Is chlorthalidone better than hydrochlorothiazide in reducing cardiovascular events in hypertensives?

Guidelines-based therapeutic strategies for controlling hypertension in non-controlled hypertensive patients followed by family physicians in primary health care in Portugal: the GPHT-PT study

PURPOSE

In a prospective open study, with intervention, conducted in Primary Health Care Units by General Practitioners (GPs) in Portugal, the effectiveness of a single pill of candesartan/amlodipine (ARB/amlodipine), as the only anti-hypertension (anti-HTN) medication, in adult patients with uncontrolled HTN (BP > 140/or > 90 mm Hg), either previously being treated with anti-HTN monotherapies (Group I), or combinations with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) (Group II), or not receiving medication at all (Group III), was evaluated across 12-weeks after implementation of the new therapeutic measure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 118 GPs recruited patients with uncontrolled HTN who met inclusion/exclusion criteria. Participants were assigned, according to severity, one of 3 (morning) fixed combination candesartan/amlodipine dosage (8/5 or 16/5 or 16/10 mg/day) and longitudinally evaluated in 3 visits (v0, v6 and v12 weeks). Office blood pressure was measured in each visit, and control of HTN was defined per guidelines (BP< 140/90 mmHg).

RESULTS

Of the 1234 patients approached, 752 (age 61 ± 10 years, 52% women) participated in the study and were assigned to groups according to previous treatment conditions. The 3 groups exhibited a statistically significant increased control of blood pressure after receiving the fixed combination candesartan/amlodipine dosage. The overall proportion of controlled HTN participants increased from 0,8% at v0 to 82% at v12. The mean arterial blood pressure values decreased from SBP= 159.0 (± 13.0) and DBP= 91.1 (± 9.6) at baseline to SBP= 132,1 (± 11.3) and DBP= 77,5 (± 8.8) at 12 weeks (p < 0.01). Results remained consistent when controlling for age and sex.

CONCLUSION

In patients with uncontrolled HTN, therapeutic measures in accordance with guidelines, with a fixed combination candesartan/amlodipine, allowed to overall achieve HTN control at 12 weeks in 82% of previously uncontrolled HTN patients, reinforcing the advantages of these strategies in primary clinical practice.

Exploring the Effectiveness and Safety of Azilsartan-Medoxomil/Chlorthalidone Versus Olmesartan-Medoxomil/Hydrochlorothiazide in Hypertensive Patients: A Meta-Analysis

This study aims to assess the effectiveness and safety of azilsartan-medoxomil/chlorthalidone (AZI-M/CT) compared to olmesartan-medoxomil/hydrochlorothiazide (OLM/HCTZ) in patients with hypertension. Systematic searches were conducted on PubMed, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov, starting from their establishment until March 15, 2023. The purpose of these searches was to locate original reports that compare the effectiveness of AZI-M/CT and OLM/HCTZ in treating hypertension. Data on various characteristics at the beginning and end of the studies were gathered. The analyses were carried out using Review Manager 5.4.1 (The Nordic Cochrane Center, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014, Odense, Denmark) and STATA 16.0 software (Stata Corp. LP, College Station, TX, USA). Risk ratios (RRs) and weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated as part of the study. A total of 3,146 individuals from four separate investigations were included in the study, with 1,931 individuals receiving AZI-M/CT and 1,215 individuals receiving OLM/HCTZ. The combined analysis revealed that the average diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was significantly lower in the AZI-M/CT group compared to the OLM/HCTZ group (WMD -2.64 [-2.78, -2.51]; P = 0.00001; I² = 1%). However, there were no significant differences in mean systolic blood pressure (SBP; WMD -2.95 [-6.64, 0.73]; P = 0). Furthermore, the AZI-M/CT group had a notably higher incidence of major adverse events (RR 1.58 [1.20, 2.08]; P = 0.001; I² = 11%) and any treatment-emergent adverse events (RR 1.11 [1.03, 1.20]; P = 0.007; I² = 51%). However, there was no significant difference in the mortality risk between the two groups (RR 0.74 [0.14, 3.91]; P = 0.72; I² = 0%). Based on the results of our meta-analysis, AZI-M/CT is more effective than OLM/HCTZ at reducing blood pressure in elderly hypertensive patients. However, because of the small sample size, favorable results must be carefully reevaluated, and more studies are needed.

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.

Two-drug fixed-dose combinations of blood pressure-lowering drugs as WHO essential medicines: An overview of efficacy, safety, and cost

Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are the world's leading cause of death. High blood pressure (BP) is the leading global risk factor for all-cause preventable morbidity and mortality. Globally, only about 14% of patients achieve BP control to systolic BP <140 mm Hg and diastolic BP <90 mm Hg. Most patients (>60%) require two or more drugs to achieve BP control, yet poor adherence to therapy is a major barrier to achieving this control. Fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) of BP-lowering drugs are one means to improve BP control through greater adherence and efficacy, with favorable safety and cost profiles. The authors present a review of the supporting data from a successful application to the World Health Organization (WHO) for the inclusion of FDCs of two BP-lowering drugs on the 21st WHO Essential Medicines List. The authors discuss the efficacy and safety of FDCs of two BP-lowering drugs for the management of hypertension in adults, relevant hypertension guideline recommendations, and the estimated cost of such therapies.

Scaling up effective treatment of hypertension-A pathfinder for universal health coverage

High blood pressure is the world's leading cause of death, but despite treatment for hypertension being safe, effective, and low cost, most people with hypertension worldwide do not have it controlled. This article summarizes lessons learned in the first 2 years of the Resolve to Save Lives (RTSL) hypertension management program, operated in coordination with the World Health Organization (WHO) and other partners. Better diagnosis, treatment, and continuity of care are all needed to improve control rates, and five necessary components have been recommended by RTSL, WHO and other partners as being essential for a successful hypertension control program. Several hurdles to hypertension control have been identified, with most related to limitations in the health care system rather than to patient behavior. Treatment according to standardized protocols should be started as soon as hypertension is diagnosed, and medical practices and health systems must closely monitor patient progress and system performance. Improvement in hypertension management and control, along with elimination of artificial trans fat and reduction of dietary sodium consumption, will improve many aspects of primary care, contribute to goals for universal health coverage, and could save 100 million lives worldwide over the next 30 years.

Comparison of long-term safety of fixed-dose combinations azilsartan medoxomil/chlorthalidone vs olmesartan medoxomil/hydrochlorothiazide

This 52-week, randomized, open-label study evaluated long-term safety/tolerability of fixed-dose combination azilsartan medoxomil/chlorthalidone (AZL-M/CLD) vs fixed-dose combination olmesartan medoxomil/hydrochlorothiazide (OLM/HCTZ) in patients with essential hypertension (stage 2; clinic systolic blood pressure 160-190 mm Hg). Initial AZL-M/CLD 40/12.5 mg/d (n=418) or OLM/HCTZ 20/12.5 mg/d (n=419) could be uptitrated during weeks 4 to 52 (AZL-M/CLD to 80/25 mg; OLM/HCTZ to 40/25 mg [United States] or 20/25 mg [Europe]) to meet blood pressure targets. Treatment-emergent adverse events/serious adverse events occurred in 78.5%/5.7% of patients taking AZL-M/CLD vs 76.4%/6.2% taking OLM/HCTZ. The most frequent adverse events were dizziness (16.3% vs 12.6%), blood creatinine increase (21.5% vs 8.6%), headache (7.4% vs 11.0%), and nasopharyngitis (12.2% vs 11.5%). Hypokalemia was uncommon (1.0% vs 0.7%). Greater blood pressure reductions with AZL-M/CLD by week 2 were maintained throughout the study, despite less uptitration (32.3% vs 48.9% with OLM/HCTZ). Fixed-dose combination AZL-M/CLD showed an encouraging benefit-risk profile when used per standard clinical practice in a titrate-to-target strategy.

Diuretics in the treatment of hypertension

Diuretics have long been used for the treatment of hypertension. Thiazide diuretics are the most commonly prescribed diuretics for hypertension, but other classes of diuretics may be useful in alternative circumstances. Although diuretics are no longer considered the preferred agent for treatment of hypertension in adults and children, they remain acceptable first-line options. Diuretics effectively decrease blood pressure in hypertensive patients, and in adults with hypertension reduce the risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes. Because of varied pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic differences, chlorthalidone may be the preferred thiazide diuretic in the treatment of primary hypertension. Other types of diuretics (e.g., loop, potassium sparing) may be useful for the treatment of hypertension related to chronic kidney disease (CKD) and other varied conditions. Common side effects of thiazides are mostly dose-related and involve electrolyte and metabolic abnormalities.

Head-to-head comparisons of hydrochlorothiazide with indapamide and chlorthalidone: antihypertensive and metabolic effects

Hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) has often been contrasted with chlorthalidone, but relatively little is known about HCTZ versus indapamide (INDAP). This systematic review retrieved 9765 publications, and from these, it identified 14 randomized trials with 883 patients comparing HCTZ with INDAP and chlorthalidone on antihypertensive potency or metabolic effects. To make fair comparisons, the dose of the diuretic in each arm was assigned 1 of 3 dose levels. In random effects meta-analysis, INDAP and chlorthalidone lowered systolic blood pressure more than HCTZ: -5.1 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, -8.7 to -1.6); P=0.004 and -3.6 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, -7.3 to 0.0); P=0.052, respectively. For both comparisons, there was minimal heterogeneity in effect across trials and no evidence for publication bias. The HCTZ-INDAP contrast was biased in favor of greater HCTZ potency because of a much greater contribution to the overall effect from trials in which the HCTZ arm had a higher dose level than the INDAP arm. For the HCTZ-INDAP comparison, no single trial was responsible for the overall result nor was it possible to detect significant modifications of this comparison by duration of follow-up, high- versus low-bias trials, or the presence or absence of background medications. There were no detectable differences between HCTZ and INDAP in metabolic adverse effects, including effects on serum potassium. In conclusion, these head-to-head comparisons demonstrate that, like chlorthalidone, INDAP is more potent than HCTZ at commonly prescribed doses without evidence for greater adverse metabolic effects.

Which thiazide to choose as add-on therapy for hypertension?

Combined therapy is required in the majority of patients with hypertension to achieve blood pressure (BP) targets. Although different antihypertensive drugs can be combined, not all combinations are equally effective and safe. In this context, the combination of a renin angiotensin system inhibitor with a diuretic, usually a thiazide, particularly hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) or thiazide-like diuretics, such as chlorthalidone or indapamide, is recommended. However, not all diuretics are equal. Although HCTZ, chlorthalidone, and indapamide as add-on therapy effectively reduce BP levels, the majority of studies have obtained greater BP reductions with chlorthalidone or indapamide than with HCTZ. Moreover, there are data showing benefits with chlorthalidone or indapamide beyond BP. Thus, chlorthalidone seems to have pleiotropic effects beyond BP reduction. Moreover, compared with placebo, chlorthalidone has small effects on fasting glucose and total cholesterol, and compared with HCTZ, chlorthalidone achieves significantly lower total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels. Similarly, indapamide has demonstrated no negative impact on glucose or lipid metabolism. More importantly, although head-to-head clinical trials comparing the effects of indapamide or chlorthalidone with HCTZ are not available, indirect comparisons and post hoc analyses suggest that the use of chlorthalidone or indapamide is associated with a reduction in cardiovascular events. Despite this, the most frequent diuretic used in clinical practice as add-on therapy for hypertension is HCTZ. The purpose of this review is to update the published data on the efficacy and safety of HCTZ, chlorthalidone, and indapamide as add-on therapy in patients with hypertension.