The effect of indapamide vs. bendroflumethiazide for primary hypertension: a systematic review

Constructing N-Acyl/N-Sulfonyl Aza-Sulfur Derivatives from Amides/Sulfonamides and Thiophthalimides via Oxidant Regulation

Here, we have constructed five distinct types of N-acyl or N-sulfonyl aza-sulfur scaffolds using readily available (sulfon)amides and thiophthalimides with precise regulation of oxidants. Our novel methods feature one-pot mild reaction conditions and simple operation, thereby making them highly convenient for the late-stage diversification of various amide drugs, bioactive molecules, and peptides.

Thiazide and the Thiazide-Like Diuretics: Review of Hydrochlorothiazide, Chlorthalidone, and Indapamide

The term thiazide is universally understood to refer to diuretics that exert their principal action in the distal tubule. The thiazide class is heterogenous and can be further subdivided into compounds containing the benzothiadiazine ring structure-the thiazide-type (e.g., hydrochlorothiazide)-and those lacking the benzothiadiazine ring-the thiazide-like (e.g., chlorthalidone and indapamide) drugs. Thiazide-like agents are longer acting and constitute the diuretics used in most of the cardiovascular outcome trials that established benefits of treatment with diuretics, but pragmatic aspects, such as lack of availability in convenient formulations, limit their use. Regardless of class heterogeneity, thiazides have retained importance in the management of hypertension for over 60 years. They are reliably effective as monotherapy in a majority of hypertensive patients, and augment the efficacy of other classes of antihypertensives when used in combination. Importantly, a thiazide-based treatment regimen lowers cardiovascular events, and their sturdy effect reinforces their place among the recommended first-line agents to treat hypertension in major domestic and international hypertension guidelines. There are few head-to-head comparisons within the class, but potential differences have been explored indirectly as well as in non-blood pressure mechanisms and potential pleiotropic properties. Until proven otherwise, the importance of these differences remains speculative, and clinicians should assume that cardiovascular events will be lowered similarly across agents when equivalent blood pressure reduction occurs. Thiazides remain underutilized, with only about one-third of hypertensive patients receiving them. For many patients, however, a thiazide is an indispensable component of their regimen to achieve adequate blood pressure control.

Evaluating Diuretics in Normal Care (EVIDENCE): a feasibility report of a pilot cluster randomised trial of prescribing policy in primary care to compare the effectiveness of thiazide-type diuretics in hypertension

Background

Obtaining evidence on comparative effectiveness and safety of widely prescribed drugs in a timely and cost-effective way is a major challenge for healthcare systems. Here, we describe the feasibility of the Evaluating Diuretics in Normal Care (EVIDENCE) study that compares a thiazide and thiazide-like diuretics for hypertension as an exemplar of a more general framework for efficient generation of such evidence. In 2011, the UK NICE hypertension guideline included a recommendation that thiazide-like diuretics (such as indapamide) be used in preference to thiazide diuretics (such as bendroflumethiazide) for hypertension. There is sparse evidence backing this recommendation, and bendroflumethiazide remains widely used in the UK.

Methods

Patients prescribed indapamide or bendroflumethiazide regularly for hypertension were identified in participating general practices. Allocation of a prescribing policy favouring one of these drugs was then randomly applied to the practice and, where required to comply with the policy, repeat prescriptions switched by pharmacy staff. Patients were informed of the potential switch by letter and given the opportunity to opt out. Practice adherence to the randomised policy was assessed by measuring the amount of policy drug prescribed as a proportion of total combined indapamide and bendroflumethiazide. Routinely collected hospitalisation and death data in the NHS will be used to compare cardiovascular event rates between the two policies.

Results

This pilot recruited 30 primary care practices in five Scottish National Health Service (NHS) Boards. Fifteen practices were randomised to indapamide (2682 patients) and 15 to bendroflumethiazide (3437 patients), a study population of 6119 patients. Prior to randomisation, bendroflumethiazide was prescribed to 78% of patients prescribed either of these drugs. Only 1.6% of patients opted out of the proposed medication switch.

Conclusion

The pilot and subsequent recruitment confirms the methodology is scalable within NHS Scotland for a fully powered larger study; currently, 102 GP practices (> 12,700 patients) are participating in this study. It has the potential to efficiently produce externally valid comparative effectiveness data with minimal disruption to practice staff or patients. Streamlining this pragmatic trial approach has demonstrated the feasibility of a random prescribing policy design framework that can be adapted to other therapeutic areas.

Trial registration

ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN46635087. Registered on 11 August 2017

Evaluating Diuretics in Normal Care (EVIDENCE): protocol of a cluster randomised controlled equivalence trial of prescribing policy to compare the effectiveness of thiazide-type diuretics in hypertension

INTRODUCTION

Healthcare systems must use treatments that are effective and safe. Regulators licensed many currently used older medications before introducing the stringent evidential requirements imposed on modern treatments. Also, there has been little encouragement to carry out within-class, head-to-head comparisons of licensed medicines. For commonly prescribed drugs, even small differences in effectiveness or safety could have significant public health implications. However, conventional clinical trials that randomise individual subjects are costly and unwieldy. Such trials are also often criticised as having low external validity. We describe an approach to rapidly generate externally valid evidence of comparative safety and effectiveness using the example of two widely used diuretics for the management of hypertension.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The EVIDENCE (Evaluating Diuretics in Normal Care) study has a prospective, cluster-randomised, open-label, blinded end-point design. By randomising prescribing policy in primary care practices, the study compares the safety and effectiveness of commonly used diuretics in treating hypertension. Participating practices are randomised 1:1 to a policy of prescribing either indapamide or bendroflumethiazide when clinically indicated. Suitable patients who are not already taking the policy diuretic are switched accordingly. All patients taking the study medications are written to explaining the rationale for changing the prescribing policy and notifying them they can opt-out of any switch. The prescribing policies' effectiveness and safety will be compared using rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (hospitalisation with myocardial infarction, heart failure or stroke or cardiovascular death), routinely collected in national healthcare administrative datasets. The study will seek to recruit 250 practices to provide a study population of approximately 50,000 individuals with a mean follow-up time of two years. A primary intention-to-treat time-to-event analysis will be used to estimate the relative effect of the two policies.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

EVIDENCE has been approved by the East of Scotland Research Ethics Service (17/ES/0016, current approved protocol version 5, 26 August 2021). The results will be disseminated widely in peer reviewed journals, guideline committees, National Health Service (NHS) organisations and patient groups.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN 46635087 . Registered on 11 August 2017 (pre-recruitment).

Comprehensive Analysis of the Systemic Transcriptomic Alternations and Inflammatory Response during the Occurrence and Progress of COVID-19

The pandemic of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has posed huge threats to healthcare systems and the global economy. However, the host response towards COVID-19 on the molecular and cellular levels still lacks full understanding and effective therapies are in urgent need. Here, we integrate three datasets, GSE152641, GSE161777, and GSE157103. Compared to healthy people, 314 differentially expressed genes were identified, which were mostly involved in neutrophil degranulation and cell division. The protein-protein network was established and two significant subsets were filtered by MCODE: ssGSEA and CIBERSORT, which comprehensively revealed the alternation of immune cell abundance. Weighted gene coexpression network analysis (WGCNA) as well as GO and KEGG analyses unveiled the role of neutrophils and T cells during the progress of the disease. Based on the hospital-free days after 45 days of follow-up and statistical methods such as nonnegative matrix factorization (NMF), submap, and linear correlation analysis, 31 genes were regarded as the signature of the peripheral blood of COVID-19. Various immune cells were identified to be related to the prognosis of the patients. Drugs were predicted for the genes in the signature by DGIdb. Overall, our study comprehensively revealed the relationship between the inflammatory response and the disease course, which provided strategies for the treatment of COVID-19.

Organophotoredox Hydrodefluorination of Trifluoromethylarenes with Translational Applicability to Drug Discovery

Molecular editing such as insertion, deletion, and single atom exchange in highly functionalized compounds is an aspirational goal for all chemists. Here, we disclose a photoredox protocol for the replacement of a single fluorine atom with hydrogen in electron-deficient trifluoromethylarenes including complex drug molecules. A robustness screening experiment shows that this reductive defluorination tolerates a range of functional groups and heterocycles commonly found in bioactive molecules. Preliminary studies allude to a catalytic cycle whereby the excited state of the organophotocatalyst is reductively quenched by the hydrogen atom donor, and returned in its original oxidation state by the trifluoromethylarene.

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.

The effect of indapamide vs. bendroflumethiazide for primary hypertension: a systematic review

The aims of the current review were to compare the efficacy of monotherapy with bendroflumethiazide vs. indapamide on mortality, cardiovascular outcomes, blood pressure, need for intensification of treatment and treatment withdrawal. Two authors independently screened the results of a literature search, assessed the risk of bias and extracted relevant data. Randomized clinical trials of hypertensive patients of at least a 1-year duration were included. When there was disagreement, a third reviewer was consulted. Risk ratio (RR) and mean differences were used as measures of effect. Two trials comparing bendroflumethiazide against placebo, one comparing indapamide with placebo and three of short duration directly comparing indapamide and Bendroflumethiazide, were included. No statistically significant difference was found between indapamide and bendroflumethiazide for all deaths [RR 0.82; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57, 1.18], cardiovascular deaths (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.55, 1.20), noncardiovascular deaths (0.81; 95% CI 0.54, 1.22), coronary events (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.30, 1.79) or all cardiovascular events (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.67, 1.18). Indapamide performed worse for stroke (RR 2.21; 95% CI 1.19, 4.11), even though a reduction in RR compared with placebo was observed in both groups. There was no statistically or clinically significant difference between indapamide and bendroflumethiazide in blood pressure reduction (mean absolute difference <1 mmHg). The present review highlights a lack of studies to answer the review question but also a lack of evidence of superiority of one drug over the other. Therefore, there is a clear need for new studies directly comparing the effect of these drugs on the outcomes of interest.