Tepel 2008.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: prospective, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled RCT study duration: 30 months Study follow‐up: 30 months (median follow‐up was 19 months (8 to 30))
Participants	Country: Germany Setting: multicentre (47 centres) Inclusion criteria: patients presently existing arterial hypertension or with a history of arterial hypertension (resting BP ≥ 140/90 mmHg or antihypertensive medication), undergoing maintenance HD for at least 3 months Number (analysed/randomised): treatment group (123/123); control group (128/128) Median age, IQR range (years): treatment group (60, 45 to 68); control group (62, 48 to 68) Sex (M/F): treatment group (78/45); control group (81/47) Exclusion criteria: persistent hypotension with SBP < 90 mmHg; history of high grade aortic stenosis; history of severe heart failure NYHA stages II and IV; acute MI in the previous 4 weeks; known allergy to amlodipine; severe disorders of liver function; pregnant or breast feeding
Interventions	Treatment group (dihydropyridine CCB) Amlodipine (oral): 10 mg once/day for 30 months Control group Placebo (oral): once/day for 30 months
Outcomes	Death (any cause, including cardiovascular, sudden death, infection, cancer or other cause) assessed every 6 months during 30 months Time from randomisation to first event: composite of death from any cause and cardiac events (including cardiac event including MI, need for coronary angioplasty or coronary bypass surgery, Ischaemic stroke, PVD with the need for amputation or angioplasty) assessed every 6 months during 30 months Adverse events (including hypotension) assessed every 6 months during 30 months
Notes	Funding source: Pfizer, Karlsruhe, Germany, authors had no conflicts of interest Authors contacted (number of cardiovascular death) in July 2014 and July 2020, but they did not reply
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	QUOTE: "A computer‐generated randomisation list was prepared centrally"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	QUOTE: "A computer‐generated randomisation list was prepared centrally guaranteeing that in study centres patients were assigned to one of both treatment groups" QUOTE: "To ensure allocation concealment, sequentially numbered containers were used" No indication whether the containers were identical.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	QUOTE: "Double blind" Review of the protocol on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00124969) revealed that participants and personnel were blinded.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	QUOTE: "Deaths were classified by the treating physician independently of the endpoint analysis" Review of the protocol on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00124969) revealed that the outcome assessors were blinded
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	QUOTE: "No patient was lost to the follow‐up" (analysis was by intention‐to‐treat population)
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All outcomes prespecified were reported
Other	Low risk	QUOTE: "The study sponsor did not take part in collection, analysis or interpretation of data, or in the writing of the report." The study seemed to be free from other source of bias