Equivalence of indapamide SR and enalapril on microalbuminuria reduction in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes

First-line diuretics versus other classes of antihypertensive drugs for hypertension

BACKGROUND

Different first-line drug classes for patients with hypertension are often assumed to have similar effectiveness with respect to reducing mortality and morbidity outcomes, and lowering blood pressure. First-line low-dose thiazide diuretics have been previously shown to have the best mortality and morbidity evidence when compared with placebo or no treatment. Head-to-head comparisons of thiazides with other blood pressure-lowering drug classes would demonstrate whether there are important differences.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of first-line diuretic drugs with other individual first-line classes of antihypertensive drugs on mortality, morbidity, and withdrawals due to adverse effects in patients with hypertension. Secondary objectives included assessments of the need for added drugs, drug switching, and blood pressure-lowering.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Hypertension's Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Hypertension Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and trials registers to March 2021. We also checked references and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. A top-up search of the Specialized Register was carried out in June 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized active comparator trials of at least one year's duration were included. Trials had a clearly defined intervention arm of a first-line diuretic (thiazide, thiazide-like, or loop diuretic) compared to another first-line drug class: beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, alpha adrenergic blockers, angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, direct renin inhibitors, or other antihypertensive drug classes. Studies had to include clearly defined mortality and morbidity outcomes (serious adverse events, total cardiovascular events, stroke, coronary heart disease (CHD), congestive heart failure, and withdrawals due to adverse effects).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 20 trials with 26 comparator arms randomizing over 90,000 participants. The findings are relevant to first-line use of drug classes in older male and female hypertensive patients (aged 50 to 75) with multiple co-morbidities, including type 2 diabetes. First-line thiazide and thiazide-like diuretics were compared with beta-blockers (six trials), calcium channel blockers (eight trials), ACE inhibitors (five trials), and alpha-adrenergic blockers (three trials); other comparators included angiotensin II receptor blockers, aliskiren (a direct renin inhibitor), and clonidine (a centrally acting drug). Only three studies reported data for total serious adverse events: two studies compared diuretics with calcium channel blockers and one with a direct renin inhibitor. Compared to first-line beta-blockers, first-line thiazides probably result in little to no difference in total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.10; 5 trials, 18,241 participants; moderate-certainty), probably reduce total cardiovascular events (5.4% versus 4.8%; RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.00; 4 trials, 18,135 participants; absolute risk reduction (ARR) 0.6%, moderate-certainty), may result in little to no difference in stroke (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.09; 4 trials, 18,135 participants; low-certainty), CHD (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.07; 4 trials, 18,135 participants; low-certainty), or heart failure (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.19; 1 trial, 6569 participants; low-certainty), and probably reduce withdrawals due to adverse effects (10.1% versus 7.9%; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.85; 5 trials, 18,501 participants; ARR 2.2%; moderate-certainty). Compared to first-line calcium channel blockers, first-line thiazides probably result in little to no difference in total mortality (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.08; 7 trials, 35,417 participants; moderate-certainty), may result in little to no difference in serious adverse events (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.24; 2 trials, 7204 participants; low-certainty), probably reduce total cardiovascular events (14.3% versus 13.3%; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.89 to 0.98; 6 trials, 35,217 participants; ARR 1.0%; moderate-certainty), probably result in little to no difference in stroke (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.18; 6 trials, 35,217 participants; moderate-certainty) or CHD (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.08; 6 trials, 35,217 participants; moderate-certainty), probably reduce heart failure (4.4% versus 3.2%; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.82; 6 trials, 35,217 participants; ARR 1.2%; moderate-certainty), and may reduce withdrawals due to adverse effects (7.6% versus 6.2%; RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.88; 7 trials, 33,908 participants; ARR 1.4%; low-certainty). Compared to first-line ACE inhibitors, first-line thiazides probably result in little to no difference in total mortality (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.07; 3 trials, 30,961 participants; moderate-certainty), may result in little to no difference in total cardiovascular events (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.02; 3 trials, 30,900 participants; low-certainty), probably reduce stroke slightly (4.7% versus 4.1%; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.99; 3 trials, 30,900 participants; ARR 0.6%; moderate-certainty), probably result in little to no difference in CHD (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.12; 3 trials, 30,900 participants; moderate-certainty) or heart failure (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.04; 2 trials, 30,392 participants; moderate-certainty), and probably reduce withdrawals due to adverse effects (3.9% versus 2.9%; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.84; 3 trials, 25,254 participants; ARR 1.0%; moderate-certainty). Compared to first-line alpha-blockers, first-line thiazides probably result in little to no difference in total mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.09; 1 trial, 24,316 participants; moderate-certainty), probably reduce total cardiovascular events (12.1% versus 9.0%; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.80; 2 trials, 24,396 participants; ARR 3.1%; moderate-certainty) and stroke (2.7% versus 2.3%; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.01; 2 trials, 24,396 participants; ARR 0.4%; moderate-certainty), may result in little to no difference in CHD (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.11; 2 trials, 24,396 participants; low-certainty), probably reduce heart failure (5.4% versus 2.8%; RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.58; 1 trial, 24,316 participants; ARR 2.6%; moderate-certainty), and may reduce withdrawals due to adverse effects (1.3% versus 0.9%; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.89; 3 trials, 24,772 participants; ARR 0.4%; low-certainty). For the other drug classes, data were insufficient. No antihypertensive drug class demonstrated any clinically important advantages over first-line thiazides.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When used as first-line agents for the treatment of hypertension, thiazides and thiazide-like drugs likely do not change total mortality and likely decrease some morbidity outcomes such as cardiovascular events and withdrawals due to adverse effects, when compared to beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, ACE inhibitors, and alpha-blockers.

Therapeutic roles of thiazides and loop diuretics in blood pressure control and renal protection against chronic kidney disease

Fluid overload secondary to loss of functional nephron mass can elevate blood pressure, which is characteristic of hypertension shown in chronic kidney disease (CKD). Therefore, it is logical to use diuretics at appropriate dose to lower blood pressure in patients with CKD and hypertension. Despite the theoretical background on the use of diuretics in CKD, there have been no definitive data on the effectiveness or safety of diuretics as first-line therapy for the management of hypertension in patients with CKD. Results from some clinical trials have demonstrated that diuretics would not lower blood pressure. They could even worsen electrolyte imbalance and kidney function when they are administered in patients with CKD. Major clinical practice guidelines on management of blood pressure or CKD have stated that evidence for benefits of thiazide diuretics is not conclusive yet in patients with advanced CKD, although loop diuretics are often effective for volume control at lower glomerular filtration rate. Recently, evidence for diuretics as effective blood pressure lowering agents in patients with advanced CKD is increasing. Renoprotective effect of thiazide or loop diuretics might represent a consequence of their influence on blood pressure or their ability to potentiate the effect of renin-angiotensin system blockade by making intraglomerular pressure more renin-angiotensin system-dependent, although their direct benefit on renal function remains controversial. This review summarizes recent data on the possible role of diuretics in lowering blood pressure, slowing the progression of kidney disease, and reducing cardiovascular risk in CKD patients.

Incidence of severe hypokalaemia in patients taking indapamide

BACKGROUND

Diuretics are commonly used for the treatment of hypertension. Yet, hypokalaemia is a well-recognised adverse effect. We conducted a retrospective study to evaluate the incidence of severe hypokalaemia, defined as requiring hospitalisation, among patients on indapamide.

METHODS

We searched a territory-wide database, Clinical Data Analysis and Reporting System of the Hong Kong Hospital Authority. We traced all hypertensive patients who had been prescribed indapamide in 2007-2016 and all admissions due to hypokalaemia in 2007-2018. Factors associated with hospitalisation were studied using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

During the period studied, 62,881 patients were started on indapamide and 509 (0.8%) were hospitalised for hypokalaemia. 53% of these hospitalisations occurred within the first year of treatment, and half of those in the first year occurred during the first 16 weeks. Female sex (adjusted OR, 1.75; 95%CI, 1.45-2.12) and immediate-release formulation (adjusted OR, 1.41; 95%CI, 1.14-1.75) were associated with hospitalisation. In the multivariable model, advanced age was not a significant predictor. There were no deaths during hospitalisation and the median length of hospital stay was one day.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large population-based study with 147,319 person-years of follow-up, severe hypokalaemia requiring hospitalisation was uncommon among hypertensive patients on indapamide. The risk is higher in women and in the initial weeks and months after starting therapy. The use of the sustained-release formulation reduces the risk. We conclude that using indapamide to treat hypertension is safe, even in the elderly, especially if the sustained-release formulation is used and electrolytes are monitored periodically.

The effect of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors on continuous and binary kidney outcomes in subgroups of patients with diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Introduction

Diabetic nephropathy is the leading cause of kidney failure. Clinical practice guidelines recommend prescribing renin–angiotensin aldosterone system inhibitors (RAASi) to prevent diabetic nephropathy at any stage. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the effects of RAASi with placebo and other antihypertensive agents in adults with diabetes on continuous and binary kidney outcomes to provide a comprehensive review of the class effect of RAASi on several subgroups.

Methods

A systematic electronic search to identify randomized clinical trials of a duration of ≥ 12 months that recruited ≥ 50 adult participants with type 1 or 2 diabetes with any stage of chronic kidney disease and proteinuria was conducted in MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Cochrane library with no language restriction. Studies were screened against the inclusion and exclusion criteria by two reviewers independently.

Results

In this meta-analysis, evidence was drawn from 26,551 patients with diabetes from 46 studies. Our analysis shows that RAASi were better than placebo in reducing SrCr (the raw mean difference [RMD] = -13.4 μmol/L; 95%CI: -16.78; -10.01) and albuminuria levels (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -1; 95%CI: -1.57, -0.44, I² = 96%). When compared to other active treatments, RAASi did not reduce SrCr (RMD = 0.03 μmol/L; 95%CI: -6.4, 6.10, I² = 76%), caused a non-significant reduction of GFR levels (RMD = -1.21 mL/min; 95%CI: -4.52, 2.09, I² = 86%), and resulted in modest reduction of albuminuria levels (SMD = -0.55; 95%CI: -0.95, -0.16, I² = 90%). RAASi were superior to placebo in reducing the risks of kidney failure (OR = 0.74; 95%CI: 0.56, 0.97) and doubling of serum creatinine levels (SrCr; OR = 0.71; 95%CI: 0.55, 0.91), but not in promoting the regression of albuminuria (OR = 3.00; 95%CI: 0.96, 9.37). RAASi, however, were not superior to other antihypertensives in reducing the risks of these outcomes. Patients with type 2 diabetes, macroalbuminuria and longer duration of diabetes had less risk of developing kidney failure in placebo-controlled trials, while longer duration of diabetes, normal kidney function, and hypertension increased the probability of achieving regression of albuminuria in active-controlled trials.

Conclusion

While our findings revealed the non-superiority of RAASi over other antihypertensives and portrayed a class effect on several subgroups of study participants, it raised a challenging question on whether RAASi deserve their place as first-line therapy in managing diabetic nephropathy.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12882-022-02763-1.

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.

Tactics of antihypertensive therapy during COVID-19 pandemic

Results of foreign and Russian studies indicate a higher mortality rate of patients with concomitant cardiovascular diseases (CVD) due to the new coronavirus infection COVID-19. It has been proven that arterial hypertension, as one of the significant risk factors for the development of concomitant cardiovascular diseases, is associated with a more severe prognosis of COVID-19. This article presents the results of modern studies and large meta-analyzes of necessity and safety of the use of blockers of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system in patients with arterial hypertension and COVID-19. The data of studies show that an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACE inhibitor) and a thiazide-like diuretic is a pathogenetically rational combination. It realizes various ways of lowering blood pressure by reducing the activity of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, which is achieved by using an ACE inhibitor, and natriuresis due to diuretics. As an example, a highly effective fixed combination of drugs is considered, characterized by good tolerance, which consists of an ACE inhibitor lisinopril and a thiazide-like diuretic indapamide of prolonged action. The authors expressed the opinion that the appointment of the fixed combination drug Diroton Plus (Gedeon Richter) will contribute to effective control of blood pressure and organoprotection in conditions of increased thrombogenic and prooxidative potential, characteristic of COVID-19 both in the acute stage and within the post-COVID Syndrome.

Comparative risk of new-onset hyperkalemia for antihypertensive drugs in patients with diabetic nephropathy: A Bayesian network meta-analysis

Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated the risk of hyperkalemia of antihypertensive drugs on diabetic nephropathy, yet the results are conflicting. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for RCTs investigating the risk of antihypertensive drugs on hyperkalemia in diabetic nephropathy from inception to May 31, 2020. Direct comparative meta-analysis showed that the proportion of patients with hyperkalemia was significantly higher in the ARB, aldosterone antagonist, renin inhibitor group than in the placebo group. Moreover, the risk of hyperkalemia in the ARB group was higher than that in the CCB group. Network meta-analysis showed the risk of hyperkalemia in the ARB, aldosterone antagonist, and renin inhibitor group was higher than in the placebo group, but there was no statistical difference between the CCB, ACEI, β blocker, endothelin inhibitor, and diuretic groups than in the placebo group. The possibility of antihypertensive drugs in risk of hyperkalemia being the worst treatment was aldosterone antagonist (98.8%), followed by ARB (73.8%), renin inhibitor (63.8%), diuretic (53.1%), ACEI (46.9%), β blocker (36.8%), endothelin inhibitor (35.2%), placebo (27.1%), and finally CCB (14.3.1%). Therefore, aldosterone antagonist seems worse than other antihypertensive drugs in the risk of hyperkalemia in patients with diabetic nephropathy.

The Forgotten Antiproteinuric Properties of Diuretics

BACKGROUND

Although diuretics are one of the most widely used drugs by nephrologists, their antiproteinuric properties are not generally taken into consideration.

SUMMARY

Thiazide diuretics have been shown to reduce proteinuria by >35% in several prospective controlled studies, and these values are markedly increased when combined with a low-salt diet. Thiazide-like diuretics (indapamide and chlorthalidone) have shown similar effectiveness. The antiproteinuric effect of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (spironolactone, eplerenone, and finerenone) has been clearly established through prospective and controlled studies, and treatment with finerenone reduces the risk of chronic kidney disease progression in type-2 diabetic patients. The efficacy of other diuretics such as amiloride, triamterene, acetazolamide, or loop diuretics has been less explored, but different investigations suggest that they might share the same antiproteinuric properties of other diuretics that should be evaluated through controlled studies. Although the inclusion of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) among diuretics is a controversial issue, their renoprotective and cardioprotective properties, confirmed in various landmark trials, constitute a true revolution in the treatment of patients with kidney disease. Recent subanalyses of these trials have shown that the early antiproteinuric effect induced by SGLT2i predicts long-term preservation of kidney function. Key Message: Whether the early reduction in proteinuria induced by diuretics other than finerenone and SGLT2i, as summarized in this review, also translates into long-term renoprotection requires further prospective and observational studies. In any case, it is important for the clinician to be aware of the antiproteinuric properties of drugs so often used in daily clinical practice.

Current Guidelines for the Treatment of Arterial Hypertension in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus and Chronic Kidney Disease

The current understanding of the management of patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) based on the concept of the cardiovascular continuum involves not only the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular diseases (CVD), but also the prevention and treatment of chronic kidney disease (CKD). The fact is that patients with DM and CKD represent a special group of patients with a very high risk of CVD and cardiovascular mortality. Such patients require early diagnosis and timely identification of risk factors for the development and progression of CKD for their adequate correction. Arterial hypertension, along with hyperglycemia, is the main risk factor for the development and progression of CKD in patients with diabetes. In this regard, the choice of antihypertensive therapy (AHT) in patients with diabetes is of particular importance. The basis of AHT in diabetes and CKD is the combination of a blocker of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor [ACE inhibitor] or an angiotensin II receptor blocker [ARB]) and a calcium channel blocker (CCB) or a thiazide / thiazide-like diuretic. The task of the performed AHT is to achieve the target level of blood pressure (BP). At the same time, the optimal blood pressure values in patients with diabetes and CKD are blood pressure values in the range of 130-139/70-79 mm Hg. If the target blood pressure is not achieved, it is necessary to intensify antihypertensive therapy by adding a third antihypertensive drug to the therapy: CCB or a diuretic (thiazide / thiazide-like or loop). In case of resistant hypertension, it is necessary to consider the possibility of adding antagonists of mineralocorticoid receptors, other diuretics or alpha-blockers to the conducted AHT. Beta-blockers can be added at any stage of therapy if the patient has exertional angina, a history of myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation, and chronic heart failure. The need to normalize blood pressure parameters by prescribing combined antihypertensive therapy in patients with diabetes and CKD is explained by a decrease in renal and cardiovascular risks, and, therefore, a decrease in the risk of mortality in this cohort of patients.

Beneficial Effects of a Perindopril/Indapamide Single-Pill Combination in Hypertensive Patients with Diabetes and/or Obesity or Metabolic Syndrome: A Post Hoc Pooled Analysis of Four Observational Studies

INTRODUCTION

To assess real-life effectiveness of a perindopril/indapamide (Per/Ind) single-pill combination (SPC) in patients with hypertension (HT) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), obesity and/or metabolic syndrome (MetS).

METHODS

This post hoc analysis pooled raw data from four large observational studies (FORTISSIMO, FORSAGE, ACES, PICASSO). Patients, most with uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) on previous treatments were switched to Per/Ind (10 mg/2.5 mg) SPC at study entry. Office systolic and diastolic blood pressures (SBP and DBP) were measured at baseline, 1 month and 3 months.

RESULTS

In the overall pooled population (N = 16,763), mean age was 61 ± 12 years, HT duration 11 ± 8 years, and baseline SBP/DBP 162/94 mmHg. T2DM, obesity and MetS were present in 21%, 49% and 27% of patients, respectively. Subgroups had similar mean age and HT duration to the overall population; patients with T2DM were slightly older (64 ± 10 years) with a longer HT duration (13 ± 8 years). Mean BP was approximately 160/95 mmHg in each subgroup. At 1 month, mean SBP decreased by approximately 20 mmHg in the overall population, and by a further 10 mmHg at 3 months. Similar results were observed in the three subgroups, with mean changes from baseline at 3 months of - 28 ± 15/- 13 ± 10 in T2DM; - 30 ± 15/- 14 ± 10 in obesity; and - 31 ± 15/- 15 ± 9 mmHg in MetS. BP decreases were greatest in patients with grade II or grade III HT. BP control rates (< 140/90 mmHg or 140/85 mmHg for T2DM) at 3 months were 59% in T2DM, 67% in obese, and 66% in MetS. No specific safety concerns were raised, particularly concerning ionic (Na, K) or metabolic profiles.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching to Per/Ind SPC led to rapid and effective BP decreases in patients with T2DM, obesity, or MetS. BP control was achieved in 6-7 out of 10 previously treated but uncontrolled patients. Treatment was well tolerated. The results confirm the beneficial effects of a Per/Ind SPC for difficult-to-control patient populations.

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.

Hypertension and Hypercholesterolemia: is it Time for Anti-«Lipitensive» Therapy?

Despite the widespread awareness that hypertension and dyslipidemia are risk factors of prime importance for cardiovascular disease, the prevalence of these risk factors is still high, and the success of their control can hardly be considered satisfactory. The latest European guidelines for the management of hypertension strengthened the position of fixed-dose combinations, the main advantage of which is increased adherence to treatment. The purpose of this review was to discuss the background and the possibility of using fixed-dose combinations containing antihypertensive drugs and a statin in the treatment of patients with hypertension and dyslipidemia. We outlined the theoretical concepts that substantiate the possibility of using such therapy and discussed the results of randomized clinical trials investigating the efficacy of combined administration of antihypertensive and lipidlowering drugs. Illustrated by single pill combination of indapamide, perindopril and rosuvastatin, the requirements for fixed drug combinations are discussed, as well as clinical scenarios when their use is considered justified.

Renal Effects of Dapagliflozin in People with and without Diabetes with Moderate or Severe Renal Dysfunction: Prospective Modeling of an Ongoing Clinical Trial

Sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) reduce cardiovascular events and onset and progression of renal disease by mechanisms that remain incompletely understood but may include clearance of interstitial congestion and reduced glomerular hydrostatic pressure. The ongoing DAPASALT mechanistic clinical study will evaluate natriuretic, diuretic, plasma/extracellular volume, and blood pressure responses to dapagliflozin in people with type 2 diabetes with normal or impaired renal function (D-PRF and D-IRF, respectively) and in normoglycemic individuals with renal impairment (N-IRF). In this study, a mathematical model of renal physiology, pathophysiology, and pharmacology was used to prospectively predict changes in sodium excretion, blood and interstitial fluid volume (IFV), blood pressure, glomerular filtration rate, and albuminuria in DAPASALT. After validating the model with previous diabetic nephropathy trials, virtual patients were matched to DAPASALT inclusion/exclusion criteria, and the DAPASALT protocol was simulated. Predicted changes in glycosuria, blood pressure, glomerular filtration rate, and albuminuria were consistent with other recent studies in similar populations. Predicted albuminuria reductions were 46% in D-PRF, 34.8% in D-IRF, and 14.2% in N-IRF. The model predicts a similarly large IFV reduction between D-PRF and D-IRF and less, but still substantial, IFV reduction in N-IRF, even though glycosuria is attenuated in groups with impaired renal function. When DAPASALT results become available, comparison with these simulations will provide a basis for evaluating how well we understand the cardiorenal mechanism(s) of SGLT2i. Meanwhile, these simulations link dapagliflozin's renal mechanisms to changes in IFV and renal biomarkers, suggesting that these benefits may extend to those with impaired renal function and individuals without diabetes. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Mechanisms of SGLT2 inhibitors' cardiorenal benefits remain incompletely understood. We used a mathematical model of renal physiology/pharmacology to prospectively predict responses to dapagliflozin in the ongoing DAPASALT study. Key predictions include similarly large interstitial fluid volume (IFV) reductions between subjects with normal and impaired renal function and less, but still substantial, IFV reduction in those without diabetes, even though glycosuria is attenuated in these groups. Comparing prospective simulations and study results will assess how well we understand the cardiorenal mechanism(s) of SGLT2 inhibitors.

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.

Thiazide Diuretic-Induced Change in Fasting Plasma Glucose: a Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Prior meta-analyses measuring thiazide-induced glycemic change have demonstrated an increased risk of incident diabetes; however, this measure's definition has changed over time.

AIM

To determine the magnitude of change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) for thiazide diuretics.

DATA SOURCES

A research librarian designed and conducted searches in Medline®, EMBASE, and EBM Reviews-Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (inception through July 2018) and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (inception to December 2014).

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized, controlled trials comparing a thiazide or thiazide-like diuretic to any comparator reporting FPG were identified. Trials enrolling < 50 participants, those with a follow-up period of < 4 weeks, and conference abstracts were excluded.

DATA EXTRACTION

Independent duplicate screening of citations and full-text articles, data extraction, and assessment of risk of bias was conducted.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Ninety-five studies were included (N = 76,608 participants), with thiazides compared with placebo, beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system inhibitors, potassium-sparing diuretic, and others alone or in combination. Thiazide diuretics marginally increased FPG (weighted mean difference 0.20 mmol/L (95% CI 0.15-0.25); I2 = 84%) (1 mmol/L = 18 mg/dL). Results did not change substantially when considering dose or duration, comparing thiazides with placebo or an active comparator, or using thiazides as monotherapy or combination therapy, even when combined with a potassium-correcting agent.

CONCLUSION

Thiazide diuretics have a small and clinically unimportant impact on FPG.

Importance of intensive blood pressure control in type 2 diabetes: Mechanisms, treatments and current guidelines

Observational and interventional studies have shown that intensified blood pressure (BP) reduction can benefit people with diabetes. Because of their special haemodynamic properties, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) blockers are recommended. The results of the BP arm of the ADVANCE study strongly support the recently updated European Society of Cardiology/European Association of Diabetes recommendations for the treatment of BP in people with diabetes, which recommend a target systolic/diastolic BP of 130/80 mmHg with few exceptions, and a fixed combination of an RAAS blocker with a diuretic or a calcium channel blocker as first-line treatment.

Impact of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers on renal and mortality outcomes in people with Type 2 diabetes and proteinuria

AIM

To assess the impact of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers on renal and mortality outcomes in people with Type 2 diabetes and proteinuria.

METHODS

A literature search up to 6 June 2019 was performed. We included randomized trials of ≥100 participants with Type 2 diabetes and micro- or macroalbuminuria comparing an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker with placebo ± background anti-hypertensives or non-angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker-containing anti-hypertensives, which included follow-up of ≥12 months. Endpoints included doubling of serum creatinine, end-stage renal disease, all-cause and cardiovascular mortality and progression and regression of proteinuria. A Hartung-Knapp random-effects model (between-study variance calculated using the Paule-Mandel estimator) producing a risk ratio with 95% confidence interval was employed.

RESULTS

The use of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker was not associated with a significant reduction in the risk of a doubling in serum creatinine (n = 7 trials, RR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.50-1.21). Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers reduced the risk of progressing to end-stage renal disease (n = 8, RR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.75-0.83). No difference in all-cause (n = 11, RR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.89-1.08) or cardiovascular mortality (n = 6 trials, RR = 1.08, 95% CI = 0.92-1.28), nor the composite outcome of doubling in serum creatinine, end-stage renal disease or mortality (n = 3 trials, RR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.72-1.06), was observed. Progression of proteinuria was decreased with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker use vs. control (n = 10, RR = 0.49, 95% CI = 0.33-0.74). Regression of proteinuria was not improved with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (n = 11, RR = 1.55, 95% CI = 0.93-2.58).

CONCLUSION

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers may reduce the risk of end-stage renal disease and slow the progression of nephropathy, but they do not appear to decrease all-cause or cardiovascular mortality in people with Type 2 diabetes and proteinuria.

A review of the prescribing trend of thiazide-type and thiazide-like diuretics in hypertension: A UK perspective

Thiazide diuretics have been the cornerstone of hypertension treatment for >5 decades. Most recent European and American guidelines recommend both thiazide-type and thiazide-like diuretics as first-line drugs for all patients with hypertension. In contrast, diuretics are not regarded as first-line treatment in the UK and in patients who are to be initiated on a diuretic treatment, thiazide-like molecules, such as chlortalidone and indapamide are the preferred option. This review examines the prescribing trend of the 4 most commonly prescribed thiazide diuretics for the treatment of hypertension in the UK. Prescription cost analysis data were obtained for both 2010 and 2016/2017 for each region of the UK to analyse the impact of the 2011 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence hypertension guidelines on the trend in thiazide diuretic prescribing. Overall, the prescriptions of thiazide diuretics declined over the years. Bendroflumethiazide is the most commonly prescribed diuretic in the UK and despite some geographical differences, thiazide-type diuretics are more widely used than thiazide-like. The use of indapamide increased significantly between 2010 and 2016/2017 while chlortalidone was rarely employed. Of the many factors affecting trends in prescriptions, clinical inertia, treatment adherence, availability of the products and the lack of fixed dose combinations may play a role.

Resistant Hypertension: Questions and Contemporary Answers

The review presents the important problem of resistant hypertension. Its real prevalence is unknown. According to population studies and metaanalyzes of clinical studies, the prevalence of this most severe form of hypertension reaches 12-15% in the general population and 15-18% in clinical cohorts. Over the past decades, an increase in its frequency among patients with hypertension has been noted. Based on the results of large-scale studies, risk factors are detected that allow to assess the risk for the resistance to antihypertensive drugs. Adherence to ongoing antihypertensive therapy is crucial to addressing the issue of hypertension resistance; there are acceptable ways to evaluate it in clinical practice. The review discusses the most common mistakes in the choice of therapy, which can cause resistance to antihypertensive treatment, namely irrational drug combinations, insufficient dosage of the drug, and the use of non-prolonged forms of drugs. The latest recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of hypertension, including its resistant form, are analyzed. The review contains a rationale based on the results of randomized clinical trials, the choice antihypertensive strategy in this variant of arterial hypertension. The importance of fixed combination antihypertensive drugs, as well as thiazine-like diuretics and amlodipine is stressed. The results of studies demonstrate the rational for the use of antimineralcorticoid drugs, namely spironolactone, for this category of patients. The authors offer an updated algorithm for the diagnosis and treatment of resistant hypertension, based on the sections of the latest clinical recommendations on this problem.

First-line drugs inhibiting the renin angiotensin system versus other first-line antihypertensive drug classes for hypertension

BACKGROUND

This is the first update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2015. Renin angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors include angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and renin inhibitors. They are widely prescribed for treatment of hypertension, especially for people with diabetes because of postulated advantages for reducing diabetic nephropathy and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Despite widespread use for hypertension, the efficacy and safety of RAS inhibitors compared to other antihypertensive drug classes remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of first-line RAS inhibitors compared to other first-line antihypertensive drugs in people with hypertension.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Hypertension Group Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials up to November 2017: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized, active-controlled, double-blinded studies (RCTs) with at least six months follow-up in people with elevated blood pressure (≥ 130/85 mmHg), which compared first-line RAS inhibitors with other first-line antihypertensive drug classes and reported morbidity and mortality or blood pressure outcomes. We excluded people with proven secondary hypertension.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected the included trials, evaluated the risks of bias and entered the data for analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes three new RCTs, totaling 45 in all, involving 66,625 participants, with a mean age of 66 years. Much of the evidence for our key outcomes is dominated by a small number of large RCTs at low risk for most sources of bias. Imbalances in the added second-line antihypertensive drugs in some of the studies were important enough for us to downgrade the quality of the evidence.Primary outcomes were all-cause death, fatal and non-fatal stroke, fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), fatal and non-fatal congestive heart failure (CHF) requiring hospitalizations, total cardiovascular (CV) events (fatal and non-fatal stroke, fatal and non-fatal MI and fatal and non-fatal CHF requiring hospitalization), and end-stage renal failure (ESRF). Secondary outcomes were systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and heart rate (HR).Compared with first-line calcium channel blockers (CCBs), we found moderate-certainty evidence that first-line RAS inhibitors decreased heart failure (HF) (35,143 participants in 5 RCTs, risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 0.90, absolute risk reduction (ARR) 1.2%), and that they increased stroke (34,673 participants in 4 RCTs, RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.32, absolute risk increase (ARI) 0.7%). Moderate-certainty evidence showed that first-line RAS inhibitors and first-line CCBs did not differ for all-cause death (35,226 participants in 5 RCTs, RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.09); total CV events (35,223 participants in 6 RCTs, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.02); and total MI (35,043 participants in 5 RCTs, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.09). Low-certainty evidence suggests they did not differ for ESRF (19,551 participants in 4 RCTs, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.05).Compared with first-line thiazides, we found moderate-certainty evidence that first-line RAS inhibitors increased HF (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.31, ARI 1.0%), and increased stroke (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.28, ARI 0.6%). Moderate-certainty evidence showed that first-line RAS inhibitors and first-line thiazides did not differ for all-cause death (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.07); total CV events (24,379 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.11); and total MI (24,379 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.01). Low-certainty evidence suggests they did not differ for ESRF (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.37).Compared with first-line beta-blockers, low-certainty evidence suggests that first-line RAS inhibitors decreased total CV events (9239 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98, ARR 1.7%), and decreased stroke (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.88, ARR 1.7% ). Low-certainty evidence suggests that first-line RAS inhibitors and first-line beta-blockers did not differ for all-cause death (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01); HF (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.18); and total MI (9239 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.27).Blood pressure comparisons between first-line RAS inhibitors and other first-line classes showed either no differences or small differences that did not necessarily correlate with the differences in the morbidity outcomes.There is no information about non-fatal serious adverse events, as none of the trials reported this outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

All-cause death is similar for first-line RAS inhibitors and first-line CCBs, thiazides and beta-blockers. There are, however, differences for some morbidity outcomes. First-line thiazides caused less HF and stroke than first-line RAS inhibitors. First-line CCBs increased HF but decreased stroke compared to first-line RAS inhibitors. The magnitude of the increase in HF exceeded the decrease in stroke. Low-quality evidence suggests that first-line RAS inhibitors reduced stroke and total CV events compared to first-line beta-blockers. The small differences in effect on blood pressure between the different classes of drugs did not correlate with the differences in the morbidity outcomes.

Vascular legacy beyond blood pressure control: benefits of perindopril/indapamide combination in hypertensive patients with diabetes

OBJECTIVES

Much of the chronic care of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension involves the prevention of diabetic complications. Renin-angiotensin system inhibitors are recommended as first-line therapies because of their nephroprotective properties. Their combination with metabolically neutral diuretics is recommended to reduce blood pressure, morbidity and mortality. Our objective was to review the mechanisms by which the combination of the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, perindopril, and metabolically neutral thiazide-like diuretic, indapamide, targets the pathways involved in microvascular and macrovascular diabetic complications.

METHODS

For this narrative review, extensive literature searches were performed using PubMed/Medline. Articles published in English describing clinical trials and mechanism of action studies that were relevant to the treatment of patients with perindopril and/or indapamide were included.

RESULTS

Perindopril/indapamide treatment has been shown to reduce blood pressure and to have significant beneficial effects on arterial distensibility, kidney structure and function, and endothelial function. Recent data also suggests that perindopril may reduce the deleterious accumulation of advanced glycation end products in diabetic tissue. In the Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron MR Controlled Evaluation diabetes trial, perindopril/indapamide treatment significantly reduced the relative risk of microvascular and macrovascular events by 9%, cardiovascular mortality by 18%, and all-cause mortality by 14%. Interestingly, 6 years after the end of the double-blind period, follow-up data showed that the beneficial effects on mortality continued to be significant even though differences in blood pressure and glycated hemoglobin levels had not been significant for several years. Together this data suggests that treatment with perindopril/indapamide has microvascular and macrovascular effects that extend beyond blood pressure lowering and that this treatment might confer a long-lasting beneficial vascular legacy.

CONCLUSION

Moving forward, understanding the pathophysiological bases of the effects that extend beyond those of blood pressure control will help us differentiate between anti-hypertensive choices.

Type 2 Diabetes and Thiazide Diuretics

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In patients with prediabetes or type 2 diabetes, the use of thiazides as antihypertensive agents has been challenged because associated metabolic adverse events, including new-onset diabetes.

RECENT FINDINGS

These metabolic disturbances are less marked with low-dose thiazides and, in most but not all studies, with thiazide-like diuretics (chlorthalidone, indapamide) than with thiazide-type diuretics (hydrochlorothiazide). In post hoc analyses of subgroups of patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes, thiazides resulted in a significant reduction in cardiovascular events, all-cause mortality, and hospitalization for heart failure compared to placebo and generally were shown to be non-inferior to other antihypertensive agents. Benefits attributed to thiazide diuretics in terms of cardiovascular event reduction outweigh the risk of worsening glucose control in type 2 diabetes and of new-onset diabetes in non-diabetic patients. Thiazides still play a key role in the management of patients with type 2 diabetes and hypertension.

Effects of blood-pressure-lowering treatment on outcome incidence in hypertension: 10 - Should blood pressure management differ in hypertensive patients with and without diabetes mellitus? Overview and meta-analyses of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is associated with an increased risk of hypertension, and cardiovascular and renal disease, and it has been recommended that management of hypertension should be more aggressive in presence than in absence of diabetes mellitus, but the matter is controversial at present.

OBJECTIVES

Meta-analysing all available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the effects on cardiovascular and renal outcomes of blood pressure BP lowering to different systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) levels or by different drug classes in patients with and without diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

The database consisted of 72 BP-lowering RCTs (260 210 patients) and 50 head-to-head drug comparison RCTs (247 006). Among these two sets, RCTs or RCT subgroups separately reporting data from patients with and without diabetes mellitus were identified, and stratified by in-treatment achieved SBP and DBP, by drug class compared with placebo, and drug class compared with all other classes. Risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals, and absolute risk reductions of six fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular outcomes, all-cause death, and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) were calculated (random-effects model) separately for diabetes mellitus and no diabetes mellitus, and compared by interaction analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 41 RCTs providing data on 61 772 patients with diabetes mellitus and 40 RCTs providing data on 191 353 patients without diabetes mellitus. For achieved SBP at least 140 mmHg, relative and absolute reductions of most cardiovascular outcomes were significantly greater in diabetes mellitus than no diabetes mellitus, whereas for achieved SBP below 130 mmHg, the difference disappeared or reversed (greater outcome reduction in no diabetes mellitus). Significant ESRD reduction was found only in diabetes mellitus, but it was greatest when achieved SBP was at least 140 mmHg, and no further effect was found at SBP below 140 mmHg. All antihypertensive drug classes reduced cardiovascular risk vs. placebo in diabetes mellitus and no diabetes mellitus, but angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors were the only class more effective in diabetes mellitus than in no diabetes mellitus. When compared to other classes, renin-angiotensin system blockers were equally effective in cardiovascular prevention in no diabetes mellitus, but moderately, though significantly, more effective in diabetes mellitus.

CONCLUSION

BP-lowering treatment significantly and importantly reduces cardiovascular risk both in diabetes mellitus and no diabetes mellitus, but evidence for reduced ESRD risk is available only in diabetes. Contrary to past recommendations, in diabetes mellitus there is little or no further benefit in lowering SBP below 130 mmHg, whereas continuing benefit is seen in no diabetes mellitus also at SBP below 130 mmHg. Although all BP-lowering drugs can beneficially be prescribed in hypertensive patients with diabetes mellitus, the current recommendation to initiate or include a renin-angiotensin system blocker is supported by the evidence here presented.

[Controlled diuretic monotherapy in hypertensive patients: Efficiency and metabolic safety]

AIM

To evaluate the antihypertensive efficiency and metabolic effects of controlled monotherapy with hydrochlorothiazide (HCT) and indapamide retard (IR) in hypertensive patients.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

The study included 50 patients with Stage II essential hypertension, grades 1-3 blood pressure (BP) elevation, who received 3-month monotherapy with IR (n=25) or HCT (n=25). Changes were determined in BP, blood lipid, glucose, and potassium levels. The efficiency of antihypertensive therapy was evaluated in the entire group and subgroups of patients identified in accordance with the used diuretic and the presence (n=27) or absence (n=23) of therapy at previous stages.

RESULTS

A total of 54% of the patients included in the study achieved target BP after 3 months of therapy. The proportion of individuals with normalized BP was comparable in the HCT and IR groups (52 and 56%, respectively) and in previously treated patients and those who used for the first time antihypertensive drugs (51.8 and 56.5%, respectively). Normalization of systolic and diastolic BPs was achieved in 78 and 58% of the patients, respectively. Target BP was achieved in 94,1%, 42,9% and 16,7% of patients with grades 1,2 and 3 hypertension, respectively. IR proved to be metabolically neutral whereas HCT was found to significantly increase the blood levels of triglycerides and glucose by 15.3% (p<0.05) and 12.2% (p<0.05), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Controlled diuretic monotherapy allows BP normalization in more than 50% of the hypertensive patients. HCT and IR have similar antihypertensive efficiency. Because of the negative changes observed in lipid and carbohydrate metabolism with the use of relatively small doses of HCT, IR is a preferential alternative in the long-term treatment of hypertensive patients.

Classes of antihypertensive agents and mortality in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes-Network meta-analysis of randomized trials

AIMS

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of antihypertensive drug classes in mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Clinical Trials and Cochrane Library were searched for randomized trials comparing thiazides, beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers (CCBs), angiotensin-converting inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs), alone or in combination for hypertension treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes. Outcomes were overall and cardiovascular mortality. Network meta-analysis was used to obtain pooled effect estimate.

RESULTS

A total of 27 studies, comprising 49,418 participants, 5647 total and 1306 cardiovascular deaths were included. No differences in total or cardiovascular mortality were observed with isolated antihypertensive drug classes compared to each other or placebo. The ACEi and CCB combination showed evidence of reduction in cardiovascular mortality comparing to placebo [median HR, 95% credibility intervals: 0.16, 0.01-0.82], betablockers (0.20, 0.02-0.98), CCBs (0.21, 0.02-0.97) and ARBs (0.18, 0.02-0.91). In included trials, this combination was the treatment that most consistently achieved both lower systolic and diastolic end of study blood pressure.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no benefit of a single antihypertensive class in reduction of mortality in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes. Reduction of cardiovascular mortality observed in patients treated with ACEi and CCB combination may be related to lower blood pressure levels.

Effects of blood pressure-lowering on outcome incidence in hypertension: 5. Head-to-head comparisons of various classes of antihypertensive drugs - overview and meta-analyses

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

We have recently published an overview and meta-analysis of the effects of the five major classes of blood pressure-lowering drugs on cardiovascular outcomes when compared with placebo. However, possible differences in effectiveness of the various classes can correctly be estimated only by head-to-head comparisons of different classes of agents. This has been the objective of a new survey and meta-analysis.

METHODS

A database search between 1966 and August 2014 ide ntified 50 eligible randomized controlled trials for 58 two-drug comparisons (247 006 patients for 1 029 768 patient-years). Risk ratios and their 95% confidence intervals of seven outcomes were estimated by a random-effects model.

RESULTS

The effects of all drug classes are not significantly different on most outcomes when their blood pressure effect is equivalent. However, there are also significant differences involving almost all classes of drugs. When compared to all other classes together, diuretics are superior in preventing heart failure; beta-blockers less effective in preventing stroke; calcium antagonists superior in preventing stroke and all-cause death, but inferior in preventing heart failure; angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors more effective in preventing coronary heart disease and less in preventing stroke; angiotensin receptor blockers inferior in preventing coronary heart disease; and renin-angiotensin system blockers more effective in preventing heart failure. When stratifying randomized controlled trials according to total cardiovascular risk, no drug class was found to change in effectiveness with the level of risk.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of all available evidence from head-to-head drug class comparisons do not allow the formulation of a fixed paradigm of drug choice valuable for all hypertensive patients, but the differences found may suggest specific choices in specific conditions, or preferable combinations of drugs.

Diabetes mellitus as a compelling indication for use of renin angiotensin system blockers: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the outcomes with use of renin angiotensin system (RAS) blockers compared with other antihypertensive agents in people with diabetes.

DESIGN

Meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials databases for randomized trials of RAS blockers versus other antihypertensive agents in people with diabetes mellitus. Outcomes were death, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, angina, stroke, heart failure, revascularization, and end stage renal disease.

RESULTS

The search yielded 19 randomized controlled trials that enrolled 25,414 participants with diabetes for a total of 95,910 patient years of follow-up. When compared with other antihypertensive agents, RAS blockers were associated with a similar risk of death (relative risk 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.05), cardiovascular death (1.02, 0.83 to 1.24), myocardial infarction (0.87, 0.64 to 1.18), angina pectoris (0.80, 0.58 to 1.11), stroke (1.04, 0.92 to 1.17), heart failure (0.90, 0.76 to 1.07), and revascularization (0.97, 0.77 to 1.22). There was also no difference in the hard renal outcome of end stage renal disease (0.99, 0.78 to 1.28) (power of 94% to show a 23% reduction in end stage renal disease).

CONCLUSIONS

In people with diabetes, RAS blockers are not superior to other antihypertensive drug classes such as thiazides, calcium channel blockers, and β blockers at reducing the risk of hard cardiovascular and renal endpoints. These findings support the recommendations of the guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology/European Society of Hypertension and eighth Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure to also use other antihypertensive agents in people with diabetes but without kidney disease.

[Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease concurrent with hypertension: Evaluation of the therapeutic effect of prolonged-release indapamide]

AIM

To provide a rationale for the clinical efficacy and safety of prolonged-release indapamide used in the combination therapy of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease concurrent (COPD) concurrent with hypertension.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Sixty-five patients (50 men and 15 women) with Stages I-IV COPD and grades 1-3 elevated blood pressure (BP) in whom prior antihypertensive therapy had proved insufficiently effective were examined.

RESULTS

Prolonged-release indapamide demonstrated a high efficacy in achieving and maintaining goal BP, in normalizing its daily profile, and in reducing increased variability and the rate of morning rise in BP, without negatively affecting the clinical manifestations of COPD, pulmonary ventilatory function, and serum potassium levels. The drug was shown to have additional pleiotropic effects in lowering the activity of inflammatory markers (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, intercellular adhesion molecules-1) and the level of endothelial dysfunction markers (endothelin-1, sP-selectin). Another commonly clinically used diuretic hydrochlorothiazide was chosen as a compared drug.

CONCLUSION

The high antihypertensive efficacy and additional pleiotropic properties of prolonged-release indapamide that exerts no negative effect on the clinical manifestations of COPD, bronchial patency, and serum potassium levels demonstrate that it is expedient to incorporate prolonged-release indapamide into the combination therapy of patients with COPD concurrent with hypertension.

Not just chlorthalidone: evidence-based, single tablet, diuretic alternatives to hydrochlorothiazide for hypertension

Accounting for 15 % of deaths worldwide, hypertension is often treated with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) (50 million prescriptions annually). HCTZ has a <24-h duration of action, is less potent than chlorthalidone and all major antihypertensive drug classes, and is inferior to four antihypertensive drugs for cardiovascular event (CVE) reduction. If there were alternative diuretics, why prescribe HCTZ? Chlorthalidone is often offered as an alternative to HCTZ, but has limited pharmaceutical formulations. However, there are seven evidence-based, single-tablet, alternative diuretics. For reducing CVE, the following are superior to their comparators: chlorthalidone versus four antihypertensives in multiple hypertensive populations; indapamide versus placebo in elderly Chinese (and versus enalapril for left ventricular hypertrophy), triamterene-HCTZ versus placebo in elderly Europeans, amiloride-HCTZ versus three antihypertensives, and indapamide-perindopril versus placebo in three populations. Additionally, chlorthalidone-azilsartan and spironolactone-HCTZ are potent combinations The aldosterone antagonist component of the latter combination has been shown to reduce total mortality by 30 % in heart failure. Five of these seven have multiple dose formulations. Six cost $4-$77 monthly. In conclusion, based on both scientific and practical grounds, new prescriptions for HCTZ are rarely justified.

Evidence-based diuretics: focus on chlorthalidone and indapamide

Thiazide and thiazide-like diuretics are cornerstone treatments for hypertension. However, unlike chlorthalidone (CTD) and indapamide (IDP), hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) lacks evidence for reducing morbidity and mortality as monotherapy compared with placebo or control. Despite this fact, HCTZ is prescribed much more frequently than CTD or IDP. We believe that all hypertension guidelines should follow the National Institute for Health and Excellence (NICE) and make IDP and CTD first choice 'thiazide-like diuretics.' This article will focus on the available evidence pertaining to HCTZ versus CTD and IDP. We will review the pharmacological differences between these three diuretics, as well as the clinical trial data and important side effects.

Renin-Angiotensin System Inhibitors and Kidney and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With CKD: A Bayesian Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

There is much uncertainty regarding the relative effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) in populations with chronic kidney disease (CKD).

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.

SETTING & POPULATION

Patients with CKD treated with renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors.

SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES

Randomized trials in patients with CKD treated with RAS inhibitors.

PREDICTOR

ACE inhibitors and ARBs compared to each other and to placebo and active controls.

OUTCOME

Primary outcome was kidney failure; secondary outcomes were major cardiovascular events, all-cause death.

RESULTS

119 randomized controlled trials (n = 64,768) were included. ACE inhibitors and ARBs reduced the odds of kidney failure by 39% and 30% (ORs of 0.61 [95% credible interval, 0.47-0.79] and 0.70 [95% credible interval, 0.52-0.89]), respectively, compared to placebo, and by 35% and 25% (ORs of 0.65 [95% credible interval, 0.51-0.80] and 0.75 [95% credible interval, 0.54-0.97]), respectively, compared with other active controls, whereas other active controls did not show evidence of a significant effect on kidney failure. Both ACE inhibitors and ARBs produced odds reductions for major cardiovascular events (ORs of 0.82 [95% credible interval, 0.71-0.92] and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.62-0.89], respectively) versus placebo. Comparisons did not show significant effects on risk for cardiovascular death. ACE inhibitors but not ARBs significantly reduced the odds of all-cause death versus active controls (OR, 0.72; 95% credible interval, 0.53-0.92). Compared with ARBs, ACE inhibitors were consistently associated with higher probabilities of reducing kidney failure, cardiovascular death, or all-cause death.

LIMITATIONS

Trials with RAS inhibitor therapy were included; trials with direct comparisons of other active controls with placebo were not included.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of ACE inhibitors or ARBs in people with CKD reduces the risk for kidney failure and cardiovascular events. ACE inhibitors also reduced the risk for all-cause mortality and were possibly superior to ARBs for kidney failure, cardiovascular death, and all-cause mortality in patients with CKD, suggesting that they could be the first choice for treatment in this population.

Treatment of Hypertensive Patients With Diabetes and Microalbuminuria With Combination Indapamide SR/Amlodipine: Retrospective Analysis of NESTOR

BACKGROUND

Combination treatments for hypertension most often include a renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitor. However, systolic blood pressure (SBP) remains difficult to control. Non-RAAS-inhibiting strategies such as calcium channel blocker/thiazide-like diuretic combinations may offer effective alternatives.

METHODS

Hypertensive diabetic patients with microalbuminuria were included in this retrospective, post-hoc analysis of the Natrilix SR Versus Enalapril Study in Hypertensive Type 2 Diabetics With MicrOalbuminuRia (NESTOR) trial if they were uncontrolled on monotherapy (indapamide slow release (SR) 1.5 mg or enalapril 10mg) and had been given add-on amlodipine 5 mg. Patients uncontrolled with monotherapy/amlodipine 5mg were uptitrated to 10 mg.

RESULTS

After 52 weeks, supine SBP/diastolic BP (DBP) decreased from baseline by 26±13/14±9 mm Hg in the indapamide SR/amlodipine group (n = 135) and by 21±14/11±9 mm Hg in the enalapril/amlodipine group (n = 156) (P = 0.006 for ΔSBP). In the amlodipine 10mg subgroup, SBP/DBP decreased from baseline by 26±13/13±9 mm Hg in the indapamide SR/amlodipine group (n = 62) and by 20±13/12±8 mm Hg in the enalapril/amlodipine group (n = 77) (P = 0.02 for ΔSBP). Treatment with indapamide SR/amlodipine was well tolerated. Few patients experienced edema, with no between-group differences. As expected with diuretics, slight changes in kalemia and in uricemia were observed in the indapamide SR/amlodipine group. Changes in fasting glucose, lipids, natremia, and creatinine clearance were similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Indapamide SR/amlodipine results in superior SBP reduction with a safety profile in line with that of its components and tolerability equivalent to that of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/amlodipine strategy.

Natriuresis and blood pressure reduction in hypertensive patients with diabetes mellitus: the NESTOR study

The antihypertensive effect of indapamide has never been clearly understood, particularly in hypertensive patients with diabetes mellitus. A total of 565 patients were randomly selected to receive either indapamide 1.5 mg or enalapril 10 mg daily for 12 months. Brachial blood pressure (BP) and plasma and urinary electrolytes were measured at baseline and at the end of follow-up. Sodium and potassium levels and excretion rates were measured in overnight urine collections. After 12 months' treatment, similar significant reductions were observed in systolic and diastolic BP and pulse pressure levels in both treatment arms (P < .001). However, age, body mass index, diabetes duration, and plasma sodium reductions were shown to be major, independent factors influencing BP reduction with indapamide, but not with enalapril. Regression coefficients were positive for age and plasma sodium reductions (P ≤ .009) but negative for body mass index and diabetes duration (P ≤ .008). Similar findings were observed for pulse pressure. These results were more notable in elderly patients, did not differ regardless of whether BP reduction was measured in absolute or percent values, and were associated with increased sodium and potassium excretion rates.Indapamide is more effective than enalapril at reducing BP in elderly diabetic hypertensives with marked sodium retention.

Thiazide-like/calcium channel blocker agents: a major combination for hypertension management

In recent years, treatment strategies for hypertension have often focused on combination therapies that include diuretics and renin angiotensin aldosterone system blockers such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers. However, in clinical practice, a significant number of patients do not respond completely to these combination treatments, and long-term reduction of cardiovascular risk remains insufficient. The particularly high residual cardiovascular risk of hypertensive patients, even when adequately treated with strategies based on renin angiotensin aldosterone system blockers, speaks in favor of new, innovative strategies. Thus, it has become relevant to consider whether it is always necessary to block plasma renin activation and whether other guideline-approved combinations should be considered routinely. Diuretic/calcium channel blocker combinations, which are supported by significant long-term evidence, are put forth as a preferred combination in the main guidelines, but are still underused by physicians who do not yet have easy access to such treatments. Fixed-dose indapamide sustained release/amlodipine is the first such single-pill combination to become available. Complementary mechanisms of action of these two molecules are expected to lead to greater and longer-term reductions in systolic blood pressure and pulse pressure and potentially to the reduction of cardiovascular risk.

What is next when the first blood pressure-lowering drug is not sufficient?

A large proportion of patients with hypertension require a second blood pressure-lowering drug to reach blood pressure control. None of the major clinical trials of blood pressure drugs have compared, in a random fashion, the efficacy of the second drug in the prevention of hard outcomes and only one large observational study has evaluated the link between different associations of drugs and the incidence of cardiovascular disease. There are a few well-designed clinical trials comparing the blood pressure-lowering effect of drugs added with the first option. Therefore, choosing the second option is largely empirical and still not based on the best standards of evidence-based medicine, resulting in vague recommendations from guidelines. A large NIH-sponsored trial comparing the second choice in patients already on diuretics has been planned. For now, in the absence of a sound basis for choosing the second blood pressure-lowering agent, the classical stepped-care approach recommended by the first National High Blood Pressure Education Program may still be a valid guideline.

Prevention of chronic kidney disease and subsequent effect on mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To perform a systematic review of randomized controlled trials to determine whether prevention or slowing of progression of chronic kidney disease would translate into improved mortality, and if so, the attributable risk due to CKD itself on mortality.

BACKGROUND

CKD is associated with increased mortality. This association is largely based on evidence from the observational studies and evidence from randomized controlled trials is lacking.

METHODS

We searched Ovid, Medline and Embase for RCTs in which an intervention was given to prevent or slow the progression of CKD and mortality was reported as primary, secondary or adverse outcomes were eligible and selected. For the first phase, pooled relative risks for renal endpoints were assessed. For the second phase, we assessed the effect on mortality in trials of interventions that definitively reduced CKD endpoints.

RESULTS

Among 52 studies selected in first phase, only renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system blockade vs. placebo (n = 18 trials, 32,557 participants) met the efficacy criteria for further analysis in the second phase by reducing renal endpoints 15 to 27% compared to placebo. There was no difference in all-cause mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.08) or CV death (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.21) between the treatment and control groups in these trials. There was sufficient statistical power to detect a 9% relative risk reduction in all-cause mortality and a 14% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Firm evidence is lacking that prevention of CKD translates into reductions in mortality. Larger trials with longer follow-up time are needed to determine the benefit of CKD prevention on survival.