You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 290 No. 21, December 3, 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Editorial
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Correction
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (1)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related article
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Topic Collections
 •Drug Therapy
 •Drug Therapy, Other
 •Hypertension
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

The Return on INVEST

Michael H. Alderman, MD

JAMA. 2003;290:2859-2861.

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

A decade ago, practitioners who prescribed antihypertensive therapy, and their patients, were transfixed by a passionate and sometimes unseemly public debate over whether dihydropyridine calcium antagonists (not the verapamil type) were safe.1 Aware that the available scientific data were insufficient, contending parties, although agreeing on little else, were all willing to submit their positions to the test of rigorous clinical trials. The missing data now have been provided.2 Disappointingly, while some concerns about calcium antagonists have been laid to rest, their role in antihypertensive therapy remains controversial. Disputants who had thrived on extrapolation from observational data now disagree about how to interpret and apply the abundance of clinical trial data.

The INVEST trial,3 reported in this issue of THE JOURNAL, is the latest addition to a growing database. This trial was designed to "compare mortality and morbidity outcomes in patients with hypertension and CAD [coronary artery . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Author Affiliation: Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY.



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

A Calcium Antagonist vs a Non–Calcium Antagonist Hypertension Treatment Strategy for Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: The International Verapamil-Trandolapril Study (INVEST): A Randomized Controlled Trial
Carl J. Pepine, Eileen M. Handberg, Rhonda M. Cooper-DeHoff, Ronald G. Marks, Peter Kowey, Franz H. Messerli, Giuseppe Mancia, José L. Cangiano, David Garcia-Barreto, Matyas Keltai, Serap Erdine, Heather A. Bristol, H. Robert Kolb, George L. Bakris, Jerome D. Cohen, and William W. Parmley
JAMA. 2003;290(21):2805-2816.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  


THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Calcium Antagonists vs. Beta-Blockers for Hypertensive CAD Patients
Journal Watch Cardiology 2004;2004:6-6.
FULL TEXT  

A Large Hypertension Trial, Focused on CAD Patients
JWatch General 2003;2003:1-1.
FULL TEXT  

Cardiovascular News
SoRelle
Circulation 2003;108 :e9077-e9078.
FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2003 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.