6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Redefining diuretics use in hypertension: why select a thiazide-like diuretic?

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 98

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Major outcomes in high-risk hypertensive patients randomized to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or calcium channel blocker vs diuretic: The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT).

              (2002)
            Antihypertensive therapy is well established to reduce hypertension-related morbidity and mortality, but the optimal first-step therapy is unknown. To determine whether treatment with a calcium channel blocker or an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor lowers the incidence of coronary heart disease (CHD) or other cardiovascular disease (CVD) events vs treatment with a diuretic. The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT), a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled clinical trial conducted from February 1994 through March 2002. A total of 33 357 participants aged 55 years or older with hypertension and at least 1 other CHD risk factor from 623 North American centers. Participants were randomly assigned to receive chlorthalidone, 12.5 to 25 mg/d (n = 15 255); amlodipine, 2.5 to 10 mg/d (n = 9048); or lisinopril, 10 to 40 mg/d (n = 9054) for planned follow-up of approximately 4 to 8 years. The primary outcome was combined fatal CHD or nonfatal myocardial infarction, analyzed by intent-to-treat. Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, stroke, combined CHD (primary outcome, coronary revascularization, or angina with hospitalization), and combined CVD (combined CHD, stroke, treated angina without hospitalization, heart failure [HF], and peripheral arterial disease). Mean follow-up was 4.9 years. The primary outcome occurred in 2956 participants, with no difference between treatments. Compared with chlorthalidone (6-year rate, 11.5%), the relative risks (RRs) were 0.98 (95% CI, 0.90-1.07) for amlodipine (6-year rate, 11.3%) and 0.99 (95% CI, 0.91-1.08) for lisinopril (6-year rate, 11.4%). Likewise, all-cause mortality did not differ between groups. Five-year systolic blood pressures were significantly higher in the amlodipine (0.8 mm Hg, P =.03) and lisinopril (2 mm Hg, P<.001) groups compared with chlorthalidone, and 5-year diastolic blood pressure was significantly lower with amlodipine (0.8 mm Hg, P<.001). For amlodipine vs chlorthalidone, secondary outcomes were similar except for a higher 6-year rate of HF with amlodipine (10.2% vs 7.7%; RR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.25-1.52). For lisinopril vs chlorthalidone, lisinopril had higher 6-year rates of combined CVD (33.3% vs 30.9%; RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.05-1.16); stroke (6.3% vs 5.6%; RR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.02-1.30); and HF (8.7% vs 7.7%; RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.07-1.31). Thiazide-type diuretics are superior in preventing 1 or more major forms of CVD and are less expensive. They should be preferred for first-step antihypertensive therapy.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Prevention of stroke by antihypertensive drug treatment in older persons with isolated systolic hypertension. Final results of the Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program (SHEP). SHEP Cooperative Research Group.

              To assess the ability of antihypertensive drug treatment to reduce the risk of nonfatal and fatal (total) stroke in isolated systolic hypertension. Multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled. Community-based ambulatory population in tertiary care centers. 4736 persons (1.06%) from 447,921 screenees aged 60 years and above were randomized (2365 to active treatment, 2371 to placebo). Systolic blood pressure ranged from 160 to 219 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure was less than 90 mm Hg. Of the participants, 3161 were not receiving antihypertensive medication at initial contact, and 1575 were. The average systolic blood pressure was 170 mm Hg; average diastolic blood pressure, 77 mm Hg. The mean age was 72 years, 57% were women, and 14% were black. --Participants were stratified by clinical center and by antihypertensive medication status at initial contact. For step 1 of the trial, dose 1 was chlorthalidone, 12.5 mg/d, or matching placebo; dose 2 was 25 mg/d. For step 2, dose 1 was atenolol, 25 mg/d, or matching placebo; dose 2 was 50 mg/d. Primary. Nonfatal and fatal (total) stroke. Secondary. Cardiovascular and coronary morbidity and mortality, all-cause mortality, and quality of life measures. Average follow-up was 4.5 years. The 5-year average systolic blood pressure was 155 mm Hg for the placebo group and 143 mm Hg for the active treatment group, and the 5-year average diastolic blood pressure was 72 and 68 mm Hg, respectively. The 5-year incidence of total stroke was 5.2 per 100 participants for active treatment and 8.2 per 100 for placebo. The relative risk by proportional hazards regression analysis was 0.64 (P = .0003). For the secondary end point of clinical nonfatal myocardial infarction plus coronary death, the relative risk was 0.73. Major cardiovascular events were reduced (relative risk, 0.68). For deaths from all causes, the relative risk was 0.87. In persons aged 60 years and over with isolated systolic hypertension, antihypertensive stepped-care drug treatment with low-dose chlorthalidone as step 1 medication reduced the incidence of total stroke by 36%, with 5-year absolute benefit of 30 events per 1000 participants. Major cardiovascular events were reduced, with 5-year absolute benefit of 55 events per 1000.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Hypertens
                J. Hypertens
                JHYPE
                Journal of Hypertension
                Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
                0263-6352
                1473-5598
                August 2019
                14 March 2019
                : 37
                : 8
                : 1574-1586
                Affiliations
                [a ]Service of Nephrology and Hypertension, University of Lausanne
                [b ]Hypertension Research Foundation, Switzerland
                [c ]Comprehensive Hypertension Center, Section of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, Department of Medicine, University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA
                [d ]University College London, NIHR University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre, London, Great Britain
                Author notes
                Correspondence to Professor Michel Burnier, Service of Nephrology and Hypertension, Centre hospitalier universitaire vaudois (CHUV), Rue du Bugnon 17, 1011 Lausanne, Switzerland. E-mail: michel.burnier@ 123456chuv.ch ; michel.burnier@ 123456netplus.ch
                Article
                JH-D-18-01175
                10.1097/HJH.0000000000002088
                6615933
                30882593
                Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0

                Product
                Categories
                Reviews and Meta-Analyses
                Custom metadata
                TRUE

                Comments

                Comment on this article