A randomised controlled trial for the evaluation of risk for type 2 diabetes in hypertensive patients receiving thiazide diuretics: Diuretics In the Management of Essential hypertension (DIME) study

Home blood pressure-lowering effect of a non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor blocker, esaxerenone, versus trichlormethiazide for uncontrolled hypertension: the EXCITE-HT randomized controlled study

The EXCITE-HT study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of esaxerenone versus thiazide diuretics (trichlormethiazide) as second-line treatment for Japanese patients with uncontrolled essential hypertension. This was a 12-week, multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel-group study. The non-inferiority of esaxerenone to trichlormethiazide was confirmed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in systolic blood pressure (SBP)/diastolic blood pressure (DBP) change between groups was below 3.9/2.1 mmHg. A total of 295 and 290 patients were included in the esaxerenone and trichlormethiazide groups, respectively. The non-inferiority of esaxerenone to trichlormethiazide was demonstrated: least squares mean change differences in morning home SBP/DBP at end of treatment (EOT) were -2.2 (95% CI, -3.6, -0.8) mmHg for SBP/-0.6 (-1.4, 0.2) mmHg for DBP. Morning home, bedtime home, and office BP significantly decreased (all p < 0.001) from baseline to EOT in both groups. The urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide level decreased from baseline to Week 12 in both groups, with no notable intergroup difference. Serum potassium elevations occurred more frequently with esaxerenone, while serum potassium reductions occurred more with trichlormethiazide. Uric acid elevations were observed in both groups, but more frequently with trichlormethiazide than esaxerenone. No cases of gout occurred in this study. Reductions in estimated glomerular filtration rate were similarly observed in both groups. EXCITE-HT is the first randomized controlled study to demonstrate evidence that esaxerenone is non-inferior to trichlormethiazide as second-line treatment for Japanese patients with uncontrolled essential hypertension, with no new safety concerns. The EXCITE-HT study demonstrated the non-inferiority of esaxerenone to trichlormethiazide in its morning home blood pressure lowering effect and safety profile in Japanese patients with uncontrolled essential hypertension who were previously treated with an angiotensin II receptor blocker or calcium channel blocker.

Clinical studies on pharmacological treatment of hypertension in Japan

Differences in the epidemiology and phenotypes of hypertension in Japan compared with Western countries mean that optimal approaches to the pharmacological management of hypertension should be based on local data. Fortunately, there is a large body of evidence from studies conducted in Japanese populations to inform guidelines and treatment decisions. This article highlights treatment recommendations and BP targets for Japanese patients with hypertension, and summarizes key literature supporting these recommendations. The latest version of the Japanese Society of Hypertension (JSH) guidelines is consistent with US and European guidelines in recommending that the general BP target should be <130/80 mmHg for office blood pressure (BP) and <125/75 mmHg for home BP. There is good local evidence to support these targets. The JSH guidelines also strongly recommend that antihypertensive therapy is managed and monitored based on home BP, due to the closer association of this parameter with cardiovascular risk compared with office BP. Japan is a leader in out-of-office BP research, meaning that there is good evidence for the Japanese recommendations. Key features of antihypertensive agents for use in Japanese patients with hypertension include the ability to reduce stroke risk provide antihypertensive efficacy throughout the 24-h dosing period. Calcium channel blockers appear to be particularly effective in Asian populations, and are the most commonly prescribed agents in Japan. Again consistent with international recommendations, antihypertensive therapy should be started with a combination of agents to maximize the chances of achieving target BP.

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

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

Association between antihypertensive treatment and adverse events: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association between antihypertensive treatment and specific adverse events.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of adults receiving antihypertensives compared with placebo or no treatment, more antihypertensive drugs compared with fewer antihypertensive drugs, or higher blood pressure targets compared with lower targets. To avoid small early phase trials, studies were required to have at least 650 patient years of follow-up.

INFORMATION SOURCES

Searches were conducted in Embase, Medline, CENTRAL, and the Science Citation Index databases from inception until 14 April 2020.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was falls during trial follow-up. Secondary outcomes were acute kidney injury, fractures, gout, hyperkalaemia, hypokalaemia, hypotension, and syncope. Additional outcomes related to death and major cardiovascular events were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and random effects meta-analysis was used to pool rate ratios, odds ratios, and hazard ratios across studies, allowing for between study heterogeneity (τ2).

RESULTS

Of 15 023 articles screened for inclusion, 58 randomised controlled trials were identified, including 280 638 participants followed up for a median of 3 (interquartile range 2-4) years. Most of the trials (n=40, 69%) had a low risk of bias. Among seven trials reporting data for falls, no evidence was found of an association with antihypertensive treatment (summary risk ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.24, τ2=0.009). Antihypertensives were associated with an increased risk of acute kidney injury (1.18, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.39, τ2=0.037, n=15), hyperkalaemia (1.89, 1.56 to 2.30, τ2=0.122, n=26), hypotension (1.97, 1.67 to 2.32, τ2=0.132, n=35), and syncope (1.28, 1.03 to 1.59, τ2=0.050, n=16). The heterogeneity between studies assessing acute kidney injury and hyperkalaemia events was reduced when focusing on drugs that affect the renin angiotensin-aldosterone system. Results were robust to sensitivity analyses focusing on adverse events leading to withdrawal from each trial. Antihypertensive treatment was associated with a reduced risk of all cause mortality, cardiovascular death, and stroke, but not of myocardial infarction.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis found no evidence to suggest that antihypertensive treatment is associated with falls but found evidence of an association with mild (hyperkalaemia, hypotension) and severe adverse events (acute kidney injury, syncope). These data could be used to inform shared decision making between doctors and patients about initiation and continuation of antihypertensive treatment, especially in patients at high risk of harm because of previous adverse events or poor renal function.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42018116860.

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.

Metabolic and Cardiovascular Effects of Switching Thiazides to Amlodipine in Hypertensive Patients With and Without Type 2 Diabetes (the Diuretics and Diabetes Control Study)

Background: Different studies have indicated that thiazide diuretics can increase the risk of developing type 2 diabetes (T2D). Therefore, in this study, we investigated whether switching from hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) to amlodipine resulted in ameliorating different cardiovascular and metabolic measures in hypertensive patients with or without T2D. Methods: This study [Diuretics and Diabetes Control (DiaDiC)] was a 6-week, single-blind, single-center randomized controlled trial. The first 20 normal glucose-tolerant, 20 prediabetic, and 20 T2D consecutive patients were randomized to continue the previous antihypertensive treatment with HCTZ (12.5-25 mg/day) or to switch from HCTZ to amlodipine (2.5-10 mg/day). The primary endpoints were the absolute change in 7-day continuous subcutaneous glucose monitoring (CSGM) glycemia, serum uric acid concentrations, and endothelial function [measured as flow-mediated dilation (FMD)]. Other secondary endpoints were investigated, including changes in glycated hemoglobin (HbA₁c), glycemic variability from 7-day CSGM, and the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Results: Amlodipine treatment was associated with a significant reduction in HbA₁c (P = 0.03) for both 7-day CSGM glycemia (P = 0.01) and glycemic variability (coefficient of variability %: HCTZ +3%, amlodipine -2.8%), and a reduction in uric acid concentrations (P < 0.001), especially in participants with T2D or prediabetes. Following amlodipine treatment, a significant increase in both eGFR (P = 0.01) and FMD (P = 0.02) was also observed. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that the replacement of HCTZ with amlodipine has several metabolic and cardiovascular beneficial effects. However, further intervention studies are necessary to confirm the clinical effects of thiazides, especially in diabetic people and in those at risk of diabetes.

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.

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.

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.