279 · results posted 28 October 2024

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 175 people in total — 87 in the Amlodipine group and 88 in the Nifedipine ER (extended-release) group. The trial was comparing these two blood pressure medicines in people who had given birth, looking at how long they stayed in hospital after delivery, how often they needed extra (acute) blood pressure treatments, any side effects they experienced, and a number of other outcomes including hospital readmissions and breastfeeding duration. Not everyone completed the trial — 51 of the 87 people in the Amlodipine group and 69 of the 88 in the Nifedipine ER group finished the study. The reported data shows that the main thing being measured — length of hospital stay from delivery to discharge — was very similar between the two groups: a median (middle value) of 73.5 hours for the Amlodipine group and 72.0 hours for the Nifedipine ER group. For the secondary outcomes, the reported data shows the Amlodipine group needed a median of 4.0 extra acute blood pressure treatments after starting their medication, compared with 1.5 in the Nifedipine ER group. Side effects were measured using a patient survey scored from 1 (never) to 5 (always); across the different side effects tracked, both groups scored mostly in the 1–2 range, suggesting side effects were reported as occurring rarely, though the data as submitted does not clearly label which score corresponds to which individual side effect. The reported data shows that 0 people in the Amlodipine group stopped their medication due to side effects, compared with 7 in the Nifedipine ER group. Three people in each group were reported to have been readmitted to hospital. Regarding breastfeeding for six or more weeks, 4 participants in the Amlodipine group and 3 in the Nifedipine ER group were reported to have done so, though it is unclear from the submitted data how many participants this question applied to overall. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT03503773 · results posted 4 October 2024

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03503773) enrolled 106 people in total — 56 in a sham (inactive/pretend procedure) control group and 50 in the treatment group. The trial was measuring changes in blood pressure, specifically looking at readings taken over a full 24-hour period using a monitoring device worn by participants, as well as standard clinic readings taken by a doctor or nurse. Not everyone finished the study: 44 people completed it in the sham group and 43 in the treatment group. The reported data shows that for the main outcome — the change in average 24-hour systolic (the "top number" in a blood pressure reading) blood pressure at 8 weeks — the sham group's reading fell by 1.4 mmHg (millimetres of mercury, the unit used to measure blood pressure) from where it started, while the treatment group's reading fell by 2.9 mmHg. For the secondary outcomes, the reported data shows that at 6 months, the sham group's 24-hour systolic reading had fallen by 13.4 mmHg and the treatment group's by 13.9 mmHg. At 12 months, the sham group showed a fall of 15.9 mmHg compared with 10.6 mmHg in the treatment group. For clinic-based systolic readings at 8 weeks, the sham group's average reading rose slightly by 0.63 mmHg, while the treatment group's fell by 4.0 mmHg. Changes in the diastolic reading (the "bottom number") were also reported: at 8 weeks, the sham group fell by 1.1 mmHg and the treatment group by 2.0 mmHg; at 6 months, the sham group fell by 8.0 mmHg and the treatment group by 9.3 mmHg. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT04442464 · results posted 29 April 2024

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04442464) enrolled just one participant, whose two eyes were each treated differently — one eye was designated the "Study Eye" and the other the "Control Eye." The trial was measuring intraocular pressure (IOP), which is the pressure inside the eye, recorded in millimetres of mercury (mmHg). This is a measurement commonly used when monitoring eye health conditions such as glaucoma. The reported data shows two sets of pressure readings for each eye, likely taken at different points in time. For the Study Eye, the reported pressure readings were 24.0 mmHg and 21.2 mmHg. For the Control Eye, the readings were 23.5 mmHg and 21.5 mmHg. No secondary outcome data was reported in the submitted results. Because this trial involved only a single participant, the numbers represent one person's readings only and do not reflect a broader group average. It is also worth noting that a study of just one participant is very limited in what it can tell us, and the results should be understood in that context. No safety or effectiveness conclusions can be drawn from this data alone. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT05347147 · results posted 24 April 2024

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT05347147) tested a treatment called Presendin against a placebo (an inactive dummy treatment) in people with raised pressure inside the skull — a condition sometimes called intracranial hypertension. The main thing the trial was measuring was the change in that pressure over 24 weeks, checked by a procedure called a lumbar puncture (a needle inserted into the lower back to measure the pressure of the fluid around the brain and spinal cord). The trial also tracked vision, swelling at the back of the eye (called papilloedema), and headache frequency. A total of 14 people were enrolled — 8 in the Presendin group and 6 in the placebo group. However, only 3 people in the Presendin group and 1 person in the placebo group completed the study, meaning most participants did not finish. The reported data shows that for the primary outcome — skull pressure measured in centimetres of cerebrospinal fluid (the fluid around the brain) — individual readings for the Presendin group at the measured time points were 25, 28, 28, and 29 cm CSF, while readings for the placebo group were 40 and 30 cm CSF. Because so few participants completed the trial, only a small number of individual readings were available rather than a full group average. For the secondary outcomes, individual vision-field scores (where a larger negative number suggests greater vision loss) ranged from −5.89 to +0.74 in the Presendin group and from −4.78 to −1.50 in the placebo group. Eye nerve fibre thickness readings (where higher numbers suggest more swelling) ranged from 105 to 199 in the Presendin group and from 114 to 432 in the placebo group. Optic nerve head size changes ranged from about −12% to +19% in the Presendin group and from about −6% to +11% in the placebo group. The reported data also shows that for monthly headache days, individual values in the Presendin group ranged from 3.5 to 28 days per month across different time periods, while placebo group values included readings of 28, 11.2, and others marked as not available. For moderate-to-severe headache days, Presendin group individual values ranged from 0 to 28 days, and placebo group values ranged from 5.6 to 24.9 days. Several data points across both groups were listed as not reported. Given the very small number of people who completed the trial, the reported data represents only a handful of individual results rather than a broad picture. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT02577835 · results posted 1 March 2024

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02577835) enrolled 1,342 people with high blood pressure (hypertension), of whom 1,200 completed the study and 142 did not finish. The trial was an observational study — meaning it watched and measured participants rather than testing a new treatment. It focused on measuring artery stiffness and blood pressure readings taken over a full 24-hour period, using specialised techniques that look at how blood pressure behaves throughout the day and night, including at the level of the main central artery (the aorta). The reported data shows the following average values across all participants. For the three main (primary) measurements: the 24-hour average pulse wave velocity — a measure of how quickly a pressure wave travels through the arteries, where a faster speed indicates stiffer arteries — was reported as 10.6 metres per second; the 24-hour average augmentation index — a percentage reflecting how much stiff arteries cause a pressure "echo" that pushes back on the heart — was reported as 18.0%; and the 24-hour average central blood pressure (the estimated pressure at the aorta) was reported as 117.2 mmHg. For the secondary measurements, the average 24-hour upper-arm (brachial) systolic blood pressure (the top number) was 128.1 mmHg, the average diastolic blood pressure (the bottom number) was 79.4 mmHg, and a measure of the heart's left ventricle size — used to check for thickening of the heart muscle — was reported as 109.6 g/m². It is important to note that this study had only one group of participants and no comparison group, so the reported numbers represent observed measurements in this particular group of people with hypertension rather than a comparison between treatments. No data was reported for any missing figures in the dataset provided. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT04603560 · results posted 28 December 2023

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04603560) involved 511 people in total — made up of patients and their healthcare providers. Patients were split into three groups: one group received a "social norming" intervention (which involves sharing information about what most people in a similar situation do), one group received a "pharmacist e-detailing" intervention (where a pharmacist provided information electronically to the treating doctor), and one control group that did not receive either intervention. There were also small groups of healthcare providers attached to each of these arms, ranging from 14 to 16 providers per group. All participants who started the study also completed it. The main thing the trial was measuring was whether doctors changed a patient's blood pressure medication at a specific visit — either by adding a new one or increasing the dose of an existing one. This is referred to as "treatment intensification." The reported data shows that in the social norming group, 21 out of 173 patients had their treatment intensified at the target visit. In the pharmacist e-detailing group, 23 out of 143 patients had their treatment intensified. In the control group, 19 out of 150 patients had their treatment intensified. No secondary outcome data appears to have been reported in the submitted results. The reported data does not include any further breakdown or additional outcome measures beyond these numbers, so no other findings can be described here. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT01911897 · results posted 22 November 2023

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01911897) enrolled 30 people, all of whom received a device called the MobiusHD. The trial was looking at serious unwanted medical events (called serious adverse events) as its main focus, and also tracked blood pressure readings taken in a clinic and over a 24-hour period as secondary measures. Of the 30 people who started, 27 completed the study and 3 did not. The reported data shows that 8 out of 30 participants experienced at least one serious adverse event during the study. For the clinic-based blood pressure readings (measured in mmHg, a standard unit for blood pressure), the reported figures across the different time points were: 184, 147, 157, 162, 160, and 160 mmHg. For the 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring at six months — where a device measures blood pressure repeatedly over a full day and night — the reported figures were 167, 150, and 145 mmHg. The data submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov does not include labels specifying exactly which time point each individual measurement corresponds to, so a direct time-by-time comparison cannot be made from this summary alone. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT02570113 · results posted 28 September 2023

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 45 people who all received a procedure called renal denervation by neurolysis — a technique aimed at disrupting certain nerves near the kidneys that are thought to play a role in blood pressure. Of the 45 who started, 42 completed the study. The trial was measuring two main things: whether certain serious complications were absent in the month following the procedure, and whether participants' blood pressure (measured over 24 hours using a monitoring device) changed over six months. The reported data shows that 43 out of 45 participants were recorded as free from a defined set of serious events in the first month — these included major bleeding, serious kidney injury, major vascular complications, and death within one month of the procedure. For blood pressure, the reported data shows an average reduction of 11 mmHg in 24-hour ambulatory (around-the-clock monitor) systolic (the top number) blood pressure from the start of the trial to the six-month mark. For the secondary (additional) measurements, the reported data shows that 2 participants had a notable decline (greater than 25%) in kidney filtering ability (a measure called eGFR) at six months. Average serum creatinine — a waste product in the blood used to gauge kidney function — changed by 0.01 mg/dL, which the data reports as a very small shift. No participants were reported to have developed a new significant narrowing of the arteries near the kidneys, and no participants were reported to have had a stroke or a brief stroke-like episode (TIA) within one month of the procedure. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT05137002 · results posted 1 August 2023

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT05137002) was conducted in two parts and looked at a medication called CIN-107 in people with uncontrolled high blood pressure. In Part I (8 weeks), 249 people were enrolled across four groups — one receiving a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient) and three receiving different doses of CIN-107 (0.5 mg, 1 mg, or 2 mg). Around 227 of those participants completed Part I. In Part II (4 weeks), a separate group of 213 people all received the 2 mg dose of CIN-107, with 201 completing that phase. The trial measured changes in blood pressure readings and levels of certain hormones in the blood and urine. The reported data shows that after 8 weeks in Part I, average seated systolic blood pressure (the top number in a blood pressure reading) fell by 16.6 mmHg in the placebo group, 17.0 mmHg in the 0.5 mg group, 16.0 mmHg in the 1 mg group, and 19.8 mmHg in the 2 mg group. For diastolic blood pressure (the bottom number), the reported reductions were 5.9 mmHg (placebo), 5.8 mmHg (0.5 mg), 5.0 mmHg (1 mg), and 5.4 mmHg (2 mg). The reported data also shows that the percentage of participants whose systolic blood pressure dropped below 130 mmHg was 36% for placebo, 36% for 0.5 mg, 33% for 1 mg, and 43% for 2 mg. Levels of aldosterone — a hormone involved in blood pressure regulation — were also measured, with urine aldosterone falling by approximately 19.9 units in the placebo group compared to reductions of around 114 to 140 units across the CIN-107 groups. Blood aldosterone levels showed similar patterns. Changes in urine renin (another hormone related to blood pressure) were also reported across all groups. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT04914819 · results posted 6 July 2023

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04914819) enrolled 60 people in total — 40 were placed in an online behavioural weight loss programme and 20 received usual care. The trial was looking at several things at once: how well different recruitment strategies (emails and mailed letters) brought people in, how weight changed over 16 weeks, and how many people completed the study. Of the 40 in the programme group, 26 finished all follow-up steps, while 18 out of 20 in the usual care group did so. The reported data shows that, on average, people in the online programme group lost 8.6 pounds over the 16 weeks, while people in the usual care group lost 3.3 pounds on average. In terms of losing 5% or more of their starting body weight, the reported data shows 9 out of 40 people in the programme group reached that mark, compared with 3 out of 20 in the usual care group. For those in the programme group, the reported data shows they logged into the platform during an average of 8.6 out of 16 weeks. Regarding recruitment, one email approach ("Reserved a Spot") led to 88 sign-ups and another ("Commit to Health") led to 102 sign-ups; for mailed letters, sending a letter alone resulted in 11 sign-ups while adding a small gift resulted in 16 sign-ups. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT04742283 · results posted 26 January 2023

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04742283) enrolled 323 people in total — 161 in one group and 162 in another. One group used Timolol Maleate eye drops (0.5%) twice a day, while the other used DE-126 eye drops (0.002%) once a day along with a plain vehicle (inactive) drop. The trial was measuring the pressure inside the eye — known as intraocular pressure, or IOP — which is simply the fluid pressure within the eyeball. This was checked at three different times during the day at several points: two weeks, six weeks, and three months into the trial. Most participants completed the study: 148 in the Timolol group and 158 in the DE-126 group. The reported data shows the eye pressure readings (measured in millimetres of mercury, or mmHg) at each check-in point. At two weeks, the three time-of-day readings for the Timolol group were approximately 19.1, 18.3, and 17.9 mmHg, while the DE-126 group recorded approximately 18.9, 17.9, and 17.2 mmHg. At six weeks, the Timolol group's readings were approximately 18.7, 18.3, and 18.2 mmHg, compared with approximately 18.3, 18.0, and 17.5 mmHg for the DE-126 group. At the three-month mark, the Timolol group recorded approximately 18.8, 18.1, and 18.5 mmHg across the three time points, while the DE-126 group recorded approximately 18.8, 18.1, and 17.6 mmHg. For a secondary measure — the average eye pressure across all three time points at three months — the reported data shows 18.43 mmHg for the Timolol group and 18.15 mmHg for the DE-126 group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT03959592 · results posted 3 January 2023

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03959592) enrolled a total of 8 participants — 3 in the group receiving a combination of lutein, zeaxanthin, and mesozeaxanthin (three natural pigments found in the eye), and 5 in the placebo group (a dummy treatment with no active ingredients). All 8 participants completed the study. The trial was measuring several aspects of vision, including contrast sensitivity (the ability to notice subtle differences in shading and patterns), the density of pigment in the central part of the retina, vision in glare, visual field, dark adaptation, and quality of life related to vision. The reported data shows the following changes from the start of the trial to its end. For the two primary (main) outcomes: contrast sensitivity, measured in cycles per second (Hz), changed by +3.44 Hz in the supplement group and −0.23 Hz in the placebo group. The density of pigment in the central retina changed by +0.06 optical density units in the supplement group and +0.02 in the placebo group. For the secondary (additional) outcomes: vision in glare changed by 0 percentage points of contrast in the supplement group and +48 percentage points in the placebo group; the quality-of-life vision questionnaire score (where higher scores indicate better outcomes, on a scale of 0–100) changed by +11.2 points in the supplement group and +11.0 points in the placebo group; and the visual field measure changed by +0.06 dB in the supplement group and −0.36 dB in the placebo group. The data for the dark adaptation outcome was not reported. It is worth noting that with only 8 participants in total, this was a very small study. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT02922023 · results posted 2 December 2022

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial was designed to look at two approaches to managing blood pressure — one called "chronotherapy" (timing when blood pressure medication is taken) and another using ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM, which involves wearing a blood pressure monitor over a period of time). The trial aimed to measure changes in blood pressure after one month of adjusted medication, and how many participants in each group reached their blood pressure goal. The reported data shows that only 2 participants were enrolled in the chronotherapy group, and no participants were enrolled in the ABPM group. None of the participants completed the study — both people who started in the chronotherapy group did not finish, and no reason for non-completion is detailed in the submitted data. Because of this, no outcome measurement results were reported for either of the two primary outcomes (changes in blood pressure, or the number of people reaching their blood pressure goal). In other words, the trial did not generate any findings to report. The reported data shows no numbers or conclusions can be drawn from this trial, as it appears to have ended before collecting any meaningful results. Any outcome figures are simply absent from what was submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT04465630 · results posted 7 June 2022

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 78 people who had a specific combination of eye conditions — they had previously had cataract surgery (making them "pseudophakic") and also had open-angle glaucoma, a condition involving pressure build-up in the eye. The trial was measuring changes in eye pressure and changes in the number of eye-pressure-lowering medications participants were using, looking at results up to six months after a procedure. It is worth noting that the data shows zero participants were recorded as having formally "completed" the study, as the study closed before all participants reached their final follow-up point — results were instead reported for those who had reached the six-month mark by the time the study closed. The reported data shows that, among those who reached the six-month timepoint, the average eye pressure (measured in millimetres of mercury, or mmHg — a standard unit for this type of measurement) changed by minus 8.8 mmHg. In plain terms, this means eye pressure was reported to be lower on average at six months compared to before the procedure. The reported data also shows that the average number of eye-pressure-lowering medications used changed by minus 1.2, meaning participants were using fewer of these medications on average at six months compared to when they entered the study. These numbers describe what was measured and recorded during the trial for this particular group of participants. They do not tell us what would happen in other people or in different circumstances. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT03514641 · results posted 21 September 2021

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved two related studies (called 603A and 603B) looking at a tablet called bexagliflozin (20 mg) compared to a dummy tablet (placebo) in people with high blood pressure. In the first study period (603A), 334 people started on bexagliflozin and 339 on placebo, with most completing the 12 weeks. In the second study period (603B), 281 people were in each group over a 12-week period between weeks 24 and 36. The trial was measuring changes in blood pressure — specifically the average systolic blood pressure (the top number in a blood pressure reading) recorded over a full 24-hour period using a monitoring device. The reported data shows that during the first 12-week period (603A), the average 24-hour systolic blood pressure fell by 8.86 mmHg (millimetres of mercury, the unit used to measure blood pressure) in the bexagliflozin group and by 6.15 mmHg in the placebo group. During the second study period (603B), the 24-hour systolic blood pressure changed by +0.30 mmHg in the bexagliflozin group and +2.74 mmHg in the placebo group — meaning both groups showed a very small rise rather than a fall during that later period. For the secondary measures in 603A, the reported data shows that 40% of people taking bexagliflozin achieved a reduction of 10 mmHg or more in their ambulatory (walking-around) systolic blood pressure, compared with 34% in the placebo group. Regarding reaching a target ambulatory systolic blood pressure of 135 mmHg or below, 40% of the bexagliflozin group reached this level compared with 29% in the placebo group. When blood pressure was measured seated in a clinic setting, the bexagliflozin group's reading fell by an average of 11.24 mmHg versus 6.61 mmHg in the placebo group, and 38% of the bexagliflozin group reached a seated clinic reading of 140 mmHg or below, compared with 25% in the placebo group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT03949244 · results posted 23 August 2021

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 47 people in total, split across three groups: 12 people received Latanoprost 0.005%, 21 received Latanoprost Bunod 0.024%, and 14 received Normal Saline 0.9% (a saltwater solution often used as a comparison/control). All 47 participants completed the study with no drop-outs. The trial was measuring blood flow in small vessels near the surface of the skin (called NFC blood flow, measured in picolitres per second — a very small unit of fluid movement) in the fourth finger of the non-dominant hand. Measurements were taken at the start of the session (baseline) and again 15 minutes after a substance called NF was applied to the finger. The reported data shows the following blood flow readings at baseline: the Latanoprost 0.005% group recorded 72.52 pL/s, the Latanoprost Bunod 0.024% group recorded 83.94 pL/s, and the Normal Saline group recorded 93.01 pL/s. At the 15-minute mark, the reported figures were 60.50 pL/s for the Latanoprost 0.005% group, 75.57 pL/s for the Latanoprost Bunod 0.024% group, and 69.70 pL/s for the Normal Saline group. No additional outcome measures or further breakdown of results were included in the data submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT01200407 · results posted 17 August 2021

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01200407) involved 615 people who were enrolled in a single treatment group receiving a medicine called Normetec. The trial was measuring changes in blood pressure over 12 weeks, as well as tracking any unwanted medical events (called adverse events) that occurred during treatment. Of the 615 people who started, 533 completed the study, and 82 did not finish. The reported data shows that at the start of the study, the average top number of blood pressure readings (systolic) was 161.6 mmHg and the average bottom number (diastolic) was 98.9 mmHg — where mmHg is simply the unit used to measure blood pressure. By week 12, the reported data shows an average change of minus 35.8 mmHg in the top number and minus 19.4 mmHg in the bottom number. Looking at earlier time points without a statistical gap-filling method, the reported changes were minus 24.7 (top) and minus 13.2 (bottom) at week 4, and minus 33.0 (top) and minus 17.6 (bottom) at week 8. The reported data also shows that 70.5% of participants reached a blood pressure reading below the guideline target of 140/90 mmHg by week 12. Regarding unwanted medical events, 6 participants were reported to have experienced adverse events, and 0 participants were reported to have experienced serious adverse events. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT00441350 · results posted 28 July 2021

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 846 adults in total across two phases. In the first phase (Phase A, running for 8 weeks), 285 participants received a medication called olmesartan (OM) at 40 mg, and 561 received a combination of olmesartan and hydrochlorothiazide (OM/HCTZ) at 40/12.5 mg. The trial was measuring changes in blood pressure — specifically the "top" number (systolic, or sBP) and the "bottom" number (diastolic, or dBP) — taken while participants were sitting down, after their medication had been in their system for some time ("trough" readings). After Phase A, participants were grouped as "responders" (those whose blood pressure had come down sufficiently) or "non-responders" (those whose blood pressure had not come down enough), and a second 8-week phase (Phase B) tracked what happened next. The reported data shows that after 8 weeks in Phase A, the OM 40 mg group had an average reduction of 15.8 mmHg in their diastolic (bottom) blood pressure reading and 26.5 mmHg in their systolic (top) reading from the start of the trial. The OM/HCTZ combination group showed average reductions of 18.9 mmHg (diastolic) and 31.9 mmHg (systolic). For Phase B, the reported data shows that participants who had already responded well in Phase A saw very small further average changes — around 0.3 to 0.5 mmHg in either direction — in both blood pressure readings. Those who had not responded well enough in Phase A (non-responders) saw larger average reductions in Phase B: roughly 9.3 mmHg (diastolic) and 12.4 mmHg (systolic) for those who had been on OM alone, and roughly 8.0 mmHg (diastolic) and 12.1 mmHg (systolic) for those who had been on the combination. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT03380000 · results posted 23 June 2021

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 16 people in total. It used a "crossover" design, meaning each person tried both drinks at different times — one was nitrate-rich beetroot juice and the other was a nitrate-depleted (low-nitrate) version used as a comparison. The two sessions were separated by a washout period of at least seven days to allow any effects to clear. The trial was measuring things like blood pressure in the main artery (the aorta), how stiff the arteries were, how nitrate from the drink appeared in the blood, and how people responded during a handgrip exercise task. The reported data shows that resting aortic blood pressure — the main outcome being measured — was 113.3 mmHg (millimetres of mercury, a standard unit for blood pressure) after the nitrate-rich juice and 116.9 mmHg after the nitrate-depleted juice. For the blood measures, nitrate levels in the blood were 643.9 µM (micromoles per litre, a measure of concentration) with the nitrate-rich juice compared to 39.2 µM with the depleted juice, and nitrite levels (another form nitrate converts into in the body) were 0.402 µM versus 0.115 µM respectively. Artery stiffness, measured by how fast a pulse wave travels through the body, was 7.328 metres per second after the nitrate-rich juice and 7.572 metres per second after the depleted juice. The reported data also shows that during the handgrip exercise task, blood pressure rose by around 25% from its starting point with the nitrate-rich juice and 30% with the depleted juice. How hard the exercise felt — rated on a scale from 6 (no effort) to 20 (maximum effort) — was 17.3 with the nitrate-rich juice and 17.7 with the depleted juice. The time participants were able to keep exercising before fatigue was 602.8 seconds with the nitrate-rich juice and 541.0 seconds with the depleted juice. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT02177123 · results posted 28 May 2021

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 107 people who had been diagnosed with a type of glaucoma called primary open-angle glaucoma — a condition where pressure inside the eye gradually damages the optic nerve. Of those 107 participants, 83 completed the study, while 24 did not finish. The trial was measuring eye pressure (the force of fluid inside the eye, recorded in units called mmHg) over a two-year period following a procedure, to see how many participants met a pre-set pressure target and how pressure levels changed over time. The reported data shows that, looking at the number of participants who met the study's pressure target (called "study success"), the figures at the four main check-in points were: 62 participants at 6 months, 59 at 9 months, 58 at 12 months, and 60 at 24 months. For eye pressure readings themselves, the reported data shows an average pressure of 21.5 mmHg before the procedure, dropping to 9.5 mmHg on day one, 9.8 mmHg at one week, 12.8 mmHg at three months, 14 mmHg at six months, 15 mmHg at nine months, 15.3 mmHg at twelve months, 15 mmHg at eighteen months, and 14 mmHg at twenty-four months. The reported data also shows that 25 participants required additional glaucoma medication at 12 months, and 25 participants required additional glaucoma medication at 24 months. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT02439749 · results posted 27 May 2021

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02439749) enrolled 366 adults with high blood pressure — 182 in the renal denervation group (a procedure that targets nerves around the kidney arteries) and 184 in a sham (fake/placebo) procedure group. The trial was measuring two main things: whether certain serious medical complications occurred, and how much participants' blood pressure changed over 24 hours (measured by a monitor worn throughout the day and night) after three months. The reported data shows that, for the serious complications tracked as the first main outcome, zero participants in either group experienced any of the listed events — such as death, major organ damage, or problems with the kidney arteries. For the second main outcome — the change in a blood pressure reading called systolic pressure (the top number in a blood pressure reading) — the renal denervation group showed an average drop of 4.5 mmHg (millimetres of mercury, the unit used to measure blood pressure), while the sham group showed an average drop of 0.6 mmHg. The reported difference between the two groups was 3.9 mmHg. Among the secondary (additional) outcomes tracked, zero participants in either group experienced events such as artery damage, organ damage from clots, or artery tears requiring treatment. One participant in the sham group experienced a vascular complication (a problem with a blood vessel) requiring treatment, compared to zero in the renal denervation group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT03722524 · results posted 30 March 2021

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03722524) enrolled 1,247 adults with high blood pressure (arterial hypertension). Of those, 1,148 completed the study and 99 did not finish. The trial was measuring changes in blood pressure readings — both the top number (systolic) and bottom number (diastolic) — from the start of the study to a later follow-up visit. It also looked at how many participants reached a blood pressure target, and whether participants' quality of life changed, using a standard questionnaire called the SF-36. The reported data shows that, on average, participants' systolic blood pressure (the top number) fell by 33.47 mmHg (millimetres of mercury, the standard unit for measuring blood pressure), and diastolic blood pressure (the bottom number) fell by 14.34 mmHg, comparing the follow-up visit to their starting measurements. For the secondary outcomes, the reported data shows that 93.38% of participants had reached the blood pressure target levels (below 140/90 mmHg) by the follow-up visit. Regarding quality of life, the SF-36 questionnaire scores — which run from 0 (greatest disability) to 100 (no disability) — were also reported as changes from baseline. The reported data shows the physical health component score changed by an average of 13.64 points, and the mental health component score changed by an average of 23.57 points. No baseline scores were reported in the submitted data, so it is not possible to show what the starting or final absolute scores were. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT03515681 · results posted 11 January 2021

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 140 people in total — 70 in the intervention group and 70 in the control group. The trial was measuring blood pressure control, specifically how many participants reached a blood pressure reading below 140/90 mmHg (a common threshold used to describe controlled blood pressure). Measurements were taken at three months, six months, and twelve months after the start of the trial. The reported data shows that at the twelve-month mark (the main outcome the trial was designed to measure), 13 out of the intervention group participants and 7 out of the control group participants had their blood pressure recorded below the 140/90 mmHg threshold. It is worth noting that by twelve months, the number of participants still being followed up had dropped noticeably — 37 remained in the intervention group and 25 in the control group, meaning results at that point were based on fewer people than originally enrolled. At six months, the numbers with controlled blood pressure were 22 (intervention) and 19 (control), and at three months, 24 (intervention) and 20 (control). For average systolic blood pressure (the top number in a reading) at twelve months, the reported data shows 141.2 mmHg for the intervention group and 147.0 mmHg for the control group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT03868254 · results posted 17 November 2020

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 174 people in total — 98 in a group who received a small eye implant (called the XEN 45 Gel Stent) on its own, and 76 in a group who received the same implant combined with cataract surgery. All participants completed the study. The trial was measuring two main things over 36 months: changes in the fluid pressure inside the eye (known as intraocular pressure, or IOP — essentially how hard the fluid pushes against the inside of the eye), and changes in the number of eye-pressure-lowering eye drops participants were using. The reported data shows that, at the start of the study, the implant-only group had an average eye pressure of about 21.0 mmHg (millimetres of mercury, the unit used to measure eye pressure), and the combined surgery group had about 20.2 mmHg. After 36 months, the reported average pressure had fallen by 6.42 mmHg in the implant-only group and by 6.73 mmHg in the combined surgery group. Regarding eye drops, participants were using an average of 2.6 (implant-only) and 2.4 (combined) types of drops at the start; by 36 months, those numbers had fallen by 1.6 and 1.2 respectively. At 48 months — a secondary measurement point — the reported pressure reductions were somewhat smaller: 5.46 mmHg and 5.27 mmHg, and the drop reductions were 1.1 and 0.8. The reported data also shows figures for what the trial called "qualified success" — defined as at least a 20% reduction in eye pressure while using the same number or fewer eye drops and without certain complications. At 36 months, 23.9% of eyes in the implant-only group and 40.0% in the combined surgery group met this definition; at 48 months, those figures were 25.0% and 33.3% respectively. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT01650402 · results posted 30 October 2020

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 199 people — 99 in an "Intensive" group and 100 in a "Standard" group. The trial was measuring two things: changes in walking speed (to assess mobility) and changes in scores on a thinking test called the Stroop test (to assess mental function). Not everyone finished the trial — 20 people in the Intensive group and 14 in the Standard group did not complete it, for reasons the data does not detail here. The reported data shows that for walking speed, both groups changed by a very similar amount. The Intensive group's walking time changed by 0.4 seconds on average over an 8-metre walk, while the Standard group's changed by 0.42 seconds — a difference of just 0.02 seconds. For the Stroop test, where a higher score means more correct answers in 45 seconds, both groups' average scores went down (meaning fewer correct answers over time). The Intensive group's score dropped by 2.7 correct responses on average, while the Standard group's score dropped by 0.8 correct responses on average. The reported data does not include further detail on whether these differences between groups were considered meaningful by the researchers. It is worth noting that these numbers describe averages across the groups as a whole, and individual results within the trial would have varied. The data as submitted does not report on why participants did not complete the trial, nor does it provide additional breakdown of results. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT02822222 · results posted 23 September 2020

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02822222) enrolled 22 people in total — 16 received an investigational treatment called RMJH-111b and 6 received a placebo (an inactive look-alike). The trial was designed to assess the safety and tolerability of RMJH-111b compared to placebo by tracking a range of measurements, including any unwanted health events that emerged during treatment (called treatment-emergent adverse events, or TEAEs — meaning new or worsening health problems that appeared after the first dose), as well as changes in urine magnesium levels, blood pressure, body weight, and heart rate recorded on an ECG (a test that measures the heart's electrical activity). The reported data shows that 5 out of 16 participants in the RMJH-111b group experienced at least one TEAE, compared to 1 out of 6 in the placebo group. No severe, serious, or fatal TEAEs were recorded in either group, and 2 participants in the RMJH-111b group (none in the placebo group) had TEAEs considered possibly related to the study drug. Regarding the other measurements: average 24-hour urine magnesium increased by 9.1 units in the RMJH-111b group and decreased by 1.3 units in the placebo group. Average seated systolic blood pressure (the top number in a blood pressure reading) changed by −14.6 mmHg in the RMJH-111b group versus −7.2 mmHg in the placebo group, and diastolic blood pressure (the bottom number) changed by −6.4 mmHg versus −2.3 mmHg respectively — negative numbers meaning a decrease from the starting point. Average body weight changed by −1.09 kg in the RMJH-111b group and −0.79 kg in the placebo group. Heart rate on ECG, measured 3 hours after the first dose, changed by −0.31 beats per minute (bpm) in the RMJH-111b group versus −5.17 bpm in the placebo group; after the last dose, the change was +4.73 bpm in the RMJH-111b group and −3.83 bpm in the placebo group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT00595101 · results posted 27 August 2020

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 117 people across four groups. Three groups used different strengths of an investigational eye drop called PF-0318 (at concentrations of 0.006%, 0.024%, and 0.04%), while a fourth group used a comparator eye drop called latanoprost (0.005%), which is an already-approved treatment for raised eye pressure. The trial's main goal was to measure how much each eye drop changed the pressure inside the eye (called intraocular pressure, or IOP — the fluid pressure within the eyeball) after 28 days of use. The reported data shows that, at the 28-day mark, all four groups showed a reduction in average daily eye pressure compared to where they started. The PF-0318 0.006% group showed a reduction of about 5.1 mmHg (millimetres of mercury, the unit used to measure eye pressure); the 0.024% group showed a reduction of about 5.9 mmHg; the 0.04% group showed a reduction of about 5.0 mmHg; and the latanoprost group showed a reduction of about 5.3 mmHg. Similar reductions were also reported at earlier time points during the study (Day 14 and specific times on Day 28). For a secondary measure looking at how many participants reached certain lower pressure targets at any point during the study, the reported data shows that for a target of 18 mmHg or below, between 9 and 13 participants per group reached that level; for 16 mmHg or below, between 2 and 4 participants per group did so; and for 14 mmHg or below, between 0 and 2 participants per group reached that level. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT01355159 · results posted 7 July 2020

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01355159) enrolled 2,464 pregnant women who were considered to be at higher risk of preeclampsia — a serious condition in pregnancy involving high blood pressure and protein in the urine. The women were split into two groups: 1,228 received a 4 mg folic acid supplement daily, and 1,236 received a placebo (a dummy pill with no active ingredient). The main thing the trial was measuring was how many women in each group developed preeclampsia or a related serious condition called HELLP syndrome during their pregnancy. The reported data shows that, for the primary outcome, 169 women in the folic acid group and 156 women in the placebo group were recorded as developing preeclampsia or a related condition. For the secondary outcomes — other events the trial also tracked — the reported data shows: no maternal deaths occurred in either group; miscarriage before 20 weeks was recorded in 27 women in the folic acid group and 21 in the placebo group; placental abruption (where the placenta separates from the uterine wall too early) occurred in 12 women taking folic acid and 19 taking placebo; premature rupture of membranes (waters breaking before labour begins) was recorded in 215 women in the folic acid group and 224 in the placebo group; and preterm birth (birth before 37 weeks) occurred in 297 women in the folic acid group and 304 in the placebo group. These figures are the raw counts of participants who experienced each event as submitted to the registry. The reported data does not include further context that would be needed to interpret what these numbers mean in a broader sense, and no conclusions about whether folic acid at this dose should be used in this way can be drawn from these numbers alone. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT01907828 · results posted 22 May 2020

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 61 people in total — 39 in a group who received both a kidney artery nerve-disruption procedure (called renal denervation) plus a heart rhythm procedure (cardiac ablation), and 22 who received the heart rhythm procedure alone. The trial was primarily measuring how many participants in each group were free from an irregular heart rhythm called atrial fibrillation over the 12 months following their procedure (with the first three months not counted, to allow for recovery time). The reported data shows that, at the 12-month mark, 16 out of 39 participants in the combined procedure group were recorded as having no atrial fibrillation during the monitoring period, compared with 4 out of 22 in the cardiac ablation-only group. For the secondary outcomes, the reported data shows that no major adverse cardiac events (serious heart-related complications) were recorded in the combined group, while 2 participants in the cardiac ablation-only group had such events recorded. Regarding events in the 30 days around the procedure, small numbers of participants across both groups had various peri-procedural events recorded, with the specific counts ranging from 0 to 1 per category in each group. For kidney artery safety in the combined group, small numbers (0–2 participants depending on the measure) had findings such as narrowing or ballooning of the kidney artery at the treatment site recorded. Kidney filtering function (a measure of how well the kidneys are working, reported in standard units) changed by an average of +2.2 units at 6 months and −0.4 units at 12 months in the combined group — this data was not reported for the cardiac ablation-only group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT02603809 · results posted 13 April 2020

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02603809) enrolled 490 adults across six groups to compare different doses of a medicine called aprocitentan (5 mg, 10 mg, 25 mg, and 50 mg) against both a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient) and an existing blood pressure medicine called lisinopril (20 mg). Each group started with 81–82 people. The main thing the trial was measuring was the change in the lower number of a blood pressure reading — known as diastolic blood pressure — after eight weeks of treatment, taken while participants were seated and at rest. The reported data shows that at the start of the trial, all groups had similar diastolic blood pressure readings, averaging around 97–98 mmHg. After eight weeks, the placebo group's reading fell by an average of 4.9 mmHg. The aprocitentan groups showed reported falls of 6.3 mmHg (5 mg), 9.9 mmHg (10 mg), 12.0 mmHg (25 mg), and 10.0 mmHg (50 mg), while the lisinopril group showed a fall of 8.4 mmHg. For the upper number (systolic blood pressure), the reported falls were 7.7 mmHg for placebo, ranging up to 18.5 mmHg for the aprocitentan 25 mg group, and 12.8 mmHg for lisinopril. The trial also tracked how many participants reached blood pressure targets and how many had a fall of 10 mmHg or more in their diastolic reading — for example, 21 people in the placebo group met that threshold compared with 40 in the aprocitentan 25 mg group. A separate measure using a 24-hour portable blood pressure monitor showed a similar pattern of reported reductions across the groups. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT00265538 · results posted 20 March 2020

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 834 people in total across four groups — three intervention groups (196, 170, and 182 participants respectively) and a control group of 286 participants. Most people completed the study: 186, 161, 171, and 267 finished in each group respectively, with small numbers (between 9 and 19 per group) not completing it. The trial was measuring the proportion of patients who were taking a type of blood pressure medicine called a thiazide diuretic and had reached their blood pressure target, both at the start of the study and again at six months. The reported data shows the following numbers of participants who were taking a thiazide diuretic and at their blood pressure goal: in the three intervention groups, the figures were 35, 33, and 43 participants at the first visit, and 29, 31, and 33 participants at six months. In the control group, 19 participants met this measure at the first visit, and 45 at six months. A further set of numbers was also reported for a follow-up timepoint, showing 31, 28, 37, and 31 participants across the four groups. The reported data also covers a smaller, pre-specified sub-group of people who were already at their blood pressure goal and taking a different type of medicine (a calcium channel blocker) at the start — in that sub-group, the number taking a thiazide at the first visit was 5, 11, 16, and 1 across the four groups respectively. It is worth noting that the data as submitted does not clearly label which measurement corresponds to which specific time point beyond the first visit, so those distinctions cannot be confirmed from the available figures. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT02754570 · results posted 7 November 2019

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 27 participants, all of whom completed the study with no drop-outs. The trial was measuring eye pressure (the force of fluid inside the eye, recorded in millimetres of mercury, or mmHg) and a related measure called ocular perfusion pressure (a calculation combining eye pressure and blood pressure that reflects blood flow to the eye). Participants were already taking a type of eye-drop medication called a prostaglandin analogue (latanoprost), and the trial compared their eye pressure readings over a 24-hour period on that medication alone versus on the same medication combined with pilocarpine 2% eye drops. Readings were taken every two hours and grouped into daytime and night-time averages. The reported data shows that average daytime eye pressure readings were 21.1 mmHg on the single medication and 18.2 mmHg when pilocarpine was added. Average night-time eye pressure readings were 20.0 mmHg on the single medication and 17.1 mmHg with pilocarpine added. For the secondary measure of ocular perfusion pressure, the reported data shows daytime readings of 44.12 mmHg (single medication) and 37.2 mmHg (with pilocarpine), and night-time readings of 44.3 mmHg (single medication) and 37.1 mmHg (with pilocarpine). Additional figures of 132.5, 125.8, 130.8, and 122.7 mmHg were also reported under the secondary outcome, though the specific sub-categories those numbers relate to were not clearly labelled in the submitted data, so a full breakdown cannot be provided here. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT02979197 · results posted 21 October 2019

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02979197) enrolled 105 people across three groups: 48 received amlodipine (a blood pressure medicine) combined with celecoxib (an anti-inflammatory painkiller), 49 received amlodipine combined with a placebo (a dummy pill), and 8 received two placebos. The trial was primarily measuring whether adding celecoxib to amlodipine changed daytime blood pressure readings, as recorded by a monitor worn on the upper arm over several days. Most participants completed the study — 44, 45, and 8 respectively from each group. The reported data shows that, by the end of the study, average daytime blood pressure (the "top number," or systolic pressure) had changed by around −8.0 mmHg in the amlodipine-plus-celecoxib group and −9.8 mmHg in the amlodipine-plus-placebo group — meaning both groups showed a decrease from their starting levels. For the secondary outcomes, the reported data shows that average blood pressure measured across a full 24-hour period also decreased in both groups (−8.2 mmHg and −8.5 mmHg for systolic; −4.4 mmHg and −3.8 mmHg for the "bottom number," diastolic pressure). Body weight changes were small: +0.3 kg in the celecoxib group, −0.3 kg in the amlodipine-only group, and −1.5 kg in the double-placebo group. A kidney function measure (creatinine clearance, an estimate of how well the kidneys filter the blood) showed small increases in both active-treatment groups (+4.9 and +3.4 units). The number of participants who experienced any adverse event (an unwanted medical occurrence during the study) was reported as 35 out of 48 in the celecoxib group, 32 out of 49 in the amlodipine-only group, and 6 out of 8 in the placebo group — no further detail about the nature of those events was included in the submitted data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT02988193 · results posted 18 September 2019

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 28 people in total — 12 in a group using a tool called optima4BP (an artificial intelligence system designed to support doctors in making medication decisions for blood pressure) and 16 in a group receiving usual care. All 28 participants completed the trial with no drop-outs recorded. The trial was measuring how often doctors chose to make a change to a participant's treatment during the study period, which the researchers called "clinical adoption" of the AI decision support tool. The reported data shows that in the optima4BP group, 10 out of 12 participants had a treatment change made by their doctor. In the usual care group, 3 out of 16 participants had a treatment change. These numbers reflect how many people in each group experienced a change to their treatment — they do not on their own tell us whether those changes led to better or worse health outcomes, as no such outcome data was reported in this structured results submission. It is worth noting that this was a small trial with 28 participants across both groups, and only one outcome measure was included in the reported results. No additional secondary outcome data was submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov for this study. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT01595516 · results posted 25 June 2019

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 44 people in total — 16 in the nebivolol group, 16 in the metoprolol group, and 12 in the placebo group. All 44 participants completed the study with no drop-outs. The trial was measuring several things over a 12-week period: resting heart rate, blood pressure (both the "top" and "bottom" numbers), and how well the lining of blood vessels releases a substance called t-PA (a protein involved in breaking down blood clots) in response to a drug called bradykinin. Some measurements were also taken with and without added vitamin C, to see whether that made any difference to the t-PA readings. The reported data shows the following changes in heart rate and blood pressure from the start to the end of the 12 weeks: in the nebivolol group, resting heart rate went from 64 to 58 beats per minute, and in the metoprolol group from 71 to 64 beats per minute, while the placebo group went from 69 to 72 beats per minute. For the "top" blood pressure number (systolic), nebivolol went from 140 to 125 mmHg, metoprolol from 138 to 125 mmHg, and placebo from 138 to 135 mmHg. The "bottom" number (diastolic) went from 85 to 78 mmHg (nebivolol), 87 to 79 mmHg (metoprolol), and 85 to 81 mmHg (placebo). For the t-PA vessel-lining measurements, the reported data shows that at the highest dose of bradykinin tested, the nebivolol group went from a reading of 15.7 to 25.2 ng/100 mL tissue/min, the metoprolol group from 14.4 to 16.6, and the placebo group from 18.1 to 17.6 (in the same units). In the sub-analysis comparing saline versus vitamin C alongside bradykinin, the reported figures for the nebivolol group at the highest dose went from 27.6 (saline, before) up to 54.2 (vitamin C, after); similar patterns of numbers were reported for the metoprolol group, with the highest dose readings going from 24.5 (saline, before) to 46.4 (vitamin C, after). Baseline resting readings (taken before any bradykinin was given) were generally small negative numbers across all groups and time points, meaning there was little to no net release of t-PA at rest. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT01681810 · results posted 16 April 2019

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 20 participants, all of whom completed the study — none dropped out. Every participant received a form of sodium nitrite (a nitrogen-containing compound). The trial was primarily looking at whether, after 12 weeks, there was any change in how well the body processed sugar when prompted by insulin — a measure called "insulin-stimulated glucose disposal." The researchers used a specialised procedure (a glucose clamp) to carefully measure this. The trial also tracked blood pressure readings and levels of a substance called methemoglobin (a form of haemoglobin in red blood cells) as secondary measures. The reported data shows that, on average, insulin-stimulated glucose disposal changed by 0.76 milligrams of glucose per kilogram of lean body mass per minute over the 12-week period. For blood pressure, the reported peak change in the top number (systolic) was minus 10.45 mmHg, the bottom number (diastolic) was minus 13.05 mmHg, and the overall average pressure was minus 12.00 mmHg — meaning those numbers were lower compared to where they started. The reported peak change in methemoglobin levels was 0.42 percentage points above baseline. No comparison group data was reported, as this appears to have been a single-group study. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT00939640 · results posted 22 October 2018

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 14 participants in a single dietary intervention group, with 13 completing the study and 1 not completing it. The trial was measuring how a dietary change affected several markers related to blood vessel and heart function — including how well an artery in the arm could widen in response to blood flow (called flow-mediated dilation), blood pressure over a 24-hour period, the stiffness of blood vessels, and how well the heart's lower chambers were relaxing between beats. The reported data shows the following numbers before and after the dietary intervention. For the main measure — brachial artery flow-mediated dilation (how much the arm artery widened, expressed as a percentage) — the reported figure was 5% before the intervention and 8% afterwards. For average 24-hour systolic blood pressure (the "top" number in a blood pressure reading, measured in mmHg), the reported figures were 130 mmHg before and 123 mmHg after. The number of participants whose blood pressure did not drop enough overnight — a pattern considered less favourable — was reported as 10 out of the group before the intervention and 7 afterwards. For aortic augmentation index (a measure of how much pressure waves bouncing back through the arteries add to the heart's workload, expressed as a percentage), the figures were 29% before and 28% after. For carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (a measure of how quickly a pulse travels between two points in the body, used to assess artery stiffness), the reported figures were 12.4 metres per second before and 11.0 metres per second after. For ventricular diastolic function (a ratio reflecting how easily the heart fills with blood between beats), the reported figures were 12 before and 11 after. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT00572936 · results posted 14 February 2018

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 28 participants in total. Each person was assigned to one of six groups, each receiving the same three eye-drop medicines — latanoprost, timolol, and dorzolamide — but in a different order. This type of study design, where everyone eventually tries each treatment in a different sequence, is called a crossover study. The trial measured several things related to eye health and general circulation, including the pressure inside the eye, the rate at which fluid flows through the eye, the thickness of the clear front surface of the eye (the cornea), the volume of fluid in the front chamber of the eye, blood pressure, and the pressure in tiny blood vessels on the surface of the eye. The reported data shows the following numbers for each of the three medicines. For pressure inside the eye (measured in mmHg, a standard unit of pressure), latanoprost was associated with readings of 17.6 and 17.0, timolol with 16.4 and 17.1, and dorzolamide with 20.2 and 17.6 across two measurement time points. For the rate of fluid flow through the eye (in microlitres per minute), the reported figures were 2.09 and 1.1 for latanoprost, 1.57 and 1.1 for timolol, and 1.75 and 1.1 for dorzolamide. Corneal thickness readings (in micrometres) were 564 and 585 for latanoprost, 568 and 586 for timolol, and 564 and 582 for dorzolamide. The front chamber volume of the eye (in microlitres) was reported as 191 for latanoprost, 191 for timolol, and 198 for dorzolamide — only one time point was reported for this measure. Blood pressure readings (in mmHg) were also recorded across multiple time points, and the pressure in the small surface blood vessels of the eye was reported as 9.4 for latanoprost, 9.6 for timolol, and 9.4 for dorzolamide. It is worth noting that the reported data includes multiple sets of numbers for some measures, which likely reflect different times of day or different measurement occasions, but the data as submitted does not fully label each time point, so the exact context of each figure cannot be confirmed from the available information. Where only one set of numbers appears for a measure, that is all that was reported. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT00922480 · results posted 13 February 2018

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial compared two blood pressure medicines — losartan (the control) and fimasartan (the test medicine) — in people with high blood pressure. The main part of the study started with 250 people in the losartan group and 255 in the fimasartan group, with 213 and 226 respectively completing it. A smaller extension phase also took place, involving 73 and 85 participants from each group, with most completing that stage as well. The trial's main focus was on measuring changes in diastolic blood pressure — the lower number in a blood pressure reading — after 12 weeks of treatment, taken while participants were sitting down. The reported data shows that, after 12 weeks, the losartan group's diastolic blood pressure had dropped by an average of 8.56 mmHg (millimetres of mercury, the standard unit for blood pressure) from where it started, while the fimasartan group showed an average drop of 11.26 mmHg. The reported data also shows results at earlier time points: at 4 weeks, the average drops were 5.73 mmHg for losartan and 8.22 mmHg for fimasartan; at 8 weeks, they were 8.01 mmHg and 11.01 mmHg respectively. These figures represent averages across the groups and describe how blood pressure readings changed over the course of the study. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT02168309 · results posted 13 December 2017

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 50 people in total, split evenly into two groups of 25. One group received a blood pressure medication called labetalol, and the other received a medication called nifedipine. All 50 participants completed the trial with no dropouts. The trial was measuring how long it took for each group to reach and maintain a target blood pressure level after starting their medication, as well as how many days each group spent in hospital overall. The reported data shows that, on average, the labetalol group took approximately 37.6 hours to reach and sustain their target blood pressure, while the nifedipine group took approximately 38.2 hours. For the secondary measure, the reported data shows that the average hospital stay was 4.0 days for the labetalol group and 4.3 days for the nifedipine group. No other outcome figures were included in the submitted results data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT01961323 · results posted 24 November 2017

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 70 people and looked at whether a medication called Nebivolol affected how well the heart works during exercise. All participants had the same treatment — there was no comparison group. The trial used a type of heart ultrasound done during exercise (a stress echocardiogram) to take measurements. Of the 70 people who started, only 21 finished the trial, and 49 did not complete it. The reported data shows that, for the main thing being measured — improvement in exercise tolerance — 9 out of the 21 who completed the study showed an improvement in how hard their body was working during exercise (measured in units called METs, which reflect energy output), and 8 showed an improvement in how long they could exercise compared to their starting point. For two secondary measurements taken from the heart ultrasound, the reported data shows an average E/e' ratio (a measure related to pressure on the left side of the heart) of 7.5 before treatment and 8.8 after treatment. For a third measurement called the "untwist rate" — which looks at how the heart muscle relaxes — the reported data shows that 0 participants had a significant improvement after treatment. It is worth noting that a large number of participants (49 out of 70) did not complete the trial, and the results reported are based only on those who finished. The reasons for non-completion were not included in the data provided here. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT03115853 · results posted 25 August 2017

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, 31 people took part in this trial and all 31 completed it. The trial was comparing three different treatment combinations — a water tablet called HCTZ paired with a low dose of a drug called aliskiren (150mg), HCTZ paired with a higher dose of aliskiren (300mg), and HCTZ paired with a placebo (an inactive dummy treatment). The study was looking at how these combinations affected certain substances in the blood, specifically a protein called PAI-1 (which is involved in blood clotting), aldosterone (a hormone that affects blood pressure and fluid balance), and renin activity (a measure of how active a blood pressure-regulating system in the body is). The reported data shows that, unfortunately, no numerical results were submitted for any of the outcome measures — neither the primary measures (PAI-1 levels) nor the secondary measures (aldosterone levels and renin activity). This means the actual figures for what was found in each of the three treatment groups were not reported in the data submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov, so it is not possible to describe what the measurements showed. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT02396316 · results posted 21 July 2017

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02396316) enrolled 54 people in total — 27 in each group. One group received injections of a medicine called aflibercept (2 mg) into the eye, while the other group received a "sham" (fake) injection that contained no medicine. The trial was primarily measuring changes in eye pressure (the pressure inside the eye, recorded in units called mmHg) from the start of the study to just before a follow-up dose at Week 1. A secondary measurement looked at changes in abnormal blood vessel growth on the iris (the coloured part of the eye), using a grading scale from 0 to 4, where a lower grade is considered better. The reported data shows that, on average, eye pressure dropped by 8.5 mmHg in the aflibercept group between the start of the study and the Week 1 check-in, compared with a drop of 4.9 mmHg in the sham group. For the secondary measure — the proportion of participants whose abnormal iris blood vessel grade improved by at least one step on the scale — the reported data shows that approximately 70.4% of participants in the aflibercept group showed this kind of improvement, compared with approximately 11.5% of participants in the sham group. It is also worth noting that 7 people in the aflibercept group and 5 in the sham group did not complete the study; reasons for this were not detailed in the data provided here. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT01682837 · results posted 28 April 2017

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 35 participants, of whom 30 completed the initial baseline period and went on to take part in the main study. It was a crossover-style trial, meaning each participant tried all four treatments — potassium magnesium citrate (KMgCit), potassium citrate (KCit), potassium chloride (KCl), and a placebo — one after another, each for four weeks. The trial was measuring blood pressure (both the "top" number, called systolic, and the "bottom" number, called diastolic), as well as some markers in blood and urine related to bone and calcium. The reported data shows that average 24-hour systolic blood pressure readings (the main outcome being measured) were 127 mmHg during the KMgCit phase, 127 mmHg during the KCit phase, 126 mmHg during the KCl phase, and 129 mmHg during the placebo phase. For the 24-hour diastolic blood pressure, the reported figures were 79, 78, 78, and 80 mmHg respectively. For blood pressure measured in a clinic setting, the reported systolic readings were 124, 125, 127, and 129 mmHg, and diastolic readings were 81, 81, 80, and 81 mmHg across the four phases. The reported data also shows that a blood marker related to bone breakdown (called C-terminal telopeptide, or CTX) was 0.46, 0.46, 0.45, and 0.49 ng/ml across the four phases, and that calcium measured in urine over 24 hours was 158, 148, 160, and 181 mg per day respectively. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT02062645 · results posted 28 March 2017

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 115 participants, all of whom received a combination medicine containing amlodipine and valsartan (two blood pressure-lowering drugs given together). Of the 115 who started, 100 completed the study and 15 did not finish. The trial was measuring blood pressure readings — specifically, how many participants reached a blood pressure below 140/90 mmHg (a common target level used in clinical practice), and what happened to the top (systolic) and bottom (diastolic) numbers over 8 weeks. The reported data shows that, looking at the primary question — the proportion of participants whose blood pressure fell below 140/90 mmHg — the figures varied across different time points and subgroups, ranging from around 45% to 82% of participants, depending on when and in which group the measurement was taken. For the upper blood pressure number (systolic), the reported starting average was about 164 mmHg, dropping to around 140 mmHg at week 4 and approximately 134 mmHg at week 8. For the lower number (diastolic), the reported starting average was about 97 mmHg, falling to around 82 mmHg at both week 4 and week 8. The reported data also shows results for a subgroup of participants identified as having a high salt intake; in that group, the reported systolic readings at weeks 4 and 8 were around 134–135 mmHg, and diastolic readings were around 81 mmHg at both time points, with 63–69% of those participants recorded as reaching the below-140/90 target across the measured time points. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT01192412 · results posted 11 January 2017

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01192412) involved 987 pregnant women who had high blood pressure. They were divided into two groups: 497 women were assigned to a "less tight" blood pressure control approach, and 490 were assigned to a "tight" blood pressure control approach. The trial was measuring two main things — first, whether the baby was lost during pregnancy or needed to spend more than 48 hours in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU, a special hospital unit for newborns who need extra medical attention); and second, whether the mother experienced serious medical complications in the six weeks after giving birth. The reported data shows that for the primary outcome — pregnancy loss or a NICU stay of more than 48 hours — 155 out of 497 women in the "less tight" control group and 150 out of 490 women in the "tight" control group had this outcome recorded. For the secondary outcome — serious maternal (mother's) complications such as stroke, organ failure, or other life-threatening conditions up to six weeks after birth — 18 women in the "less tight" group and 10 women in the "tight" group were reported to have experienced these complications. No other outcome figures were included in the submitted data beyond these participant counts. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT02121041 · results posted 19 December 2016

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 28 people in total — 14 in a "Usual Care" group and 14 in an "ABPM Guided" group. ABPM stands for Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring, which means wearing a device that automatically checks blood pressure at regular intervals over a full day and night. The trial ran for four months and was measuring participants' average blood pressure over a 24-hour period at the end of that time. The reported data shows that at the end of the four-month period, the Usual Care group had an average 24-hour blood pressure reading of 134 mm Hg (millimetres of mercury, the standard unit for blood pressure), while the ABPM Guided group had an average reading of 132 mm Hg. It is worth noting that not everyone finished the trial — 13 out of 14 completed it in the Usual Care group, compared to only 8 out of 14 in the ABPM Guided group. No other outcome measures were included in the data submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov, so no further figures can be reported here. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT02232880 · results posted 29 August 2016

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled only one participant and was designed to look at whether a medicine called abatacept (compared to a dummy treatment, or placebo) could affect blood pressure in people with a particular condition. The trial planned to run for around six months of treatment after an initial four-week lead-in period. The main thing it set out to measure was the change in systolic blood pressure (the top number in a blood pressure reading) over that time, using a method called ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, which tracks blood pressure continuously over a period of hours. The reported data shows that of the one person who started the trial, none completed it. Because the trial did not complete, no numerical results were reported for any of the outcome measures — not for the main blood pressure reading, nor for any of the secondary measures, which included changes in blood vessel function (how well an artery in the arm responded to increased blood flow), changes in blood pressure at 12 weeks, and changes in markers of immune system activity in the blood. The data was simply not reported for any of these measures. It is worth noting that a trial with only one enrolled participant, none of whom completed the study, cannot provide any meaningful information about the questions the trial set out to answer. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT01687257 · results posted 24 February 2016

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01687257) enrolled 50 people in total across two groups. Twenty-five participants received a combination of two antiviral medicines — sofosbuvir and ribavirin (SOF+RBV) — straight away (Group 1), while 25 were first observed without treatment for a period before also receiving the same medicines (Group 2). The trial was primarily measuring whether participants' hepatitis C virus levels dropped to an undetectable level 12 weeks after finishing treatment — a result known as "sustained virologic response at 12 weeks" or SVR12. It also looked at virus levels at other time points, whether the virus came back during or after treatment, and changes in two measures of liver health. The reported data shows that for the primary outcome, 72% of participants in Group 1 and 71.4% of treated participants in Group 2 reached undetectable virus levels 12 weeks after finishing treatment. For secondary outcomes, the reported rates of undetectable virus at 4 weeks after treatment were 72% (Group 1) and 76.2% (Group 2), and at 24 weeks were 68% and 71.4% respectively. At 48 weeks after treatment, the reported figures were 94.1% for Group 1 and 100% for Group 2, though it is worth noting these later measurements were based on smaller numbers of participants who remained in follow-up. The reported data also shows that 8% of Group 1 participants experienced what is called "on-treatment virologic failure" (meaning the virus was not suppressed during treatment), compared with 0% in treated Group 2. Viral relapse after treatment — meaning the virus became detectable again after finishing the medicine — was reported in 17.4% of Group 1 and 23.8% of treated Group 2 participants. Regarding liver health measures, the reported data shows a small average reduction in a pressure reading inside the liver (hepatic venous pressure gradient) for those who received treatment, while the group that was only observed (no treatment) showed a slight average increase. For a liver severity score called the Child-Pugh-Turcotte score, the reported data shows that among treated participants across both groups combined, approximately 54% showed an improvement in their score, about 37% showed no change, and around 10% showed a worsening. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT01371747 · results posted 17 December 2015

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01371747) enrolled 306 people in total across six groups, all of whom took a medicine called patiromer at different daily doses. Participants were divided into two broad groups (called strata) based on how high their blood potassium level was at the start, and within each of those groups they were assigned to one of three different daily doses of patiromer. The trial was measuring changes in blood potassium levels over time — from as early as 3 days after starting treatment through to one year (52 weeks). Of the 306 people who started, 211 completed the study. The reported data shows that across all six dose groups, blood potassium levels were lower at each measured time point compared to where they started. At the four-week mark (the main measurement point), the reported reductions in blood potassium ranged from 0.35 units (mEq/L — a standard way of measuring substances in blood) in the lowest-dose group within Stratum 1, up to 0.97 units in the mid-dose group within Stratum 2, which had higher starting potassium levels. Similar patterns were reported at the 8-week and 52-week check-ins. After people stopped taking patiromer, the reported data shows blood potassium levels moved back upward across all groups by between 0.22 and 0.58 units. Regarding the proportion of participants whose potassium fell within a normal-range target (3.5 to 5.5 mEq/L) by week 8, the reported figures ranged from about 91.7% to 100% depending on the group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT01876368 · results posted 7 December 2015

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 376 people (188 in each group) who were assigned to take either LCZ696 200 mg or olmesartan 20 mg — two blood pressure medicines. The trial ran for 8 weeks and was mainly measuring changes in 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure (that is, the "top" blood pressure number, tracked continuously over a full day and night using a portable monitor). Most participants completed the study — 179 in the LCZ696 group and 175 in the olmesartan group. The reported data shows that, on average, the 24-hour daytime-and-night-time systolic blood pressure reading fell by 4.26 mmHg (millimetres of mercury, the standard unit for blood pressure) in the LCZ696 group, compared with 1.04 mmHg in the olmesartan group. For the "bottom" blood pressure number tracked the same way over 24 hours, the reported drops were 2.27 mmHg and 0.35 mmHg respectively. When blood pressure was measured in the clinic while sitting, the reported reductions in the top number were larger — 14.21 mmHg for LCZ696 and 10.03 mmHg for olmesartan — and the bottom number fell by 7.52 mmHg versus 4.47 mmHg. The reported data also shows that 76 participants in the LCZ696 group and 52 in the olmesartan group reached a clinic blood pressure below the 140/90 mmHg threshold used in this trial to define overall blood pressure control. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT01646671 · results posted 7 September 2015

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01646671) enrolled 35 people in total across three groups: 3 people received LCZ696 at 200 mg, 11 received LCZ696 at 400 mg, and 21 received LCZ696 400 mg alongside other blood pressure medications. All 35 participants who started the trial completed it. The trial was measuring adverse events (unwanted health events that occurred during the study), changes in sitting blood pressure readings over 8 weeks, and how many participants reached a target blood pressure level by the end of the study. The reported data shows that the primary thing being tracked was the occurrence of unwanted health events. Across all participants combined, 48.6% experienced at least one adverse event, and 2.9% experienced a serious adverse event. No deaths were reported in any group. Regarding blood pressure readings, the reported data shows reductions in average sitting systolic blood pressure (the top number) ranging from about 30 to 49 mmHg across the three groups, and reductions in diastolic blood pressure (the bottom number) ranging from approximately 17 to 34 mmHg. In terms of reaching a blood pressure target of below 140/90 mmHg by the end of the study, the reported data shows 40% of all participants combined reached that target — with figures of 66.7%, 18.2%, and 47.6% across the three groups respectively. Around 85.7% of all participants combined met the reported definition of a "systolic blood pressure response" by the end of the study. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT01281306 · results posted 18 August 2015

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 907 adults across seven groups to compare different combinations and doses of two blood pressure medicines — valsartan (VAL) and ahu​ratan (AHU) — against each other, a separate medicine called LCZ (400 mg), and a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient). The main thing the trial was measuring was how much each treatment changed the upper number in a blood pressure reading (called systolic blood pressure) after participants had been sitting quietly. Participants were followed for eight weeks. The reported data shows that, compared to where each group started, all active treatment groups saw a fall in sitting systolic blood pressure, while the placebo group saw a much smaller fall. Specifically, the reductions reported ranged from about 19 to nearly 24 points (measured in mmHg, the standard unit for blood pressure) across the various VAL + AHU dose groups, around 16 points for the VAL-alone group, about 22 points for the LCZ group, and roughly 7 points for the placebo group. The reported data also shows similar patterns for the lower blood pressure number (diastolic), pulse pressure (the gap between the two blood pressure numbers), and readings taken over a full 24-hour monitoring period during the day and night — with all active groups showing larger falls from their starting point than the placebo group. It is worth noting that some figures for the LCZ and placebo groups were not reported for certain 24-hour monitoring measures in the data submitted. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT01565564 · results posted 9 June 2015

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 706 participants in total — 344 in the "Shared Care" group and 362 in the "Usual Care" group. The trial was looking at outcomes for pregnant women, specifically measuring how many babies were born with a high birth weight (called macrosomia, meaning a birth weight of 4,000 grams or more), and how many mothers developed high blood pressure during pregnancy (including conditions known as gestational hypertension and preeclampsia or eclampsia). The reported data shows that, for the primary outcome of high birth weight babies, 63 participants in the Usual Care group and 38 participants in the Shared Care group had babies meeting that threshold. For the secondary outcome of pregnancy-related high blood pressure, the reported data shows 16 participants in the Usual Care group and 27 participants in the Shared Care group experienced this. No further breakdown or additional figures beyond these counts were reported in the submitted results data. It is worth noting that these numbers alone do not tell the full story — factors such as the starting size of each group would normally be considered when interpreting counts like these, but no additional analytical detail was included in the submitted results data on ClinicalTrials.gov. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT01015703 · results posted 15 September 2014

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 50 healthy volunteers across five groups of 10 people each. Each group received a different dose of the study treatment — 1 mg, 2 mg, 5 mg, 7 mg, or 10 mg — with injections given 21 days apart for a total of five doses. The trial was designed to look at safety and tolerability (that is, how the body responded to the treatment and whether people experienced any unwanted events). Participants were withdrawn from the trial if they experienced any adverse event (an unwanted or harmful reaction). The reported data shows that 47 of the 50 participants completed the study. The three who did not complete it were all from the lower-dose groups — two from the 1 mg group and one from the 2 mg group. The primary outcome measured was the percentage of participants in each group who experienced a safety event. According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, the figures were: 20% in the 1 mg group, 0% in the 2 mg group, 40% in the 5 mg group, 50% in the 7 mg group, and 40% in the 10 mg group. No secondary outcome measure data was reported in the submitted results. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT00495794 · results posted 11 September 2014

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 2,319 people in a "Pharmacist Management" group and 2,303 people in a "Usual Care" group — a total of 4,622 participants. The trial was measuring changes in blood pressure, blood sugar control, and cholesterol levels in people managed either by a pharmacist or through their usual healthcare. It is worth noting that 522 people in the Pharmacist Management group did not complete the study, while all participants in the Usual Care group were recorded as having completed it. The reported data shows that for the primary measure — the change in the upper number of blood pressure (systolic blood pressure, measured in mmHg, or millimetres of mercury) — both groups saw a similar reduction. The Pharmacist Management group had an average reduction of 8.9 mmHg, and the Usual Care group had an average reduction of 9.0 mmHg. For the secondary measures, blood sugar control (reported as HbA1c, a measure of average blood sugar over time, expressed as a percentage) was recorded at 7.4% for the Pharmacist Management group and 7.6% for the Usual Care group. LDL cholesterol (often called "bad" cholesterol), measured in mg/dL, was reported at 89.1 for the Pharmacist Management group and 87.8 for the Usual Care group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT00158743 · results posted 8 August 2014

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 51 people in total — 24 in the group receiving a treatment called Digoxin Immune Fab, and 27 in the group receiving a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient). Of those, 15 people in the treatment group and 20 in the placebo group completed the study. The trial was measuring kidney function, specifically something called creatinine clearance — a way of estimating how well the kidneys are filtering waste from the blood, measured in millilitres per minute. A higher number generally indicates better kidney filtering capacity. The reported data shows that the primary outcome — kidney function — was measured by looking at how much each group's creatinine clearance changed from the start of the trial to between 24 and 48 hours later. In the Digoxin Immune Fab group, the average change was minus 8 millilitres per minute (meaning kidney filtering appeared to go down slightly from where it started). In the placebo group, the average change was minus 22 millilitres per minute (a larger drop from the starting point). No secondary outcome measures were included in the data reported to ClinicalTrials.gov, so no further results are available to describe. It is worth noting that 9 people in the treatment group and 7 in the placebo group did not complete the trial; the reasons for this were not reported in the data provided. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT01987583 · results posted 12 June 2014

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 80 people in total — 40 in a group that received wet cupping (also known as hijama) alongside their usual conventional treatment, and 40 who received conventional treatment only. The trial was measuring blood pressure levels — specifically the top number (systolic) and bottom number (diastolic) in a blood pressure reading — after four weeks. By the end of the study, 37 people in the wet cupping group and 38 in the conventional treatment group had completed the trial. The reported data shows that after four weeks, the group receiving wet cupping plus conventional treatment had an average systolic (top number) blood pressure reading of 140 mmHg, compared to 149 mmHg in the conventional treatment-only group. For diastolic (bottom number) blood pressure, the reported averages were very close — 82 mmHg in the wet cupping group and 81 mmHg in the conventional treatment-only group. The trial also listed the incidence of side effects from wet cupping as a secondary outcome measure, however no numerical data for this measure was reported in the results submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT01236339 · results posted 3 June 2014

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 26 people in total — 13 assigned to a procedure called TIPS (a type of internal shunt placed in the liver) and 13 assigned to large volume paracentesis (LVP), which involves draining fluid from the abdomen using a needle. The trial was measuring how long people survived without needing a liver transplant, as well as a range of other outcomes including overall survival, time to transplant, how often fluid drainage procedures were needed, and episodes of a condition called hepatic encephalopathy (where the liver's reduced function affects the brain). It is worth noting that the trial was terminated early, with very few participants recorded as having completed it in the usual sense — 2 in the TIPS group and none in the LVP group. The reported data shows that at the time the study ended, 11 out of 13 participants in the TIPS group and all 13 out of 13 in the LVP group were either alive or had received a liver transplant — these figures were used to represent the primary outcome of transplant-free survival. For overall survival, the same numbers were reported: 11 in the TIPS group and 13 in the LVP group were alive at study termination. Regarding liver transplants, one person in each group received one during the study. The reported data also shows that the TIPS group had 25 recorded episodes of abdominal fluid drainage after being enrolled, compared with 93 in the LVP group. Episodes of hepatic encephalopathy were recorded as 4 in the TIPS group and 2 in the LVP group. Finally, the procedure to create the TIPS shunt was reported as successful in 12 of the 13 people assigned to that group, and in all 4 of the LVP participants who later crossed over to receive TIPS. It is important to note that this trial stopped early and involved a very small number of participants, so the reported numbers are limited in what they can tell us. The data does not include full statistical analyses, and several outcome measures were described by the researchers in notes as having been recorded differently from the original plan. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT01605370 · results posted 7 May 2014

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01605370) was set up to compare two blood pressure medicines — nebivolol and metoprolol succinate — in people with a condition where the heart muscle becomes thicker than expected for a person's size and blood pressure (called "inappropriate left ventricular mass"). The plan was to measure changes in heart muscle thickness using an ultrasound scan of the heart (echocardiogram). One person was enrolled in the nebivolol group, and no one was enrolled in the metoprolol succinate group. The reported data shows that the single enrolled participant did not complete the study, and no outcome data was collected or submitted for the primary measure — the change in heart muscle thickness over time. The results section contains no measurements for either group. Because only one participant started the trial and no one completed it, the reported data shows there are effectively no findings to describe from this study. The outcome numbers were not reported, rather than showing a particular result. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT01307033 · results posted 6 January 2014

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01307033) involved 278 participants across two groups during an initial 8-week double-blind phase — meaning neither the participants nor the researchers knew which version of the medication each person received. One group of 144 people received a lower-dose combination (referred to as L50/H12.5), and another group of 134 people received a higher-dose combination (L100/H12.5). After that phase, most participants moved into a 44-week open-label extension, where everyone received the higher-dose combination and both participants and researchers knew what was being taken. The trial was measuring blood pressure changes and tracking how many participants experienced any adverse event (an unwanted health occurrence during the study). The reported data shows that, after 8 weeks, both groups had lower blood pressure readings compared to where they started. For the bottom number of blood pressure (diastolic), the lower-dose group's reading dropped by an average of 5.3 mmHg, and the higher-dose group's dropped by 5.0 mmHg. For the top number (systolic), the lower-dose group dropped by an average of 6.2 mmHg, while the higher-dose group dropped by 8.5 mmHg. These are simply the average changes measured — a "mmHg" (millimetres of mercury) is the standard unit used to measure blood pressure. For the primary outcome — tracking adverse events during the entire study while participants were on the higher-dose combination — the reported data shows that 71.0% of participants who switched from the lower dose to the higher dose experienced at least one adverse event, compared with 72.4% of those who were on the higher dose throughout. The data does not provide a breakdown of what those adverse events were or how serious they may have been. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT01570686 · results posted 1 January 2014

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 590 adults in total — 296 in the "fed" group (who took the blood pressure medicine aliskiren with food) and 294 in the "fasting" group (who took it without food). The trial ran for eight weeks and was mainly measuring whether there was a difference in blood pressure readings between the two groups depending on whether the medicine was taken with or without food. Blood pressure was tracked using a device worn on the arm that recorded readings continuously over 24 hours (called ambulatory blood pressure monitoring), as well as standard seated measurements taken at clinic visits. The reported data shows that, for the main measurement — the average change in 24-hour systolic blood pressure (the "top number" in a blood pressure reading) from the start to the end of eight weeks — the fed group showed a reported reduction of 7.03 mmHg, and the fasting group showed a reported reduction of 7.79 mmHg. For the secondary measurements, the average 24-hour diastolic blood pressure (the "bottom number") fell by 4.01 mmHg in the fed group and 4.39 mmHg in the fasting group. When blood pressure was measured in a seated position at the clinic, the reported reductions in the top number were 13.65 mmHg (fed) and 13.98 mmHg (fasting), and in the bottom number, 8.97 mmHg (fed) and 8.56 mmHg (fasting). The reported data also shows that around 44.7% of the fed group and 41.5% of the fasting group reached a blood pressure reading below 140/90 mmHg by week eight, and approximately 54.9% and 55.8% respectively met a separate target based on the top-number reading alone. A blood test taken in a small subset of participants also found that the peak level of aliskiren detected in the blood was higher in the fasting group (around 273 ng/mL) compared with the fed group (around 108 ng/mL). These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT00644280 · results posted 26 July 2013

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 11 people in total — 6 in the ranibizumab group and 5 in the usual care group. All 11 participants completed the study. The trial was looking at how well a surgical drainage tube (used to manage eye pressure) performed at the 6-month mark, comparing people who received an injection of ranibizumab (a medicine given into the eye) around the time of surgery versus those who received usual care without it. "Tube success" was defined as eye pressure falling below certain levels, with or without the use of pressure-lowering eye drops. The reported data shows that in the ranibizumab group, 83% of participants met the criteria for tube success at 6 months, compared with 40% of participants in the usual care group. The trial also tracked serious eye-related unwanted events — specifically infections inside the eye and a type of retinal problem — and the reported data shows that zero participants in either group experienced these particular events during the study. Because this was a very small study with only 11 participants across both groups, the numbers involved are limited and should be understood in that context. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT01107743 · results posted 30 May 2013

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at a combination tablet containing two medicines — amlodipine and atorvastatin (brand name Caduet) — in people who had high blood pressure, chest pain (angina), or high cholesterol. A total of 1,291 people were enrolled, and 1,245 completed the study. The trial recorded unwanted health events that occurred after taking the medication, and also asked doctors to assess how each participant's conditions compared to before they started the tablet. The reported data shows that 18 out of 1,291 participants experienced unwanted health events that were considered related to the treatment. When doctors compared participants' conditions at the end of the observation period to before they started the tablet, 1,151 participants with high blood pressure, 163 with chest pain (angina), and 1,034 with high cholesterol were recorded as having responded to the treatment — meaning their doctors noted a change compared to their starting point. The reported data also shows that 1 participant experienced an unwanted event that was related to the treatment and was not listed in the Japanese product information sheet. Regarding gender, 7 male and 11 female participants experienced treatment-related unwanted events. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT01151904 · results posted 6 February 2013

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 17 participants in a single group who received a combination of COMBIGAN® and latanoprost (eye drops used in relation to eye pressure). All 17 participants who started the trial completed it, with no drop-outs. The trial was designed to measure changes in intraocular pressure — that is, the fluid pressure inside the eye — both overall and in terms of how many participants experienced a meaningful reduction in that pressure. The reported data shows that no results were actually produced for any of the outcome measures — not the primary measure nor either of the two secondary measures. According to the information submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov, the analyses were not performed due to a lack of enrolment. This means that although 17 people participated, the numbers were not sufficient to carry out the planned measurements and comparisons, and no figures for eye pressure changes were reported. As a result, the reported data does not include any numbers describing what happened to participants' eye pressure during the trial. The data was simply not reported for any outcome measure. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT00224289 · results posted 10 December 2012

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 17 participants, all of whom completed the study — none dropped out. Every participant was in a single group that used a topical eye drop treatment called latanoprost, applied at bedtime each night for 8 weeks. The trial was measuring eye pressure (known as intraocular pressure, or IOP — the pressure inside the eye) before and after the treatment period. The reported data shows that, on average, participants had an eye pressure reading of 21.8 mm Hg (millimetres of mercury, the unit used to measure eye pressure) before the 8-week treatment period began. After the 8 weeks of using the eye drops, the reported average eye pressure reading was 18.3 mm Hg. No other outcome measures were included in the submitted results data. It is worth noting that this trial had no comparison group (such as a placebo or alternative treatment), so these figures reflect measurements within the one group only. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT01108809 · results posted 24 September 2012

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 295 people who were taking a sequence of blood pressure medications — starting with Micardis® 80 mg and stepping up to combination tablets (MicardisPlus® 80/12.5 mg and then 80/25 mg) if needed. There was only one group in the study, meaning everyone received the same treatment sequence. The trial was measuring changes in blood pressure readings (both the top number — systolic — and the bottom number — diastolic) from the start of the study to the end, as well as changes in participants' estimated risk of serious heart and blood vessel disease using three different scoring tools. Of the 295 people who started, 291 completed the trial and 4 did not. The reported data shows that, on average, participants' systolic blood pressure (the top number) changed by minus 39.2 mmHg (millimetres of mercury, the standard unit for blood pressure), and diastolic blood pressure (the bottom number) changed by minus 17.8 mmHg from the beginning to the end of the study. For the three cardiovascular (heart and blood vessel) risk scoring tools, doctors recorded whether each participant's estimated risk went in a positive direction (lower risk), stayed neutral, or went in a negative direction (higher risk). Using the SCORE tool, 64.8% of participants were recorded as showing a positive change, 8.8% neutral, 0.3% negative, and 26.1% had no data available. Using the Framingham tool, 58.3% were recorded as positive, 10.2% neutral, 0.3% negative, and 31.2% had no data. Using the ESH/ESC tool, 65.1% were recorded as positive, 12.9% neutral, 0.3% negative, and 21.7% had no data. The reported data also shows a secondary (additional) measure: 57.3% of participants were recorded as having reached the blood pressure target levels recommended by European heart and hypertension guidelines by the end of the study (below 130/80 mmHg for those with diabetes, and below 140/90 mmHg for those without). No other secondary outcome numbers were reported in the submitted data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT00787241 · results posted 17 February 2012

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 445 pregnant women who had been diagnosed with a high blood pressure condition during pregnancy. They were divided into three groups: 261 women with mild preeclampsia, 143 with severe preeclampsia, and 41 with mild preeclampsia on top of an existing blood pressure condition. All participants completed the study. The trial was looking at whether an early blood platelet count (platelets are tiny blood cells that help with clotting) could reliably predict that a woman's platelet levels would stay high enough to safely receive an epidural or similar pain relief during labour and delivery. The reported data shows the main finding — called the "positive predictive value" — which is simply the percentage of women whose early platelet count correctly predicted their levels would stay above the required threshold throughout labour and delivery. For the primary measure (the earliest available platelet count), the reported figures were 99% for the mild preeclampsia group, 90% for the severe preeclampsia group, and 100% for the combined condition group. For a platelet count taken closer to the time of pain relief being given, the reported figures were 99%, 93%, and 100% respectively. The reported data also shows that the platelet count closest to the time of pain relief was taken, on average, about 4 hours beforehand for the mild preeclampsia group, 3 hours for the severe preeclampsia group, and 4 hours for the combined condition group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT00624559 · results posted 21 December 2011

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 12 people in total, split evenly across four groups of 3 participants each. The groups tested two different treatments — Celebrex (a type of anti-inflammatory medication) and a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient) — combined with either a high-salt or a low-salt diet. All 12 participants completed the study. The trial was measuring blood pressure and the amount of sodium (salt) passed out in urine, to see how these figures compared across the different diet and treatment combinations. The reported data shows that average blood pressure (measured as "mean arterial pressure," which is an overall measure of the pressure in the arteries) was very similar across all four groups. The Celebrex plus low-salt group recorded 88 mmHg (millimetres of mercury, the standard unit for blood pressure), while the other three groups — Celebrex plus high-salt, placebo plus low-salt, and placebo plus high-salt — each recorded 87 mmHg. For the secondary measurement, the reported data shows that urinary sodium (the amount of salt passed out in urine over 24 hours) was much higher in the high-salt diet groups: 281 mmol for the Celebrex plus high-salt group and 253 mmol for the placebo plus high-salt group. In contrast, the two low-salt diet groups showed much lower figures — 17 mmol for the Celebrex group and 14 mmol for the placebo group. No other outcome figures were reported in the submitted data. It is worth noting that with only 3 people in each group, this was a very small study, and the submitted data does not include any further statistical detail beyond these numbers. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT00627861 · results posted 28 September 2011

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled just one participant, who received a combination of two medicines — aliskiren and metoprolol. The trial was measuring how these medicines affected certain substances in the blood related to blood pressure regulation, specifically a protein called plasma renin (which plays a role in how the body controls blood pressure), as well as blood pressure readings taken at various points during the study. The reported data shows that plasma renin concentration — measured in units called pg/mL — was recorded at multiple time points, with values ranging from 2.7 to 22 pg/mL across the different visits. A related blood test called plasma renin activity (which measures how active this protein is in the bloodstream, recorded in ng/mL/h) showed values ranging from 0.03 to 2.07 across the visits. Blood pressure readings — recorded in the standard unit mm Hg — were also taken at several time points, with the upper number (systolic) ranging from 144 to 156, and the lower number (diastolic) ranging from 64 to 92 across the different visits. It is important to note that with only one participant completing this trial, the reported data shows results from a single individual only, and no broader conclusions can be drawn from numbers of this kind. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT00865020 · results posted 22 July 2011

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 414 people in the Aliskiren 300 mg group and 408 people in the Telmisartan 80 mg group — 822 participants in total. The trial was comparing two blood pressure medicines to see what happened to blood pressure readings when each medicine was stopped after 12 weeks of treatment. Specifically, it tracked how much blood pressure rose (or fell) during a 7-day "withdrawal period" after the medicine was discontinued, using both an automated 24-hour monitoring device worn by participants and standard seated clinic measurements. The reported data shows that for the main outcome — the rise in average 24-hour systolic blood pressure (the "top" number in a blood pressure reading) during the 7-day withdrawal period — the Aliskiren group showed a reported increase of 2.70 mmHg, while the Telmisartan group showed a reported increase of 6.51 mmHg. For the secondary measure of diastolic blood pressure (the "bottom" number) over 24 hours during withdrawal, the reported increases were 2.09 mmHg for Aliskiren and 4.21 mmHg for Telmisartan. The reported data also shows that, looking back from the withdrawal period all the way to the start of the trial, 24-hour systolic blood pressure had changed by −8.39 mmHg (Aliskiren) and −5.59 mmHg (Telmisartan), and diastolic by −5.05 mmHg and −3.44 mmHg respectively. For seated clinic readings, both groups showed similar reductions during the 12-week treatment phase (around −15 mmHg systolic for both), while during withdrawal the seated systolic reading rose by 1.26 mmHg in the Aliskiren group and 5.00 mmHg in the Telmisartan group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT00841672 · results posted 27 June 2011

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 485 adults in total — 244 in one group and 241 in another. One group took a combination tablet containing two medicines (aliskiren 300 mg and amlodipine 10 mg), while the other group took amlodipine 10 mg on its own. The trial ran for 8 weeks and was primarily measuring changes in participants' sitting systolic blood pressure (the "top number" in a blood pressure reading). The reported data shows that, on average, the top blood pressure number fell by about 37.7 points (measured in mmHg) in the combination-tablet group, compared with about 30.6 points in the amlodipine-only group, over the 8 weeks. For the bottom blood pressure number (diastolic), the reported average reductions were about 16.1 points and 12.3 points respectively. Looking at how many individuals reached certain target thresholds, the reported data shows that 88.8% of people in the combination group and 79.1% in the amlodipine-only group met the systolic response target, while 92.7% and 86.5% respectively met the diastolic response target. For overall blood pressure control (both numbers hitting their targets at the same time), the figures reported were 67.0% in the combination group and 49.1% in the amlodipine-only group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT00654875 · results posted 15 June 2011

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 164 people in each of two groups — one group took aliskiren 300 mg once a day, and the other took aliskiren 150 mg twice a day. Both groups received the same total daily dose, just split differently. The trial ran for 6 weeks and was measuring blood pressure, specifically looking at whether the timing of the dose made a difference to how well blood pressure was controlled across a full 24-hour period. Of the 164 people who started in each group, 147 completed the study. The primary thing being measured was the change in average diastolic blood pressure (the lower number in a blood pressure reading) over 24 hours, tracked using a device worn on the arm. The reported data shows that the once-a-day group had an average reduction of 4.10 mmHg (millimetres of mercury, the unit used to measure blood pressure), while the twice-a-day group had an average reduction of 5.24 mmHg. For the secondary measurements — which included the upper (systolic) number, readings taken during a sitting position, and blood pressure in the final hours of the dosing period — the reported changes were broadly similar between the two groups. For example, the average sitting systolic blood pressure fell by 10.30 mmHg in the once-a-day group and 10.57 mmHg in the twice-a-day group. In terms of reaching a pre-defined blood pressure target (below 140/90 mmHg while sitting), the reported data shows that 24.7% of the once-a-day group and 26.9% of the twice-a-day group met that target at week 6. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT00699192 · results posted 6 June 2011

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 819 adults across three treatment groups: one group took a combination pill containing amlodipine 5 mg and valsartan 80 mg (275 people), a second group took a combination pill containing amlodipine 5 mg and valsartan 40 mg (272 people), and a third group took amlodipine 5 mg on its own (272 people). The trial ran for 8 weeks and was measuring changes in blood pressure — specifically the "top" number (systolic) and "bottom" number (diastolic) in a blood pressure reading. The vast majority of participants completed the study: 259, 260, and 261 people respectively in each group. The reported data shows that, after 8 weeks, the average sitting systolic (top) blood pressure figure had changed by −11.1 mmHg in the amlodipine/valsartan 5/80 mg group, −12.3 mmHg in the amlodipine/valsartan 5/40 mg group, and −6.9 mmHg in the amlodipine-only group (a negative number means the reading went down from where it started). For the diastolic (bottom) number, the reported changes were −4.2 mmHg, −5.3 mmHg, and −1.7 mmHg respectively. The trial also tracked how many participants reached certain blood pressure targets by week 8. When "overall blood pressure control" (both numbers hitting the target thresholds) was used as the measure, the reported data shows this was recorded in 30.9% of the amlodipine/valsartan 5/80 mg group, 36.4% of the amlodipine/valsartan 5/40 mg group, and 19.0% of the amlodipine-only group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT00926289 · results posted 24 May 2011

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 888 participants in total. They were split into two groups: 294 people received telmisartan alone (at doses of 40 or 80 mg), and 594 people received telmisartan combined with a second blood pressure medicine called hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ, at doses of 12.5 or 25 mg). The trial was measuring changes in blood pressure — specifically the top number (systolic, or SBP) and the bottom number (diastolic, or DBP) — over a period of up to 7 weeks. The reported data shows that, for the main outcome measured at week 7, the telmisartan-only group had an average reduction in systolic blood pressure of 28.5 mmHg (millimetres of mercury, the standard unit for blood pressure) from where they started, while the combination group had an average reduction of 37.0 mmHg. For the bottom blood pressure number at week 7, the reported reductions were 15.4 mmHg for the telmisartan-only group and 18.6 mmHg for the combination group. Similar patterns in systolic blood pressure reductions were also reported at weeks 3 and 5. The reported data also shows that at week 7, 122 out of 294 participants in the telmisartan-only group and 363 out of 594 participants in the combination group had a systolic blood pressure reading below 140 mmHg, which was the target level set by the trial. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT01001572 · results posted 24 May 2011

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 932 people who first took a blood pressure medicine called valsartan (160 mg) on its own for a lead-in period. Of those, 654 completed that first phase and moved into the main part of the trial, where 329 people were assigned to a combination tablet of valsartan plus amlodipine (160/5 mg) and 325 to valsartan alone (160 mg). The trial was primarily measuring how much participants' sitting diastolic blood pressure (the lower number in a blood pressure reading) changed over 8 weeks, and also looked at changes in the upper number (systolic pressure) and how many participants reached certain blood pressure targets. The reported data shows that, on average, the diastolic blood pressure reading dropped by 10.3 mmHg (millimetres of mercury, the standard unit for blood pressure) in the combination tablet group and by 6.6 mmHg in the valsartan-only group from the start of the main treatment phase to week 8. For the upper (systolic) number, the reported average drop was 14.9 mmHg in the combination group compared with 7.0 mmHg in the valsartan-only group. The reported data also shows that 70.1% of participants in the combination group met the trial's definition of a diastolic "response" (their lower number dropped by at least 10 mmHg or fell below 90 mmHg), compared with 52.6% in the valsartan-only group. Looking at the other targets reported, 65.9% of people in the combination group had their diastolic reading fall below 90 mmHg by week 8, versus 50.8% in the valsartan-only group. When both numbers were considered together (a reading below 140/90 mmHg), 61.3% of the combination group met that target compared with 39.3% of the valsartan-only group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT00930722 · results posted 4 May 2011

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 329 people, all of whom received a medication called quinapril. Of those, 302 people completed the study, while 27 did not finish. The trial was measuring two main things: any unwanted medical events (called adverse events) that occurred during the study, and changes in blood pressure readings over time. The reported data shows that, when it came to unwanted medical events, 1 participant experienced an adverse event and no participants experienced a serious adverse event (meaning no one had an outcome such as death, a life-threatening event, or a stay in hospital that was linked to the study). For blood pressure, participants had an average starting (baseline) systolic pressure — the top number in a blood pressure reading — of around 142 mmHg, and this figure was reported to have changed by approximately minus 9.4 mmHg by week 12. The bottom number in a blood pressure reading (diastolic pressure) started at around 86 mmHg and changed by approximately minus 3.9 mmHg by week 12. The data for these blood pressure measurements at week 52 was not reported. Additionally, when looking back at blood pressure records from before participants started the medication, the average pre-treatment systolic reading was around 154 mmHg, and the change up to the point of starting the study drug was reported as approximately minus 12.5 mmHg. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT00739973 · results posted 3 May 2011

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT00739973) tested a combination blood pressure medicine containing aliskiren and amlodipine against each of those medicines given on their own, as well as against a placebo (a dummy pill with no active ingredient). The trial enrolled 2,694 people in an initial single-blind lead-in phase, and then 1,688 people were randomly assigned across nine groups — including placebo, two doses of aliskiren alone, two doses of amlodipine alone, and four different aliskiren/amlodipine combination doses — for an eight-week double-blind period (meaning neither the participants nor the researchers knew who was getting which treatment during that phase). The main thing being measured was the change in sitting diastolic blood pressure (the lower number in a blood pressure reading) from the start to the end of the eight weeks. The reported data shows the following changes in that lower blood pressure number (measured in mmHg, or millimetres of mercury — the standard unit for blood pressure): the placebo group's reading was not listed for the primary measure in the submitted data. For the key comparison groups, aliskiren 150 mg alone was associated with a reported change of –8.0 mmHg, amlodipine 5 mg alone with –11.0 mmHg, and the aliskiren/amlodipine 150/5 mg combination with –14.0 mmHg. For the upper blood pressure number (systolic), the reported changes were –10.7 mmHg for aliskiren 150 mg alone, –15.8 mmHg for amlodipine 5 mg alone, –6.8 mmHg for placebo, and –20.6 mmHg for the 150/5 mg combination. The aliskiren/amlodipine 150/10 mg combination group showed a reported change of –23.9 mmHg in the upper number compared with –10.7 mmHg for aliskiren 150 mg alone. These are reductions from baseline — that is, how much each group's average reading fell over the course of the study. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT00772577 · results posted 2 March 2011

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 386 people in total — 193 in each group. One group received a combination medicine called aliskiren/HCTZ, and the other received a medicine called ramipril. Both groups had the same number of people complete the trial (170 each), with 23 in each group not finishing. The trial was measuring changes in blood pressure after 8 weeks of treatment, specifically looking at the top number in a blood pressure reading (systolic), the bottom number (diastolic), and the difference between the two (pulse pressure). The reported data shows that, for the top blood pressure number, the aliskiren/HCTZ group started at an average of 167.0 mmHg and finished at 138.9 mmHg — a reported drop of 28.1 mmHg. The ramipril group started at 168.2 mmHg and finished at 151.6 mmHg — a reported drop of 16.6 mmHg. For the bottom number, the aliskiren/HCTZ group dropped by 10.1 mmHg on average, compared to 3.6 mmHg in the ramipril group. For pulse pressure (the gap between the two numbers), the reported drops were 18.0 mmHg and 13.0 mmHg respectively. The reported data also shows that, by the end of 8 weeks, 63.7% of people in the aliskiren/HCTZ group had their blood pressure reach a defined target level (below 140/90 mmHg), compared with 30.0% in the ramipril group. When a broader measure of response was used — either reaching the target top-number reading or dropping by at least 20 mmHg — 87.9% of the aliskiren/HCTZ group met that threshold, compared with 63.2% of the ramipril group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT00281580 · results posted 28 April 2010

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 1,461 participants across 16 different treatment groups. People were assigned to receive either a placebo (a dummy tablet with no active ingredient), one of three doses of a blood pressure medicine called telmisartan (20 mg, 40 mg, or 80 mg), one of three doses of another blood pressure medicine called amlodipine (2.5 mg, 5 mg, or 10 mg), or various combinations of the two medicines together. The trial ran for 8 weeks and was measuring changes in diastolic blood pressure — the lower number in a blood pressure reading, recorded while seated — from the start of the trial to the end. The reported data shows that all groups, including the placebo group, had lower diastolic blood pressure readings at 8 weeks compared to where they started. In the placebo group, the reading dropped by approximately 5.9 to 6.2 mmHg (millimetres of mercury, the unit used to measure blood pressure). For those taking telmisartan alone, the reported drops ranged from around 13.1 to 13.8 mmHg depending on the dose. For amlodipine alone, the reported drops ranged from roughly 13.2 to 19.3 mmHg across doses. The reported data shows that the combination groups generally had larger recorded drops, with the telmisartan 40 mg plus amlodipine 10 mg group and the telmisartan 80 mg plus amlodipine 5 mg group showing drops of around 19.6 to 20.2 mmHg. Note that figures for some combination groups were not reported in the submitted data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT01090752 · results posted 8 April 2010

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 16 people in total — 8 in the pioglitazone group and 8 in the placebo group. All 16 participants completed the study with no drop-outs. The trial was looking at how the diabetes medication pioglitazone affected the kidneys and blood pressure, specifically measuring how well the kidneys filter blood (called GFR — a measure of the kidneys' filtering rate), blood flow through the kidneys (RBF), how the kidneys handle salt, and blood pressure readings taken over a full 24-hour period. Participants followed both a low-salt and a high-salt diet during the trial. The reported data shows the following numbers at the end of the treatment periods. For kidney filtering rate (GFR, measured in millilitres per minute per 1.73 square metres of body surface area), the pioglitazone group recorded 68.0 and the placebo group recorded 62.4. For the kidney's handling of sodium and lithium — used as a way to measure how the kidneys process salt — the pioglitazone group recorded 1.05 ml/min and the placebo group recorded 1.18 ml/min. For 24-hour blood pressure (measured in mmHg, the standard unit for blood pressure), the pioglitazone group recorded 128 and the placebo group recorded 129. For the secondary outcome measuring salt sensitivity, no data was reported in the ClinicalTrials.gov submission. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT00151775 · results posted 2 April 2010

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at a blood pressure medicine called olmesartan medoxomil (OM) in children and young people, who were divided into three groups (Cohorts A, B, and C) based on factors such as age or weight. The trial ran across several stages: a dose-finding stage where participants received either a low or high dose of the medicine, a withdrawal stage where some were switched to a dummy treatment (placebo) while others stayed on the medicine, and an open-label stage where everyone received the active medicine. In total, hundreds of participants were involved across the different stages — for example, in the first active stage (Period 2), 95 participants started in each of Cohort A's two dose groups, 56 in each of Cohort B's dose groups, and 60 in Cohort C. The reported data shows that, at the end of the three-week dose-finding stage, blood pressure readings (measured in millimetres of mercury, or mm Hg — the standard unit for blood pressure) changed from the starting point by varying amounts depending on the dose. For Cohorts A and B combined, the low-dose group showed an average drop of about 6.6 mm Hg in the top (systolic) blood pressure number and about 4.8 mm Hg in the bottom (diastolic) number; the high-dose group showed average drops of about 11.9 mm Hg (systolic) and 8.8 mm Hg (diastolic). During the withdrawal stage, the reported data shows that participants who continued on the medicine had smaller average increases in blood pressure (around 0.4–1.4 mm Hg systolic) compared with those switched to placebo (around 3.8–4.9 mm Hg systolic), across all cohorts. The reported data for the final open-label stage shows that, compared with where participants started at the very beginning of the trial, average systolic blood pressure was lower by about 10.8 mm Hg in Cohort A, 7.7 mm Hg in Cohort B, and 15.7 mm Hg in Cohort C by the end of that stage; diastolic readings were lower by about 7.4, 5.1, and 13.3 mm Hg respectively. These figures represent averages across groups and individual results would have varied. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT00624052 · results posted 25 March 2010

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 838 participants across four treatment groups, all of whom were taking combinations of two blood pressure medicines — telmisartan (at either 40mg or 80mg) and amlodipine (10mg). Some participants also had an additional medicine added if needed. The trial was measuring how many people reached target blood pressure levels — specifically, a lower (diastolic) blood pressure reading below 90mmHg as the main goal, and an upper (systolic) reading below 140mmHg as a secondary goal. The vast majority of participants completed the study: 802 out of 838. The reported data shows that, for the main goal (lower blood pressure reading below 90mmHg), the numbers who reached that target were: 201 out of 216 in the 40mg telmisartan group, 402 out of 436 in the randomly assigned 80mg telmisartan group, 72 out of 91 in the dose-adjusted 80mg group, and 70 out of 92 in the group that received an additional medicine. For the secondary goal (upper blood pressure reading below 140mmHg), the reported numbers who reached target were: 179 out of 216, 366 out of 436, 70 out of 91, and 51 out of 92, respectively across the four groups. The reported data also shows changes in blood pressure readings from the start of the study to the end. For the lower blood pressure number, the reported average reductions across the four groups ranged from approximately 10.6 to 13.4 mmHg (a mmHg, or millimetre of mercury, is the standard unit used to measure blood pressure). For the upper blood pressure number, reported average reductions ranged from approximately 12.4 to 15.9 mmHg. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT00621153 · results posted 23 March 2010

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 233 people in total — 117 in a group taking a combination of two blood pressure medicines (candesartan cilexetil and hydrochlorothiazide) and 116 taking just one of those medicines (candesartan cilexetil) on its own. The trial was measuring changes in blood pressure readings — specifically the "bottom" number (diastolic, or DBP) and the "top" number (systolic, or SBP) — after 4 and 8 weeks of treatment. By the end of the study, 97 people in the combination group and 101 in the single-medicine group had completed the trial. The reported data shows that after 4 weeks, the average "bottom" blood pressure number fell by 17.0 mmHg (millimetres of mercury, the standard unit for measuring blood pressure) in the combination therapy group, and by 14.1 mmHg in the single-medicine group. These are the only figures that were submitted for the primary outcome. For all of the secondary outcomes — including changes in the "top" blood pressure number at 4 and 8 weeks, the proportion of participants who reached target blood pressure levels, and changes in a blood marker called hs-CRP — the data was not reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, so those figures cannot be described here. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT00553267 · results posted 22 December 2009

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 947 adults across three groups to compare different blood pressure medication combinations. One group (315 people) took amlodipine 10mg on its own, a second group (315 people) took a lower-dose combination of telmisartan 40mg plus amlodipine 10mg, and a third group (317 people) took a higher-dose combination of telmisartan 80mg plus amlodipine 10mg. The trial was measuring changes in blood pressure readings — specifically the "diastolic" (bottom number) and "systolic" (top number) readings — taken at rest after a period of treatment. The reported data shows that all three groups had lower blood pressure readings at the end of the study compared to when they started. For the bottom (diastolic) blood pressure number, the amlodipine-only group saw an average fall of about 6.5 mmHg (millimetres of mercury, the standard unit for blood pressure), while the two combination groups saw average falls of around 9.2 and 9.3 mmHg respectively. For the top (systolic) number, the amlodipine-only group recorded an average drop of about 7.4 mmHg, compared to drops of around 11.1 and 11.3 mmHg in the two combination groups. The reported data also shows how many participants in each group reached certain blood pressure targets by the end of the study: for example, 156, 195, and 206 participants (in the three groups respectively) reached a diastolic reading below 90 mmHg, and 153, 180, and 187 reached a systolic reading below 140 mmHg. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

• NCT00244621 · results posted 15 September 2009

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at three different doses of a medicine called Atacand (0.05 mg, 0.20 mg, and 0.40 mg) in children. A total of 93 participants started the first (double-blind) phase of the trial, split roughly equally across the three dose groups. The trial was measuring changes in blood pressure after four weeks of treatment, as well as changes in certain markers found in urine — specifically ratios that can indicate how the kidneys are filtering protein and a substance called albumin. The reported data shows that all three groups had reductions in both their top (systolic) and bottom (diastolic) blood pressure readings after four weeks. For the lowest dose group (0.05 mg), average systolic blood pressure fell by 6.0 mmHg and diastolic by 5.2 mmHg. In the middle dose group (0.20 mg), those figures were 8.9 mmHg and 7.9 mmHg respectively. In the highest dose group (0.40 mg), the reported reductions were 12.0 mmHg for systolic and 11.1 mmHg for diastolic. Regarding the urine markers, the albumin-to-creatinine ratio fell by 11.1% in the lowest dose group, 40.6% in the middle group, and 50.0% in the highest dose group. For the protein-to-creatinine ratio, no change (0.0%) was reported for the lowest and highest dose groups, while the middle dose group showed a reported reduction of 29.2%. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT00603590 · results posted 23 June 2009

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 241 people in the polypill group and 234 people in a control group — 475 participants in total. The trial was measuring the effect of a "polypill" (a single tablet combining multiple medicines) compared to a control, looking at blood pressure and cholesterol levels over roughly eight months. By the end of the study, 165 people in the polypill group and 183 in the control group had completed the trial. The reported data shows that, at the end of the study, the average upper blood pressure reading (called systolic blood pressure — the peak pressure when the heart beats) was 121.7 mmHg in the polypill group compared to 129.7 mmHg in the control group. For the lower blood pressure reading (diastolic — the pressure between beats), the reported averages were 77.6 mmHg in the polypill group and 81.3 mmHg in the control group. For LDL cholesterol — often called "bad" cholesterol — the reported average was 87.8 mg/dL in the polypill group compared to 112.0 mg/dL in the control group. These are the numbers as submitted; the data does not include information about what the participants' readings were at the start of the trial, so no comparison with starting values can be made here. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

• NCT00882440 · results posted 10 June 2009

  According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 576 people across seven groups to compare different doses of a blood pressure medicine called losartan (10 mg, 25 mg, 50 mg, 100 mg, and 150 mg daily) against a placebo (a dummy pill with no active ingredient) and another blood pressure medicine called enalapril (20 mg). The main thing being measured was the change in a type of blood pressure reading — taken while lying down, called "supine diastolic blood pressure" — after 8 weeks of treatment. Between 67 and 80 people in each group completed the trial. The reported data shows that after 8 weeks, all groups — including the placebo group — had lower blood pressure readings than when they started. The placebo group's reading dropped by an average of 5.6 mmHg (millimetres of mercury, the standard unit for blood pressure). The losartan groups dropped by between 6.8 mmHg (at the 25 mg dose) and 10.1 mmHg (at the 50 mg dose). The enalapril group had the largest average drop, at 11.2 mmHg. A secondary measure looked at a slightly different blood pressure reading taken at peak effect, and the reported data shows similar patterns, with the enalapril group again showing the largest average reduction (16.2 mmHg) and the placebo group the smallest (4.7 mmHg). Another secondary measure sorted participants into response categories — "excellent," "good," or "fair/inadequate" — though the reported data for that measure appears incomplete and not all category figures were provided for every group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.

  View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗

See the full Hypertension page · What changed recently

Not medical advice. These are results as reported by the trial sponsor to a public registry, summarised in plain English. They describe what a trial recorded, not whether a treatment is suitable for any person. Verify anything important against the original registry record and discuss what it means for you with your doctor.