Isradipine in prediabetic hypertensive subjects

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.

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.

Treatment of diabetic hypertension

Insulin resistance and hyperglycaemia combine to make hypertension more prevalent in the type 2 diabetic patient. Blood pressure goals below those for the non-diabetic subject have been shown to be more effective in lowering mortality and cardiovascular events in the diabetic patient. To achieve these goals in most cases, three to five antihypertensives from different therapeutic groups need to be utilized. Suppression of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin 2 receptor blockers or a renin inhibitor should be the primary therapy. A second goal should be suppression of the sympathetic nervous system utilizing a beta-blocker that does not increase insulin resistance. The addition of a diuretic, calcium channel blocker or a vasodilator to suppressors of the RAS and sympathetic nervous system aid in achieving hypertensive goals in the diabetic patient. Achieving hypertensive goals with suppression of the RAS and sympathetic nervous system should result in a decrease in mortality and cardiovascular events in the diabetic hypertensive patient. In this review article, the benefits and disadvantages of the different antihypertensive therapies in the diabetic patient are discussed.

Methods underpinning national clinical guidelines for hypertension: describing the evidence shortfall

BACKGROUND

To be useful, clinical practice guidelines need to be evidence based; otherwise they will not achieve the validity, reliability and credibility required for implementation.

METHODS

This paper compares the methods used in gathering, analysing and linking of evidence to guideline recommendations in ten current hypertension guidelines.

RESULTS

It found several guidelines had failed to implement methods of searching for the relevant literature, critical analysis and linking to recommendations that minimise the risk of bias in the interpretation of research evidence. The more rigorous guidelines showed discrepancies in recommendations and grading that reflected different approaches to the use of evidence in guideline development.

CONCLUSION

Clinical practice guidelines as a methodology are clearly still an evolving health care technology.

Mechanisms of plaque stabilization for the dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker amlodipine: review of the evidence

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is the consequence of atherosclerosis, a vascular disorder that is the leading cause of death and disability throughout much of the developed world. Certain cellular changes in the vulnerable atherosclerotic plaque are characterized by a loss of normal calcium regulation. This observation has led to interest in a potential antiatherogenic role for calcium channel blockers (CCBs), independent of their effects on vasodilation. The Prospective Randomized Evaluation of the Vascular Effects of Norvasc Trial (PREVENT) demonstrated that treatment with amlodipine, a third-generation CCB, in patients with documented CAD produced marked reductions in cardiovascular events as compared with placebo, without a reduction in coronary luminal loss. Amlodipine therapy was also associated with significant slowing in carotid atherosclerosis, an important surrogate marker for CAD, independent of blood pressure changes. The findings from PREVENT were remarkably consistent with another study known as the Coronary Angioplasty Amlodipine Restenosis Study (CAPARES). A reduction in the progression of carotid atherosclerosis has also been recently reported for lacidipine, another third-generation dihydropyridine CCB. These clinical findings have led to a renewed interest in potential plaque stabilization properties of certain CCBs, as will be systematically reviewed in this article. It is also probable that vascular protective agents, such as amlodipine may work in a synergistic fashion with other established treatments, including HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, to effectively improve outcomes in patients who are at risk for or have established CAD.

Drugs for cardiovascular risk reduction in the diabetic patient

The diabetic patient is at increased risk for cardiac events. Lowering hemoglobin A1c levels even within the normal range is associated with less cardiac risk. Oral agents for diabetes that reduce insulin resistance and its associated cardiac risk factors in addition to lowering glucose should be used. Energetic reduction of blood pressure with an emphasis on the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and beta blockers will further reduce cardiac risk. Reduction of low-density lipoprotein and triglyceride levels and elevation of high-density lipoprotein levels through judicious use of statins and other anti-lipid agents is essential and will lower the rate of cardiac events in the diabetic patients even more than in the nondiabetic patients. In addition, aspirin and folic acid supplementation should be utilized. Use of a multiple risk factor management strategy with these drugs will lower morbidity and mortality, improve quality of life, and save cost for the diabetic patient.

Baseline characteristics of the diabetic participants in the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT)

OBJECTIVE

Hypertension (HTN) is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD) in the setting of diabetes. There is no consensus on how best to treat hypertension among those with diabetes. Here we describe the characteristics of a cohort of hypertensive adults with diabetes who are part of a large prospective blood pressure study. This study will help clarify the treatment of HTN in the setting of diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering high-risk hypertensive participants, ages > or = 55 years, designed to determine whether the incidence of fatal and nonfatal coronary heart disease (CHD) and combined cardiovascular events (fatal and nonfatal CHD, revascularization surgery, angina pectoris, congestive heart failure, and stroke) differs between diuretic (chlorthalidone) treatment and three alternative antihypertensive therapies: a calcium channel blocker (amlodipine), an ACE inhibitor (lisinopril), and an alpha-adrenergic blocker (doxazosin). The planned follow-up is an average of 6 years, to be completed March 2002.

RESULTS

There are 15,297 diabetic individuals in the ALLHAT study (36.0% of the entire cohort). Of these individuals, 50.2% are male, 39.4% are African-American, and 17.7% are Hispanic. Demographic and laboratory characteristics of the cohort are similar to those of other studies of the U.S. elderly population with HTN. The sample size has 42 and 93% confidence, treatments for the two study outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The diabetic cohort in ALLHAT wil be able to provide valuable information about the treatment of hypertension in older diabetic patients at risk for incident CVD.

Special considerations in the therapy of diabetic hypertension

Patients with diabetes mellitus have an increased prevalence of hypertension and associated cardiovascular disease (CVD), including coronary and cerebrovascular disease. The risk of an individual of developing CVD is much greater when both diseases coexist and is further magnified by their frequent association with dyslipidemia, coagulation, platelet, and endothelial abnormalities. Metabolic abnormalities frequently associated with hypertension are insulin resistance, enhanced coagulation, and decreased fibrinolytic activity. Drug treatment of hypertension in diabetic subjects is fraught with potential difficulties, including altered efficacy of medications, possible side effects, worsening of glycemic control, and impairment of lipid metabolism. Because hypertension is a major contributor to morbidity and mortality in diabetes, it should be recognized and treated early and aggressively despite these difficulties. This article reviews the efficacy and side effects of the various classes of antihypertensive agents in patients with diabetes mellitus.