Efficacy of Low-Dose Chlorthalidone and Hydrochlorothiazide as Assessed by 24-h Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring

Single-Pill Combination Therapy of Amlodipine, Telmisartan, and Chlorthalidone in the Management of Hypertension: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Hypertension is a major cause of cardiovascular disease and death worldwide. Low-dose combination therapy is a promising approach for managing hypertension due to its safety and efficacy. This systematic review evaluates the safety and efficacy of a single-pill, low-dose combination of amlodipine, telmisartan, and chlorthalidone for essential hypertension based on evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and searched the Cochrane, Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science databases until July 01, 2024, using the following search string: (telmisartan) AND (amlodipine) AND (chlorthalidone) AND (randomized OR randomly). The quality of the RCTs was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool. The primary endpoint was the mean change in sitting systolic blood pressure (BP), with secondary endpoints including BP target achievement rates, BP response rates, and serious treatment-related adverse events. Overall, three RCTs met the inclusion criteria and exhibited a low risk of bias. The doses in the combination pill ranged from 2.5 to 5 mg of amlodipine, 20 to 80 mg of telmisartan, and 4.167 to 25 mg of chlorthalidone. Control groups varied, including usual care, amlodipine 10 mg, and dual therapy of telmisartan and amlodipine. Results showed significant reductions in mean sitting systolic and diastolic BP, improved BP control and response rates, and a generally safe profile with no significant differences in serious adverse events. Despite encouraging data, results should be interpreted with caution due to heterogeneity in doses and control groups. Further research should address the long-term effects and explore predictors of response to this therapy.

Diuretic Use and Serum Phosphate: Rotterdam Study and UK Biobank

Purpose

Hypophosphatemia (serum phosphate < 0.80 mmol/L) leads to musculoskeletal complaints. The most common drugs linked to hypophosphatemia are thiazide and loop diuretics, but studies in the general population are lacking. Our aim was to study associations between diuretic use and serum phosphate in the Rotterdam Study (RS), a population-based cohort study, with replication in UK Biobank (UKBB).

Methods

Associations between thiazide and loop diuretic use and serum phosphate and odds of hypophosphatemia were analyzed with cross-sectional multivariate linear and logistic regression in participants without chronic kidney disease in the RS and UKBB. Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, and body mass index (BMI) and pooled in 3 RS cohorts with further adjustment for cohort and serum potassium, which was not available in UKBB.

Results

Thiazide diuretics were associated with lower serum phosphate in both sexes. This association lost significance in RS females after adjustment for BMI and in males after adjustment for serum potassium. Thiazide diuretics increased odds of hypophosphatemia in females in both cohorts and in males in UKBB only. Loop diuretics were associated with lower serum phosphate in females but not males. Adjustment for BMI attenuated these associations. Associations between loop diuretics and increased odds of hypophosphatemia in females lost significance after BMI adjustment.

Conclusion

Thiazides, but not loop diuretics, and increased BMI and decreased serum potassium should be considered as contributing factors in subjects with hypophosphatemia. Further studies are needed to replicate the findings and elucidate the potential role of hypokalemia as a mediator of this effect.

Management of nocturnal hypertension: An expert consensus document from Chinese Hypertension League

Nocturnal hypertension is highly prevalent among Chinese and Asian populations, which is mainly attributed to high salt intake and high salt sensitivity. Nocturnal hypertension increases the risk of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality, independent of daytime blood pressure (BP). However, it can usually be detected by 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring, rather than routine office or home BP measurement, thus is often underdiagnosed in clinical practice. Currently, no specific guidance is available for the management of nocturnal hypertension in China or worldwide. Experts from the Chinese Hypertension League summarized the epidemiologic and pathophysiologic characteristics and clinical phenotype of nocturnal hypertension and provided consensus recommendations on optimal management of nocturnal hypertension, with the goal of maximally reducing the cardiovascular disease risks. In this consensus document, 24-h ABPM is recommended for screening and diagnosis of nocturnal hypertension, especially in the elderly, patients with diabetes, chronic kidney diseases, obstructive sleep apnea and other conditions prone to high nocturnal BP. Lifestyle modifications including salt intake restriction, exercise, weight loss, sleep improvement, and mental stress relief are recommended. Long-acting antihypertensive medications are preferred for nocturnal and 24-h BP control. Some newly developed agents, renal denervation, and other device-based therapy on nocturnal BP reduction are evaluated.

Chlorthalidone versus hydrochlorothiazide for preventing cardiovascular disease in hypertension: Is the case closed?

The optimal diuretic choice [hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) or chlorthalidone (CTD)] for the management of hypertension has been an ongoing debate for several years. HCTZ is widely used in the form of single-pill combinations, whereas CTD is a more potent drug vs. HCTZ, especially in reducing nighttime blood pressure (BP), with some indirect evidence suggesting a superiority in terms of cardiovascular (CV) risk reduction. In addition, recent data showed that CTD was safe and effective in terms of BP lowering in predialysis patients with stage 4 chronic kidney disease. The Diuretic Comparison Project was the first head-to-head pragmatic, open-label trial that randomly assigned elderly patients with hypertension under HCTZ therapy to continue with HCTZ or to switch to CTD (equivalent doses). Office BP was similar for both groups throughout the study. The trial showed no difference in major CV events or non-cancer-related deaths during a median follow-up of 2.4 years; yet, CTD was associated with a benefit in participants with a previous myocardial infarction or stroke, which might be a chance finding but could also indicate that a high-risk population is more suitable for revealing the impact of slight differences in the 24-hour BP profile in a relatively short-term follow-up. Interestingly CTD vs. HCTZ was associated with higher hypokalemia rates apart from the latter group of patients where there was no difference. Overall, the available data do not confirm the superiority of CTD over HCTZ in general, but this could be questionable in selected patients.

Efficacy and safety of standard dose triple combination of telmisartan 80 mg/amlodipine 5 mg/chlorthalidone 25 mg in primary hypertension: A randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, multicenter phase 3 trial

The authors evaluated the efficacy, safety, and characteristics of patients who respond well to standard dose triple combination therapy including chlorthalidone 25 mg with telmisartan 80 mg plus amlodipine 5 mg in hypertensive patients. This is a multicenter, double-blind, active-controlled, phase 3, randomized trial. Patients are randomized to triple combination (telmisartan 40 mg/amlodipine 5 mg/chlorthalidone 12.5 mg, TEL/AML/CHTD group) or dual combination (telmisartan 40 mg/amlodipine 5 mg, TEL/AML group) treatment and then dose up titration to TEL 80/AML5/CHTD25mg and TEL80/AML5, respectively. The primary endpoint is the change of mean sitting systolic blood pressure (MSSBP) at week 8. A Target BP achievement rate, a response rate, and the safety endpoints are also evaluated. Total 374 patients (mean age = 60.9 ± 10.7 years, male = 78.3%) were randomized to the study. The baseline MSSBPs/diastolic BPs were 149.9 ± 12.2/88.5 ± 10.4 mm Hg. After 8 weeks treatment, the change of MSSBPs at week 8 are -19.1 ± 14.9 mm Hg (TEL/AML/CHTD) and -11.4 ± 14.7 mm Hg (TEL/AML) (p < .0001). The achievement rates of target BP (53.8% vs. 37.8%, p = .0017) and responder rate (54.8% vs. 35.6%, p = .0001) at week 8 were significantly higher in TEL/AML/CHTD. There are no serious adverse event and no one discontinued medication due to adverse event. Among the TEL 80/AML5/CHTD25mg treatment group, patients of female or age ≥ 65 years old showed higher rate of target BP achievement than relatively young male. (61.4 vs. 46.8%, p = .042) Our study showed standard dose triple combination of telmisartan 80 mg/amlodipine 5 mg/chlorthalidone 25 mg is efficacious and safe in treatment of primary hypertension. Target BP achievement with triple therapy would be facilitated in female or old age.

Trends in antihypertensive drug utilization in British Columbia, 2004-2019: a descriptive study

BACKGROUND

Clinical guidelines for hypertension were updated with lower blood pressure targets following new studies in 2015; the real-world impact of these changes on antihypertensive drug use is unknown. We aimed to describe trends in antihypertensive drug utilization from 2004 to 2019 in British Columbia.

METHODS

We conducted a longitudinal study to describe the annual prevalence and incidence rate of use of 5 antihypertensive drug classes (thiazides, angiotensin-converting enzyme [ACE] inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers [ARBs], calcium channel blockers and β-blockers) among BC residents aged 30-75 years. We also conducted a cohort study to compare the risk of discontinuation and switch or add-on therapy between incident users of the above drug classes. We used linkable administrative health databases from BC. We performed a Fine-Gray competing risk analysis to estimate subhazard ratios.

RESULTS

Among BC residents aged 30-75 years (population: 2 376 282 [2004] to 3 014 273 [2019]), the incidence rate of antihypertensive drug use decreased from 23.7 per 1000 person-years in 2004 to 18.3 per 1000 person-years in 2014, and subsequently increased to 22.6 per 1000 person-years in 2019. The incidence rate of thiazide use decreased from 8.9 per 1000 person-years in 2004 to 3.2 per 1000 person-years in 2019, and incidence rates for the other drug classes increased. Incident users receiving thiazide monotherapy had an increased risk of discontinuing any antihypertensive treatment compared with ACE inhibitor monotherapy (subhazard ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.95-0.97), ARB monotherapy (subhazard ratio 0.84, 95% CI 0.81-0.87) and thiazide combination with ACE inhibitor or ARB (subhazard ratio 0.86, 95% CI 0.84-0.88), and had the highest risk of switching or adding on.

INTERPRETATION

First-line use of thiazides continued to decrease despite a marked increase in incident antihypertensive therapy following updated guidelines; incident users receiving ARB monotherapy were least likely to discontinue, and incident users receiving thiazide monotherapy were more likely to switch or add on than users of other initial monotherapy or combination. Further research is needed on the factors influencing treatment decisions to understand the differences in trends and patterns of antihypertensive drug use.

Pathophysiology of the Nondipping Blood Pressure Pattern

The nondipping blood pressure (BP) pattern corresponds to a disruption in the circadian BP rhythm with an insufficient decrease in BP levels during nighttime sleep as observed using 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring. Patients with nondipping BP pattern have poorer renal and cardiovascular outcomes, independent of their average 24-hour BP levels. The pathophysiology of nondipping BP is complex and involves numerous mechanisms: perturbations of (1) the circadian rhythm, (2) the autonomic nervous system, and (3) water and sodium regulation. This review provides an outline of the pathways potentially involved in the nondipping BP profile in different conditions. A recent hypothesis is also discussed involving the role of gut microbiota in the dipping/nondipping patterns, via the fecal diet-derived short chain fatty acids.

Comparison of the Effectiveness and Safety of Chlorthalidone and Hydrochlorothiazide in Patients With Hypertension: A Meta-Analysis

The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide in patients with hypertension. The present meta-analysis was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Our search for relevant articles was conducted on PubMed, Scopus, and CINAHIL databases from their inception until March 31, 2023. Keywords used to search for relevant articles included "hydrochlorothiazide," "chlortalidone," "hypertension," "cardiovascular," and "blood pressure." The outcomes assessed in this meta-analysis included changes in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP). Myocardial infarction, stroke, and all-cause mortality were also assessed. For safety analysis, we evaluated the risk of hypokalemia between the two groups. Any disagreement between the two authors in the data extraction process was resolved through discussion. Eight studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria included in the present meta-analysis. Our analysis showed that chlorthalidone was superior to hydrochlorothiazide in controlling both SBP and DBP, with no significant heterogeneity reported. However, there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of the risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, all-cause mortality, and hospitalization due to heart failure. The hypokalemia rate was reported to be higher with chlorthalidone compared to hydrochlorothiazide.

The Use of Thiazide Diuretics for the Treatment of Hypertension in Patients With Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease

The use of thiazide diuretics for the treatment of hypertension in patients with advance chronic kidney disease. Thiazides have been recommended as the first-line for the treatment of hypertension, yet their use has been discouraged in advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD), as they are suggested to be ineffective in advanced CKD. Recent data suggest that thiazide diuretics may be beneficial blood pressure control in addition to natriuresis in existing CKD. This review discusses the commercially available thiazides with a focus on thiazide pharmacology, most common adverse effects, clinical uses of thiazide diuretic, and the evidence for efficacy of thiazide use in advanced CKD.

Mathematical modeling of antihypertensive therapy

Hypertension is a multifactorial disease arising from complex pathophysiological pathways. Individual characteristics of patients result in different responses to various classes of antihypertensive medications. Therefore, evaluating the efficacy of therapy based on in silico predictions is an important task. This study is a continuation of research on the modular agent-based model of the cardiovascular and renal systems (presented in the previously published article). In the current work, we included in the model equations simulating the response to antihypertensive therapies with different mechanisms of action. For this, we used the pharmacodynamic effects of the angiotensin II receptor blocker losartan, the calcium channel blocker amlodipine, the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor enalapril, the direct renin inhibitor aliskiren, the thiazide diuretic hydrochlorothiazide, and the β-blocker bisoprolol. We fitted therapy parameters based on known clinical trials for all considered medications, and then tested the model's ability to show reasonable dynamics (expected by clinical observations) after treatment with individual drugs and their dual combinations in a group of virtual patients with hypertension. The extended model paves the way for the next step in personalized medicine that is adapting the model parameters to a real patient and predicting his response to antihypertensive therapy. The model is implemented in the BioUML software and is available at https://gitlab.sirius-web.org/virtual-patient/antihypertensive-treatment-modeling.

Thiazide diuretics are back in CKD: the case of chlorthalidone

Sodium and volume excess is the fundamental risk factor underlying hypertension in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients, who represent the prototypical population characterized by salt-sensitive hypertension. Low salt diets and diuretics constitute the centrepiece for blood pressure control in CKD. In patients with CKD stage 4, loop diuretics are generally preferred to thiazides. Furthermore, thiazide diuretics have long been held as being of limited efficacy in this population. In this review, by systematically appraising published randomized trials of thiazides in CKD, we show that this class of drugs may be useful even among people with advanced CKD. Thiazides cause a negative sodium balance and reduce body fluids by 1-2 l within the first 2-4 weeks and these effects go along with improvement in hypertension control. The recent CLICK trial has documented the antihypertensive efficacy of chlorthalidone, a long-acting thiazide-like diuretic, in stage 4 CKD patients with poorly controlled hypertension. Overall, chlorthalidone use could be considered in patients with treatment-resistant hypertension when spironolactone cannot be administered or must be withdrawn due to side effects. Hyponatremia, hypokalaemia, volume depletion and acute kidney injury are side effects that demand a vigilant attitude by physicians prescribing these drugs. Well-powered randomized trials assessing hard outcomes are still necessary to more confidently recommend the use of these drugs in advanced CKD.

Single-pill fixed-dose drug combinations to reduce blood pressure: the right pill for the right patient

Arterial hypertension is one of the major causes of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality worldwide. Effective and sustained reduction in blood pressure is essential to reduce individual cardiovascular risk. In daily clinical practice, single-pill fixed-dose combinations of different drug classes are important therapeutic resources that could improve both treatment adherence and cardiovascular risk management by targeting distinct pathophysiological mechanisms. The aim of this practical narrative review is to help physicians choosing the right single-pill fixed-dose combination for the right patient in the daily clinical practice, based on the individual clinical phenotype and cardiovascular risk profile.

Comparative Efficacy of Single Pill Combinations of Azilsartan Medoxomil/Chlorthalidone and Losartan/Hydrochlorothiazide in Patients with Hypertension and Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction

Aim. To study the effects of azilsartan medoxomil/chlorthalidone (AZM/CTD) and losartan/hydrochlorothiazide (LOS/HCT) combinations for NTproBNP levels, 6-minute walk test results, hydration status along with their antihypertensive efficacy according to clinical and 24-hour blood pressure in patients with hypertension and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

Material and methods. An open randomized study included 56 patients with uncontrolled or untreated hypertension and HFpEF. Patients randomized to receive the AZM/CTD 40/12.5 mg/day (group 1; n=28) or LOS/HCT 100/12.5 (group 2; n=28) within 4 weeks. Patients who did not achieve the target BP <140/<90 mm Hg study drug dose was intensified: in the first group, an increase in the dose of AZM/CTD 40/25 mg/day, in the second group, an increase in the dose of LOS/HCT 100/25 mg/day. The observation period was 12 weeks. All patients underwent a clinical examination with an assessment of symptoms and/or signs of HF, laboratory and instrumental studies, including NT-proBNP, ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring, applanation tonometry, a 6-minute walk test (6MWT), echocardiography. In order to assess the status of hydration, bioimpedance vector analysis (BIVA) was performed. HFpEF was diagnosed according to the HFA-PEFF algorithm. The results were considered statistically significant at p<0.05.

Results. After 12 weeks, 92% of patients in the first and 78% of patients in the second group reached the target clinical BP (р<0,05). Average daily BP <130/ <80 mm Hg was reached by 82% of patients treated with the combination of AZM/CTD, compared with 67% treated with the combination of losartan/HCT (p<0.05). After 12 weeks, patients from both groups showed a significant decrease in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, central blood pressure, and a decrease in pulse wave velocity, which was more significantly significant in the first group of patients (p<0.05). During therapy in both groups of patients, a significant decrease in the level of NT-proBNP was observed: in the first group from 300 [199; 669] pg/ml to 156 [157; 448] pg/ml (p=0,003), in the second group from 298 [180; 590] pg/ml to 194 [140; 360] pg/ml (p=0,006), an increase in the distance during the 6MWT from 317 [210; 398] m to 380 [247; 455] m (p=0,006) in in the first group and an improvement in the hydration status according to the BIA data, but more significantly significant in the first group (p<0.001).

Conclusion. In patients with hypertension and HFpEF, therapy with the AZM/CTD combination compared with LOS/HCT is accompanied by a more pronounced antihypertensive effect in terms of ambulatory and peripheral blood pressure, central blood pressure, NTproBNP levels, increased distance in 6MWT and achievement of euvolemia status. 

Thiazide diuretics alone or in combination with a potassium-sparing diuretic on blood pressure-lowering in patients with primary hypertension: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The use of thiazide (T) diuretics for the treatment of hypertension may be associated with adverse metabolic effects, which can be minimized by combining thiazides with potassium-sparing (PS) diuretics. The additional blood pressure (BP)-lowering effect provided by the addition of a PS diuretic is unclear. Due to a large number of drugs in the T diuretics class, and the possible difference between them, there is a need to identify the best available evidence for health decision-making. This systematic review with network meta-analysis aims to compare the antihypertensive efficacy of T diuretics alone or in combination with a PS diuretic in patients with primary hypertension, as well as the safety of such drugs through the measurement of drug-related adverse events.

METHODS

A comprehensive electronic search will be conducted in six electronic bibliographic databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Lilacs), a registration database ( ClinicalTrials.gov ), and Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC [ProQuest]), published from inception to the date of the search. The search will be updated towards the end of the review. A hand search of the reference sections of the included studies and cited studies will also be performed. In case of missing data, authors will be contacted by e-mail or academic social networking sites whenever possible. To be included in the review, studies must be double-blind randomized controlled trials evaluating T diuretics alone or in combination with PS diuretics in patients with primary hypertension. The primary outcome measure will be office BP. Ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM), non-melanoma skin cancer, major adverse cardiovascular events, laboratory parameters, and the number of withdrawals will be included as secondary outcomes. The results will be quantitatively summarized using differences between the mean change from baseline or differences between means for quantitative outcomes and relative risk for dichotomous outcomes. Results will be presented as mean or relative risk with credible intervals through a league table. The treatments will also be ranked using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve method. The risk of bias will be assessed through the RoB 1.0 tool.

DISCUSSION

To the best of our knowledge, this review will be the first to synthesize currently available evidence on the antihypertensive efficacy of different T diuretics alone or in combination with PS diuretics in adults with hypertension. The goals of hypertension treatment are to control high BP and to reduce associated cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, using the most appropriate therapy. Thiazides are widely used for pharmacological treatment due to their demonstrated effectiveness in reducing BP, favorable safety profile, and low cost. The results of this study will provide evidence regarding the best therapeutic strategies with T and PS diuretics, evidencing interventions with better antihypertensive efficacy and safety profile.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This systematic review and network meta-analysis was prospectively registered at the PROSPERO database ( CRD42018118492 ).

Thiazide and thiazide-like diuretics: how to make the right choice?

Most patients with arterial hypertension (AH) require a combination treatment to achieve the goal blood pressure. According to Russian and international clinical guidelines on the treatment of AH patients, various antihypertensive drugs may be combined; however, not all combinations have similar profiles of safety and clinical efficacy. In this respect, special attention is given to combinations of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors and thiazide (hydrochlorothiazide) or thiazide-like (chlortalidone, indapamide) diuretics. Diuretics also differ in their mechanisms of action, presence of pleiotropic effects and organ-protective properties, effects on the prognosis, and in the evidence base. This review discusses the place of thiazide and thiazide-like diuretics in the treatment of patients with AH and provides an evaluation of major differences in pharmacological and clinical effects of drugs of the diuretic class.

Monotherapy treatment with chlorthalidone or amlodipine in the systolic blood pressure intervention trial (SPRINT)

This post hoc analysis of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) examined the performance of chlorthalidone (C) versus amlodipine (A) monotherapies. ANOVA was used to analyze the differences in systolic blood pressure (SBP) response between C and A. Logistic regression was used to examine monotherapy failure (adding a second antihypertensive agent or switching to a different antihypertensive agent) rates. Four hundred ninety-one participants were treated with C monotherapy (n = 210, mean dose = 22 mg/day) or A monotherapy (n = 281, mean dose = 7 mg/day). There was a significant difference in mean SBP reduction between the C and A monotherapies at the third visit (higher reduction with A, adjusted p = .018). Unadjusted analysis showed a higher failure with C in the standard treatment group. Although the average SBP at failure was higher and above the 140 mm Hg cutoff that indicated monotherapy failure with A (142.60) compared with C (138.40), more participants on C failed despite having SBP below the 140 cutoff. This was probably due to decisions made by the investigative teams to change the antihypertensive regimen, because, in their opinion, the clinical picture required it. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, C had higher failure than A only in the standard treatment group (1.64 odds ratio [OR], 95% CI 1.06-2.56, p = .028). A sub-analysis including participants who had never used antihypertensive treatment before randomization had similar results (2.57 OR, 95% CI 1.34-5.02, p = .004). Overall, in SPRINT chlorthalidone was associated with higher monotherapy failure than amlodipine in the standard treatment group because of decisions of the investigative teams.

Race-Specific Comparisons of Antihypertensive and Metabolic Effects of Hydrochlorothiazide and Chlorthalidone

BACKGROUND

Chlorthalidone is recommended over hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) as the preferred thiazide, but the supporting evidence is not robust at routinely used doses, or in whites vs blacks, in whom differences in response to thiazides are well known. We compare the efficacy and safety of HCTZ and chlorthalidone as first-line therapies for white and black hypertensive patients.

METHODS

We compared treatment-related outcomes between the HCTZ arm (12.5 mg for 2-3 weeks; 25 mg for additional 6 weeks) of the Pharmacogenomic Evaluation of Antihypertensive Responses (PEAR, n = 376) and chlorthalidone arm (15 mg for 2 weeks; 25 mg for additional 6 weeks) of PEAR-2 (n = 326) clinical trials, in 17-65-year-old mild-moderate uncomplicated hypertensive whites and blacks.

RESULTS

Mean systolic/diastolic blood pressure (SBP/DBP) reduction with HCTZ vs chlorthalidone: 8 ± 8/4 ± 5 vs 12 ± 9/7 ± 5 mm Hg in whites (P < 10^-6 SBP and DBP); 12 ± 10/7 ± 6 vs 15 ± 10/9 ± 6 in blacks (P = .008 SBP, P = .054 DBP). Treatment with HCTZ vs chlorthalidone in whites resulted in significantly fewer patients achieving target BP (<140/90 mm Hg) (44% vs 57%, P = .018) and clinical response rate (≥10 mm Hg DBP reduction); and significantly higher nonresponse rate (<6 mm Hg DBP reduction); but no significant differences in rates among blacks (eg, target-BP rate: 56% vs 63%, P = .31). HCTZ treatment led to significantly lower rates of hypokalemia and hyperuricemia in whites and blacks, vs chlorthalidone, and significantly lower odds of requiring potassium supplementation among blacks (odds ratio 0.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.07-0.37; P = 3.4e^-7).

CONCLUSION

Compared with HCTZ, chlorthalidone showed greater blood pressure lowering and adverse metabolic effects in whites, but similar blood pressure lowering and greater adverse effects in blacks; suggesting that the recent guideline recommendations to choose chlorthalidone over HCTZ may not be warranted in blacks.

Chlorthalidone versus hydrochlorothiazide: major cardiovascular events, blood pressure, left ventricular mass, and adverse effects

BACKGROUND

There is continuous debate whether chlorthalidone (CTD) and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) differ in reducing major cardiovascular events (MACE). HCTZ is prescribed 10 times more commonly than CTD.

METHOD

A systematic literature search yielded 14 references, including two network meta-analyses of randomized trials with MACE and left ventricular mass as outcomes.

RESULTS

The network meta-analysis of randomized trials showed CTD reducing MACE more than HCTZ, hazard ratio = 0.79 (0.72-0.88), P < 0.0001, and an observational cohort study gave an identical point estimate: hazard ratio = 0.79 (0.68-0.92), P = 0.002. In contrast, two observational cohort studies reported no differences between CTD and HCTZ. However, in the studies showing the superiority of CTD median follow-up was 4.3 and 7.0 years, respectively, whereas in the latter studies showing no difference between the two drugs follow-up was only 0.95 and 0.25 years. As differences in outcomes for MACE in hypertension trials with various interventions only emerge after prolonged (>1 year) therapy, differences in follow-up explain these discrepant results. CTD also more effectively reduced left ventricular mass in observational data and network analysis of trials. These advantages of CTD over HCTZ are consistent with greater reductions in night-time blood pressure, greater reductions in oxidative stress and platelet aggregation, and greater improvements in endothelial function.

CONCLUSION

Over the short-term there were no differences in the net clinical benefit between HCTZ and CTD. However, long-term available data document CTD to be significantly more effective in reducing MACE than HCTZ. The Veterans Administration's trial in progress may provide definitive answer to these questions.

Network meta-analysis of efficacy and safety of chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide in hypertensive patients

Hypertension is a chronic condition leading to increased stress on the heart and blood vessels, a critical risk factor for clinically significant events such as myocardial infarction heart failure, stroke and death. Chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide are first-line antihypertensive agents for most patients with hypertension. The aim of our meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of both therapies in patients with hypertension. Searches of electronic databases PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, PsycInfo and eLIBRARY.ru, were performed. We used network meta-analysis to combine direct and indirect evidence. Forest plots and closed loops depict estimated results from studies included in our meta-analysis. Of 1289 identified sources, only 37 were included in our meta-analysis. Our analysis has demonstrated a slight superiority for chlorthalidone regarding SBP and not statistically significant differences regarding DBP. Simultaneously, hydrochlorothiazide seems to be a safer choice of therapy, as evidenced by the levels of serum potassium. The two diuretics can be used interchangeably.

Analyzing Trio-Anthropometric Predictors of Hypertension: Determining the Susceptibility of Blood Pressure to Sexual Dimorphism in Body Stature

Background

Several studies had suggested that complex body stature could be a risk factor of hypertension.

Objectives

We aim to correlate body mass index (BMI), waist-hip ratio (WHR), and waist-height ratio (WHtR) of rural dwellers in Afikpo community, Ebonyi State, Nigeria, with blood pressure parameters. Furthermore, we aim to ascertain how each of the anthropometric variables affects blood pressure in men and women, respectively.

Materials and Methods

A sample of 400 (200 males and 200 females) adults aged 18–89 years were selected for the correlation cross-sectional study. Data for weight, height, waist, and hip circumferences were collected by means of anthropometric measurement protocol with the aid of a calibrated flexible tape and health scale and mercury sphygmomanometer for measurement of blood pressure. A participant was classified as being hypertensive if systolic blood pressure (SBP) was >140 mmHg and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) >90 mmHg. Pulse pressure was recorded as the numeric difference of SBP and DBP.

Results

The result revealed that male BMI and WHR were higher than those of females while female WHtR was higher than that of males (P < 0.01). The prevalence of hypertension failed to correlate with sex among participants in the study (χ² = 0.567; P < 0.05). Variation in SBP and DBP of both sexes was dependent on BMI, WHtR, and waist and hip circumference, but not on WHR. The SBP of both sexes and female pulse pressure did correlate with age (P < 0.001). Waist circumference, BMI, and WHtR correctly predicted the variations in SBP, DBP, and pulse pressure.

Conclusion

The strength of association of BMI, WHtR, and waist girth with SBP and DBP of both sexes was robust and similar, but inconsistent with WHR. Thus, a simple estimation of the trio-anthropometric predictors could serve as a means for routine check or preliminary diagnosis of a patient with hypertension.

Effectiveness of Perindopril/Indapamide Single-Pill Combination in Uncontrolled Patients with Hypertension: A Pooled Analysis of the FORTISSIMO, FORSAGE, ACES and PICASSO Observational Studies

INTRODUCTION

Our objective was to determine the effectiveness of a perindopril/indapamide (Per/Ind) single-pill combination (SPC) in a broad range of patient profiles, including subgroups with varying hypertension severity, age and cardiovascular risk profiles.

METHODS

Patient data from four large prospective observational studies (FORTISSIMO, FORSAGE, PICASSO, ACES) were pooled. In each study, patients already treated for hypertension were switched to Per/Ind 10/2.5 mg SPC and systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP/DBP) measured at the 1-month (M1) and 3-month (M3) visits. Study endpoints included change in SBP and DBP from baseline to M1 and M3 and the percentage of patients achieving BP control (SBP/DBP < 140/90 mmHg for patients without diabetes or < 140/85 mmHg for patients with diabetes).

RESULTS

A total of 16,763 patients were enrolled and received Per/Ind (94% received the full dose of 10/2.5). Mean patient age was 61.4 years (36% were ≥ 65 years old), 57% were women, and 16% had isolated systolic hypertension (ISH). Mean baseline office SBP/DBP was 162/94 mmHg, and mean duration of hypertension was 11 years. Cardiovascular risk factors and comorbid conditions were common in this population. Significant mean reductions in SBP (- 23 mmHg) and DBP (- 11 mmHg) were observed at M1 compared with baseline (P < 0.001), which were maintained at M3 (- 30 mmHg and - 14 mmHg, respectively). At M3, BP control was achieved by 70% of patients (78% for ISH). In patients with SBP ≥ 180 mmHg at baseline (grade III hypertension), the mean SBP/DBP decrease was - 51/- 20 mmHg and 53% achieved BP control. Per/Ind was well tolerated with an overall rate of adverse events of 1.3%, most frequently cough and dizziness at rates of 0.3% and 0.2%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In this hypertensive population including difficult-to-control patient subgroups, switching to Per/Ind 10/2.5 mg SPC led to rapid and important reductions in BP. BP control was achieved in 70% of patients overall in an everyday practice context.

Thiazide and Thiazide-like Diuretics in the Treatment of Arterial Hypertension: are there Any Differences?

In the current clinical guidelines for arterial hypertension, diuretics are considered one of the first line antihypertensive drugs, which are equivalent in their effectiveness to other main pharmacological classes used in the treatment of this disease. To date, much attention is paid to both the antihypertensive potential of diuretics and their safety profile and ability to influence prognosis. In this regard, a rational approach to the consideration of the clinical and pharmacological properties of these drugs is the isolation of thiazide and thiazide-like drugs among them, which is reflected in international clinical guidelines. Among thiazide-like diuretics, indapamide occupies a special place, favorably distinguished by its antihypertensive properties, metabolic neutrality, as well as the ability to improve the prognosis and favorably influence hard endpoints in the form of mortality rates in patients with hypertension. A unique feature of indapamide is also the presence, in addition to the direct diuretic effect, pleiotropic properties, including, in particular, some antagonism towards calcium and beneficial effects on arteries. This drug has been studied in a large number of studies, including such "difficult" categories of patients as the elderly and patients with diabetes mellitus, where indapamide has proven its powerful target-organ protective potential and metabolic neutrality, distinguishing it among both thiazide-like and thiazide diuretics. Indapamide provides a comprehensive target-organ protection at the level of the heart, blood vessels, kidneys and brain. Based on this, it can be expected that the widespread use of this drug as part of a first-line combination antihypertensive therapy will not only achieve target blood pressure levet in most patients with hypertension, but also provide an improved prognosis and improve the quality and duration of their life.

Interamerican Society of Cardiology (IASC) position statement: Chlorthalidone vs. thiazide-type diuretics

The Interamerican Society of Cardiology (IASC) Position Statement for hypertension management in Latin America is a practical and useful review of five different hypertension guidelines. Though, thiazide diuretics have been recommended as firstline option, the position statement needs to highlight differences within the thiazide class. Chlorthalidone is structurally and pharmacokinetically distinct from thiazide-type iuretics like hydrochlorothiazide with a longer half-life and 24-h anti-hypertensive effect. It has been shown to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in several landmark studies evaluating anti-hypertensives.

Effects of Intensive Versus Standard Office-Based Hypertension Treatment Strategy on White-Coat Effect and Masked Uncontrolled Hypertension: From the SPRINT ABPM Ancillary Study

Guidelines recommend using out-of-office blood pressure (BP) measurements to confirm the diagnoses of hypertension and in the titration of antihypertensive medication. The prevalence of out-of-office BP phenotypes for an office systolic/diastolic BP goal <140/90 mm Hg has been reported. However, the prevalence of these phenotypes when targeting an office systolic/diastolic BP goal <120/80 is unknown. The SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) Ambulatory BP Ancillary study evaluated out-of-office BP using ambulatory BP monitoring in 897 participants 27 months after randomization to intensive versus standard BP targets (office systolic BP <120 versus <140 mm Hg). We used office and daytime BP to assess the proportion of participants with white-coat effect (standard target: office BP ≥140/90 mm Hg and daytime BP <135/85 mm Hg versus intensive target: office BP ≥120/80 mm Hg and daytime BP <120/80 mm Hg) and masked uncontrolled hypertension (standard target: office BP <140/90 mm Hg and daytime BP ≥135/85 mm Hg versus intensive target: office BP <120/80 mm Hg and daytime BP ≥120/80 mm Hg) in each treatment arm. The prevalence of white-coat effect and masked uncontrolled hypertension was 9% and 34%, in both treatment groups. Among participants with uncontrolled office BP, white-coat effect was present in 20% and 23% in the intensive and standard groups, respectively. Among participants with controlled office BP, masked uncontrolled hypertension was present in 62% and 56% in the intensive and standard groups, respectively. In conclusion, a more intensive BP target resulted in a similar proportion of patients with white-coat effect and masked uncontrolled hypertension compared with a standard target.

Combining angiotensin receptor blockers with chlorthalidone or hydrochlorothiazide - which is the better alternative? A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hypertension is a disease with significant clinical and socio-economic consequences. The reduction in cardiovascular mortality and morbidity in patients treated for hypertension is directly related to the magnitude of blood pressure reduction. Diuretics have proven useful for the prevention of cardiovascular complications in addition to a long history of safety and efficacy. The main aim for this meta-analysis is to compare the efficacy of the combination of angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) and chlorthalidone (CTLD) to the combination of ARB and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in patients with hypertension.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted through electronic databases PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, PsyInfo, Cochrane, eLIBRARY.ru, http://ClinicalTrials.gov and http://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu in July 2020 to identify studies that investigate the effect of the combination of angiotensin receptor blocker with chlorthalidone or hydrochlorothiazide on the systolic and diastolic blood pressure in patients with hypertension. Changes in systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP) expressed as a weighted mean difference (WMD) were our primary outcomes. The random-effects method was chosen as the primary analysis and results were presented with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Sensitivity analysis was performed and bias was assessed.

RESULTS

Our search returned 2745 titles. Of them, 51 full-text articles remained to be subjected to assessment. Comparisons of ARB/HCTZ versus ARB showed changes in BP of -6.89 (-8.09, -5.69) mmHg for systolic BP and - 3.67 (-4.15, -3.19) mmHg for diastolic BP. For the ARB/CTLD versus ARB/HCTZ comparison changes were - 6.30 (-7.30, -5.29) mmHg for systolic BP and - 3.57 (-4.17, 2.98) mmHg for diastolic BP.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis suggests a small but significant favor for CTLD in blood pressure control when compared to HCTZ. We believe it should be considered as a valuable alternative for HCTZ and an option for fixed dose combinations with an ARB although further research is required.

Redefining diuretics use in hypertension: why select a thiazide-like diuretic?

Diuretics are listed in hypertension guidelines as one of three equally weighted first-line treatment options. In order to differentiate between antihypertensives, a lot of discussion has been directed at side effect profiles and as a result, has created a perhaps disproportionate fear of the metabolic effects that can be associated with diuretics. Data, however, show that the risk of a clinically meaningful change in laboratory parameters is very low, whereas the benefits of volume control and natriuresis are high and the reductions in morbidity and mortality are clinically significant. Moreover, as clinically significant differences in safety and efficacy profiles exist among diuretics, several international guidelines have started making a distinction between thiazides (hydrochlorothiazide) and thiazide-like (chlorthalidone, indapamide) diuretics; and some of them now recommend longer acting thiazide-like diuretics. In time, pending more data, chlorthalidone and indapamide may need to be subdivided further into separate classifications.

Efficacy of chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide in combination with amiloride in multiple doses on blood pressure in patients with primary hypertension: a protocol for a factorial randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Thiazide diuretics have demonstrated favorable blood pressure lowering efficacy, but the equivalent doses of their more common agents, chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide, are still unclear. Further, concerns exist regarding adverse metabolic effects, which may be attenuated with the concomitant administration of a potassium-sparing diuretic, such as amiloride. This trial aims to investigate the efficacy of chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide, in combination with amiloride at different doses, for initial management of patients with primary hypertension.

METHODS/DESIGN

This is a factorial (2 × 2) randomized double-blinded clinical trial comparing the association of a thiazide diuretic (chlorthalidone 25 mg/day or hydrochlorothiazide 50 mg/day) with a potassium-sparing diuretic (amiloride 10 mg/day or amiloride 20 mg/day) in patients with primary hypertension. The primary outcome will be the mean change from baseline in 24-h systolic and diastolic blood pressure measured by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. The secondary outcomes will be the mean change from baseline in daytime and nighttime systolic and diastolic blood pressure measured by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, mean change from baseline in systolic and diastolic blood pressure measured by office blood pressure, incidence of adverse events, variation of laboratory parameters, and proportion of patients who achieved blood pressure control. The follow-up will last 12 weeks. For a P alpha of 0.05, power of 80%, standard deviation of 9 mmHg, and absolute difference of 6 mmHg on systolic blood pressure on 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, it will be necessary to study a total of 76 patients. The sample size will be increased by 10% to compensate for losses, resulting in 84 patients being randomized.

DISCUSSION

Diuretics are pivotal drugs for the treatment of hypertension. Chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide, in combination with amiloride in multiple doses, will be tested in terms of blood pressure lowering efficacy and safety. Since the intensity of blood pressure reduction is the major determinant of reduction in cardiovascular risk in hypertensive patients, this study will help to determine which combination of diuretics represents the most appropriate treatment for this population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03928145. Registered on 25 April 2019. Last update on 29 April 2019.

Österreichischer Blutdruckkonsens 2019

Erhöhter Blutdruck bleibt eine Hauptursache von kardiovaskulären Erkrankungen, Behinderung und frühzeitiger Sterblichkeit in Österreich, wobei die Raten an Diagnose, Behandlung und Kontrolle auch in rezenten Studien suboptimal sind. Das Management von Bluthochdruck ist eine häufige Herausforderung für Ärztinnen und Ärzte vieler Fachrichtungen. In einem Versuch, diagnostische und therapeutische Strategien zu standardisieren und letztendlich die Rate an gut kontrollierten Hypertoniker/innen zu erhöhen und dadurch kardiovaskuläre Erkrankungen zu verhindern, haben 13 österreichische medizinische Fachgesellschaften die vorhandene Evidenz zur Prävention, Diagnose, Abklärung, Therapie und Konsequenzen erhöhten Blutdrucks gesichtet. Das hier vorgestellte Ergebnis ist der erste Österreichische Blutdruckkonsens. Die Autoren und die beteiligten Fachgesellschaften sind davon überzeugt, daß es einer gemeinsamen nationalen Anstrengung bedarf, die Blutdruck-assoziierte Morbidität und Mortalität in unserem Land zu verringern.

Comparative efficacy and safety of chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide-meta-analysis

Hypertension is a complex syndrome of multiple hemodynamic, neuroendocrine, and metabolic abnormalities. The goals of treatment in hypertension are to optimally control high blood pressure and to reduce associated cardiovascular morbidity and mortality using the most suitable therapy available. Hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) and chlorthalidone (CTLD) are with proven hypertensive effects. The topic of our meta-analysis is to compare the efficacy of HCTZ and CTLD therapy in patient with hypertension. A search of electronic databases PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, PsyInfo, eLIBRARY.ru was performed. We chose the random-effects method for the analysis and depicted the results as forest plots. Sensitivity analyses were performed in order to evaluate the degree of significance of each study. Of the 1289 identified sources, only nine trials directly compared HCTZ and CTLD and were included in the meta-analysis. Changes in SBP lead to WMD (95% CI) equal to -3.26 mmHg showing a slight but statistically significant prevalence of CTLD. Results from analyzed studies referring to DBP lead to WMD (95% CI) equal to -2.41 mmHg, which is also statistically significant. During our analysis, we found that there were not enough studies presenting enough data on the effect of CTLD and HCTZ on levels of serum potassium and serum sodium. Our meta-analysis has demonstrated a slight superiority for CTLD regarding blood pressure control. At the same time, the two medications do not show significant differences in their safety profile.

Hypertension

Recent guidelines on diagnosis and management of high blood pressure (BP) include substantial changes and several new concepts compared with previous guidelines. These are reviewed and their clinical implications are discussed in this article. The goal is to provide a practical reference to assist clinicians with up-to-date management of patients with high BP. Important issues include new diagnostic thresholds, out-of-office BP monitoring, intensified treatment goals, and a different approach to resistant hypertension. Finally, differences among guidelines, the persistent controversies that have led to them, and their implications for clinical practice are discussed.

Ambulatory Blood Pressure Reduction With SGLT-2 Inhibitors: Dose-Response Meta-analysis and Comparative Evaluation With Low-Dose Hydrochlorothiazide

OBJECTIVE

Sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT)-2 inhibitors lower clinic and ambulatory blood pressure (BP), possibly through their natriuretic action. However, it remains unclear whether this BP-lowering effect is dose dependent and different from that of low-dose hydrochlorothiazide. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to quantify the association of the dose with response of ambulatory BP to SGLT-2 inhibition and to provide comparative evaluation with low-dose hydrochlorothiazide.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane database of clinical trials from inception of each database through 22 August 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting treatment effects of SGLT-2 inhibitors on ambulatory BP. We extracted data on the mean difference between the active treatment and placebo groups in change from baseline (CFB) of ambulatory systolic and diastolic BP.

RESULTS

We identified seven RCTs (involving 2,381 participants) comparing SGLT-2 inhibitors with placebo. Of these, two RCTs included low-dose hydrochlorothiazide as active comparator. CFB in 24-h systolic BP between SGLT-2 inhibitor and placebo groups was -3.62 mmHg (95% CI -4.29, -2.94) and in diastolic BP was -1.70 mmHg (95% CI -2.13, -1.26). BP lowering with SGLT-2 inhibition was more potent during daytime than during nighttime. The CFB in ambulatory BP was comparable between low-dose and high-dose subgroups and was similar to that for low-dose hydrochlorothiazide. Eligible RCTs did not evaluate cardiovascular outcomes/mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis shows that SGLT-2 inhibitors provoke an average reduction of systolic/diastolic BP 3.62/1.70 mmHg in 24-h ambulatory BP. This BP-lowering effect remains unmodified regardless of the dose of SGLT-2 inhibitor and is comparable with BP-lowering efficacy of low-dose hydrochlorothiazide.

Clinical Significance and Therapeutic Implication of Nocturnal Hypertension: Relationship between Nighttime Blood Pressure and Quality of Sleep

Recent global hypertension guidelines recommend an early, strict and 24-hour blood pressure (BP) control for the prevention of target organ damage and cardiovascular events. Out-of-office BP measurement such as ambulatory BP monitoring and home BP monitoring is now widely utilized to rule out white-coat hypertension, to detect masked hypertension, to evaluate the effects of antihypertensive medication, to analyze diurnal BP variation, and to increase drug adherence. Nocturnal hypertension has been neglected in the management of hypertension despite of its clinical significance. Nighttime BP and non-dipping patterns of BP are stronger risk predictors for the future cardiovascular mortality and morbidity than clinic or daytime BP. In addition to ambulatory or home daytime BP and 24-hour mean BP, nocturnal BP should be a new therapeutic target for the optimal treatment of hypertension to improve prognosis in hypertensive patients. This review will provide an overview of epidemiology, characteristics, and pathophysiology of nocturnal hypertension and clinical significance, therapeutic implication and future perspectives of nocturnal hypertension will be discussed.

Hydrochlorothiazide vs chlorthalidone, indapamide, and potassium-sparing/hydrochlorothiazide diuretics for reducing left ventricular hypertrophy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Left ventricular hypertrophy develops in 36%-41% of hypertensive patients and independently predicts cardiovascular events and total mortality. Moreover, drug-induced reduction in left ventricular mass (LVM) correlates with improved prognosis. The optimal thiazide-type diuretic for reducing LVM is unknown. Evidence regarding potency, cardiovascular events, sodium, and potassium suggested the hypothesis that "CHIP" diuretics (CHlorthalidone, Indapamide, and Potassium-sparing diuretic/hydrochlorothiazide [PSD/HCTZ]) would reduce LVM more than HCTZ. Systematic searches of five databases were conducted. Among the 38 randomized trials, a 1% reduction in systolic blood pressure (SBP) predicted a 1% reduction in LVM, P = 0.00001. CHIP-HCTZ differences in reducing LVM differed across trials (ie, heterogeneity), making interpretation uncertain. However, among the 28 double-blind trials, heterogeneity was undetectable, and HCTZ reduced LVM (percent reduction [95% CI]) by -7.3 (-10.4, -4.2), P < 0.0001. CHIP diuretics surpassed HCTZ in reducing LVM: chlorthalidone -8.2 (-14.7, -1.6), P = 0.015; indapamide -7.5 (-12.7, -2.3), P = 0.005; and all CHIP diuretics combined -7.7 (-12.2, -3.1), P < 0.001. The comparison of PSD/HCTZ with HCTZ had low statistical power but favored PSD/HCTZ: -6.0 (-14.1, +2.1), P = 0.149. Thus, compared to HCTZ, CHIP diuretics had twice the effect on LVM. CHIP diuretics did not surpass HCTZ in reducing systolic or diastolic blood pressure: -0.3 (-5.0, +4.3) and -1.6 (-5.6, +2.4), respectively. The strength of evidence that CHIP diuretics surpass HCTZ for reducing LVM was high (GRADE criteria). In conclusion, these novel results have demonstrated that CHIP diuretics reduce LVM 2-fold more than HCTZ among hypertensive patients. Although generally related to LVM, blood pressure fails to explain the superiority of CHIP diuretics for reducing LVM.

Efficacy and Safety of Valsartan or Chlorthalidone vs. Combined Valsartan and Chlorthalidone in Patients With Mild to Moderate Hypertension: The VACLOR Study

Objective:

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of valsartan (V) or chlorthalidone (C) monotherapy in comparison with a fixed combination of valsartan and chlorthalidone (V + C).

Methods:

This 12-week multicenter randomized three-arm open-label study randomly allocated 72 patients to V or C as monotherapy or a combination of V + C. The aim was to measure changes in office systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and in 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) from baseline to week 12, in addition to medication tolerability.

Results:

The proportion of patients achieving target BP in office at week 12 was not statistically different for the three groups. However, comparisons of daytime and nighttime 24-hour ABPM values from baseline to week 12 revealed significant differences in nighttime mean SBP for the three groups, due to a significantly greater reduction in the values in patients assigned to the V + C group (−14.7 vs. −8.7 vs. −10.7, P = .042, V+C; V; C, respectively). Although patients assigned to the V + C group also had greater nighttime reduction in mean DBP values compared with those in the other groups, this difference was not statistically significant. The incidence of adverse events did not differ significantly.

Conclusion:

In patients with hypertension treated with V, C, and both medications combined, the fixed combination of V + C provided a significantly greater reduction of late night to early morning BP values when interventions were assessed with 24-hour ABPM.

Trial registration:

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT.01850160, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01850160

Chlorthalidone, not hydrochlorothiazide, is the right diuretic for comparison

We have read the study design "Comparison of effects between calcium channel blocker and diuretics in combination with angiotensin II receptor blocker on 24-h central blood pressure and vascular hemodynamic parameters in hypertensive patients: study design for a multicenter, double-blinded, active controlled, phase 4, randomized trial" by Oh GC, et al. with interest. The authors aim to compare the efficacy of amlodipine or hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) with an ARB. However, we wish to highlight that chlorthalidone (CTD) is the evidence-based and recommended anti-hypertensive diuretic, and should replace HCTZ in the trial to effectively compare efficacy against the CCB amlodipine.

Masked hypertension: understanding its complexity

Masked hypertension, which is present when in-office normotension translates to out-of-office hypertension, is present in a surprisingly high percentage of untreated persons and an even higher percentage of patients after beginning antihypertensive medication. Not only are persons with prehypertension more likely to have masked hypertension than those with optimal blood pressure (BP), but also they frequently develop target organ damage prior to transitioning to sustained hypertension. Furthermore, the frequency of masked hypertension is high in individuals of African inheritance and in the presence of increased cardiovascular risk factors and disease states, such as diabetes and chronic renal failure. Nocturnal hypertension and non-dipping may be early markers of masked hypertension. Twenty-four hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM), which can detect nighttime and 24 h elevated BP, remains the gold standard for diagnosing masked hypertension. Almost one-third of treated patients with masked hypertension remain as 'masked uncontrolled hypertension', and it becomes important, therefore, to use ABPM (and supplemental home BP monitoring) for the effective diagnosis and control of hypertension.

Comparison of thiazide-like diuretics versus thiazide-type diuretics: a meta-analysis

Thiazide diuretics are widely used for the management of hypertension. In recent years, it has been actively debated that there is interchangeability of thiazide‐type diuretics hydrochlorothiazide and thiazide‐like diuretics including indapamide and chlorthalidone for the treatment of hypertension. With the purpose of seeking out the best thiazide diuretic for clinicians, we summarized the existing evidence on the two types of drugs and conducted a meta‐analysis on their efficacy in lowering blood pressure and effects on blood electrolyte, glucose and total cholesterol. Twelve trials were identified: five based on the comparison of indapamide versus hydrochlorothiazide and seven based on the chlorthalidone versus hydrochlorothiazide. In the meta‐analysis of blood pressure reduction, thiazide‐like diuretics seemed to further reduce systolic BP ([95% CI]; −5.59 [−5.69, −5.49]; P < 0.001) and diastolic BP ([95% CI]; −1.98 [−3.29, −0.66]; P = 0.003). Meanwhile, in the analysis of side effects, the incidence of hypokalemia ([95% CI]; 1.58 [0.80, 3.12]; P = 0.19), hyponatremia ([95% CI]; −0.14 [−0.57, 0.30], P = 0.54), change of blood glucose ([95% CI];0.13 [−0.16, 0.41], P = 0.39) and total cholesterol ([95% CI]; 0.13 [−0.16, 0.41], P = 0.39) showed that there is no statistical significant differences between the two groups of drugs. In conclusion, using thiazide‐like diuretics is superior to thiazide‐type diuretics in reducing blood pressure without increasing the incidence of hypokalemia, hyponatraemia and any change of blood glucose and serum total cholesterol.

Hypertension Canada's 2017 Guidelines for Diagnosis, Risk Assessment, Prevention, and Treatment of Hypertension in Adults

Hypertension Canada provides annually updated, evidence-based guidelines for the diagnosis, assessment, prevention, and treatment of hypertension. This year, we introduce 10 new guidelines. Three previous guidelines have been revised and 5 have been removed. Previous age and frailty distinctions have been removed as considerations for when to initiate antihypertensive therapy. In the presence of macrovascular target organ damage, or in those with independent cardiovascular risk factors, antihypertensive therapy should be considered for all individuals with elevated average systolic nonautomated office blood pressure (non-AOBP) readings ≥ 140 mm Hg. For individuals with diastolic hypertension (with or without systolic hypertension), fixed-dose single-pill combinations are now recommended as an initial treatment option. Preference is given to pills containing an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker in combination with either a calcium channel blocker or diuretic. Whenever a diuretic is selected as monotherapy, longer-acting agents are preferred. In patients with established ischemic heart disease, caution should be exercised in lowering diastolic non-AOBP to ≤ 60 mm Hg, especially in the presence of left ventricular hypertrophy. After a hemorrhagic stroke, in the first 24 hours, systolic non-AOBP lowering to < 140 mm Hg is not recommended. Finally, guidance is now provided for screening, initial diagnosis, assessment, and treatment of renovascular hypertension arising from fibromuscular dysplasia. The specific evidence and rationale underlying each of these guidelines are discussed.

Trends in Antihypertensive Medication Use Among US Patients With Resistant Hypertension, 2008 to 2014

Little is known of US trends in antihypertensive drug use for patients with treatment-resistant hypertension (TRH). We analyzed antihypertensive use among patients with TRH (treated with ≥4 antihypertensive drugs concurrently) from July 2008 through December 2014 using Marketscan administrative data. We included adults aged 18 to 65 years, with ≥6 months of continuous enrollment, a hypertension diagnosis, and ≥1 episode of overlapping use of ≥4 antihypertensive drugs; patients with heart failure were excluded. We identified 411 652 unique TRH episodes from 261 652 patients with a mean age of 55.9 years. From 2008 to 2014, we observed an increased prevalence, among TRH episodes, of β-blockers (+6.8% [79% to 85.8%]) and dihydropyridine calcium antagonists (+8.1% [69.1% to 77.2%]), and a decreased prevalence of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (-12.5% [60.4% to 47.9%]) and nondihydropyridine calcium antagonists (-5.0% [15% to 10%]). The prevalence of most other classes changed by <5% from 2008 to 2014. Thiazide diuretic use was largely unchanged from 2008 to 2014, with hydrochlorothiazide being by far the most prevalent thiazide diuretic; chlorthalidone use increased only modestly (+2.6% [3.8% to 6.4%]). Aldosterone antagonist use increased only modestly (+2.9% [7.3% to 10.2%]). Use of optimal regimens increased steadily (+13.8% [50.8% to 64.6%]) during the study period, whereas combined angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker use declined (-11.4% [17.7% to 6.3%]). Our results highlight the persistent infrequent use of recommended therapies in TRH, including spironolactone and chlorthalidone, and suggest a need for better efforts to increase the use of such approaches in light of recent evidence demonstrating their efficacy.