Search

Diuretics have been used for decades in the treatment of hypertension. Its efficacy has been demonstrated in numerous clinical trials. It is well known that the reduction in cardiovascular risk is a consequence of the reduction in blood pressure levels regardless of the drug used, but thiazide diuretics continue to be first-line drugs, especially in low doses and combined with other drugs. The debate on the advantages of using chlorthalidone or hydrochlorothiazide continues, however hydrochlorothiazide is drug most used and for which there is greater availability. The association with potassium-sparing diuretics increases the effectiveness and reduces the adverse reactions of thiazides. A new group of drugs, close to potassium-sparing diuretics, that antagonise aldosterone synthase are showing promising results as antihypertensives. There are no significant differences between men and women regarding the antihypertensive effect of thiazide diuretics., (Copyright © 2024 The Author. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Background: Thiazide diuretics (TD) are the first-line treatment of hypertension because of its consistent benefit in lowering blood pressure and cardiovascular risk. TD is also known to cause an excess risk of diabetes, which may limit long-term use. Although potassium (K) depletion was thought to be the main mechanism of TD-induced hyperglycemia, TD also triggers magnesium (Mg) depletion. However, the role of Mg supplementation in modulating metabolic side effects of TD has not been investigated. Therefore, we aim to determine the effect of potassium magnesium citrate (KMgCit) on fasting plasma glucose and liver fat by magnetic resonance imaging during TD therapy., Methods: Accordingly, we conducted a double-blinded RCT in 60 nondiabetic hypertension patients to compare the effects of KCl versus KMgCit during chlorthalidone treatment. Each patient received chlorthalidone alone for 3 weeks before randomization. Primary end point was the change in fasting plasma glucose after 16 weeks of KCl or KMgCit supplementation from chlorthalidone alone., Results: The mean age of subjects was 59±11 years (30% Black participants). Chlorthalidone alone induced a significant rise in fasting plasma glucose, and a significant fall in serum K, serum Mg, and 24-hour urinary citrate excretion (all P <0.05). KMgCit attenuated the rise in fasting plasma glucose by 7.9 mg/dL versus KCl ( P <0.05), which was not observed with KCl. There were no significant differences in liver fat between the 2 groups., Conclusions: KMgCit is superior to KCl, the common form of K supplement used in clinical practice, in preventing TD-induced hyperglycemia. This action may improve tolerability and cardiovascular safety in patients with hypertension treated with this drug class., Competing Interests: Disclosures C.C.Y. Pak, W. Vongpatanasin, and O. Moe are inventors of the patent US-2017/0281578-Al under the application by The Board of Regents of the University of Texas System, Austin, TX.

The Diuretic Comparison Project (DCP)1 was a real world study planned to evaluate in a pragmatic manner whether Chlorthalidone (CTD), as compared with Hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), would reduce the risk of major nonfatal cardiovascular disease outcomes in elderly hypertensive participants (≥65 years) who were receiving HCTZ (25 or 50 mg) at baseline. This study being a real world study lacks the robustness of a randomized controlled trial. The principle limitation being unequal exposure of the two diuretics, prolonged unknown duration of exposure to HCTZ vs a short exposure to CTD (Median 2.4 years). In the high risk population with history of MI/Stroke, CTD conferred a lower risk of primary outcome as compared to low risk population where no significant difference in outcome was seen in both diuretics. Other factors included, lack of established dose equivalency of the two diuretics and absence of use of 12.5 mg HCTZ in older hypertensives. How to cite this article : Pareek A, Messerli FH, Ram CVS. Chlorthalidone vs Hydrochlorothiazide for Hypertension-CV Events: Did the Design Influence the Outcome? J Assoc Physicians India 2023;71(10):93-93., (© Journal of the Association of Physicians of India 2023.)

The authors evaluated the efficacy, safety, and characteristics of patients who respond well to standard dose triple combination therapy including chlorthalidone 25 mg with telmisartan 80 mg plus amlodipine 5 mg in hypertensive patients. This is a multicenter, double-blind, active-controlled, phase 3, randomized trial. Patients are randomized to triple combination (telmisartan 40 mg/amlodipine 5 mg/chlorthalidone 12.5 mg, TEL/AML/CHTD group) or dual combination (telmisartan 40 mg/amlodipine 5 mg, TEL/AML group) treatment and then dose up titration to TEL 80/AML5/CHTD25mg and TEL80/AML5, respectively. The primary endpoint is the change of mean sitting systolic blood pressure (MSSBP) at week 8. A Target BP achievement rate, a response rate, and the safety endpoints are also evaluated. Total 374 patients (mean age = 60.9 ± 10.7 years, male = 78.3%) were randomized to the study. The baseline MSSBPs/diastolic BPs were 149.9 ± 12.2/88.5 ± 10.4 mm Hg. After 8 weeks treatment, the change of MSSBPs at week 8 are -19.1 ± 14.9 mm Hg (TEL/AML/CHTD) and -11.4 ± 14.7 mm Hg (TEL/AML) (p < .0001). The achievement rates of target BP (53.8% vs. 37.8%, p = .0017) and responder rate (54.8% vs. 35.6%, p = .0001) at week 8 were significantly higher in TEL/AML/CHTD. There are no serious adverse event and no one discontinued medication due to adverse event. Among the TEL 80/AML5/CHTD25mg treatment group, patients of female or age ≥ 65 years old showed higher rate of target BP achievement than relatively young male. (61.4 vs. 46.8%, p = .042) Our study showed standard dose triple combination of telmisartan 80 mg/amlodipine 5 mg/chlorthalidone 25 mg is efficacious and safe in treatment of primary hypertension. Target BP achievement with triple therapy would be facilitated in female or old age., (© 2023 The Authors. The Journal of Clinical Hypertension published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Whether chlorthalidone is superior to hydrochlorothiazide for preventing major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with hypertension is unclear., Methods: In a pragmatic trial, we randomly assigned adults 65 years of age or older who were patients in the Department of Veterans Affairs health system and had been receiving hydrochlorothiazide at a daily dose of 25 or 50 mg to continue therapy with hydrochlorothiazide or to switch to chlorthalidone at a daily dose of 12.5 or 25 mg. The primary outcome was a composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure resulting in hospitalization, urgent coronary revascularization for unstable angina, and non-cancer-related death. Safety was also assessed., Results: A total of 13,523 patients underwent randomization. The mean age was 72 years. At baseline, hydrochlorothiazide at a dose of 25 mg per day had been prescribed in 12,781 patients (94.5%). The mean baseline systolic blood pressure in each group was 139 mm Hg. At a median follow-up of 2.4 years, there was little difference in the occurrence of primary-outcome events between the chlorthalidone group (702 patients [10.4%]) and the hydrochlorothiazide group (675 patients [10.0%]) (hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.94 to 1.16; P = 0.45). There were no between-group differences in the occurrence of any of the components of the primary outcome. The incidence of hypokalemia was higher in the chlorthalidone group than in the hydrochlorothiazide group (6.0% vs. 4.4%, P<0.001)., Conclusions: In this large pragmatic trial of thiazide diuretics at doses commonly used in clinical practice, patients who received chlorthalidone did not have a lower occurrence of major cardiovascular outcome events or non-cancer-related deaths than patients who received hydrochlorothiazide. (Funded by the Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02185417.)., (Copyright © 2022 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

This study conducted a pairwise comparison of antihypertensive and metabolic effects of hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) and chlorthalidone (CTD) at 25 mg/day in the same individuals to address the clinical dilemma on preferred thiazide for hypertension (HTN) management. We included 15 African American (AA) and 35 European American (EA) patients with HTN treated with HCTZ and CTD as part of the Pharmacogenomic Evaluation of Antihypertensive Responses (PEAR) and PEAR-2 trials, respectively. Mean reduction in systolic/diastolic blood pressure (SBP/DBP) with HCTZ versus CTD was 8/5 versus 16/8 mmHg among EA patients (p < 1.0e -5 SBP, p = 0.002 DBP) and 11/8 versus 20/11 mmHg among AA patients (p = 0.03 SBP, p = 0.22 DBP). While CTD showed clinically meaningful benefit over HCTZ in two-thirds of participants with respect to SBP reduction and half of EA patients with respect to DBP reduction, a majority of AA patients (53%) showed similar DBP reduction with both thiazides. Sixty percent of AA patients and 29% of EA patients attained blood pressure (BP) <140/90 mmHg with both thiazides. Mean potassium (K+) reduction was greater with CTD compared to HCTZ both in EA patients (mean difference = 0.35, p = 0.0002) and AA patients (0.49, p = 0.043). While 31% of AA patients developed severe hypokalemia on CTD, <5% of others developed severe hypokalemia. Although 46% of AA patients on CTD required K+ supplementation, only 6%-11% of others required supplementation. Overall, in the majority of EA patients, CTD was superior to HCTZ, whereas among AA patients, it was superior in a minority, and was associated with significant potassium-related risk, suggesting that guideline preferences for CTD over HCTZ are reasonable in EA patients but may be less reasonable in AA patients, particularly if the target is <140/90 mmHg., (© 2022 The Authors. Clinical and Translational Science published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Chlorthalidone (CTD) may be superior to hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in the reduction of adverse cardiovascular events in hypertensive patients. The mechanism of the potential benefit of CTD could be related to antiplatelet effects. The objective of this study was to determine if CTD or HCTZ have antiplatelet effects. This study was a prospective, double-blind, randomized, three-way crossover comparison evaluating the antiplatelet effects of CTD, HCTZ, and aspirin (ASA) in healthy volunteers. The effects of these treatments on platelet activation and aggregation were assessed using a well-established method with five standard platelet agonists. Thirty-four patients completed the three-way crossover comparing pre- and post-treatment changes in platelet activation and aggregation studies. There were statistically significant antiplatelet effects with ASA but not with CTD or HCTZ. Hypokalemia occurred in 0 (0%), 10 (30%), and 6 (18%) of the ASA, CTD, and HCTZ patients, respectively. The results of our study suggest that the benefits of CTD and HCTZ in reducing adverse cardiovascular events in patients with hypertension is not a result of an antiplatelet effect. In our study, hypokalemia with CTD was more prevalent than that reported in a large outcome trial in patients with hypertension. The clinical relevance of this finding is uncertain., (© 2022 The Authors. The Journal of Clinical Hypertension published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Hypertension is a leading risk factor for cardiovascular disease mortality. African Americans (AAs) have the highest prevalence of hypertension in the United States, and to alleviate the burden of hypertension in this population, better control of blood pressure (BP) is needed. Previous studies have shown considerable interpersonal differences in BP response to antihypertensive treatment, suggesting a genetic component. Utilizing data from 4297 AA participants randomized to chlorthalidone from the Genetics of Hypertension Associated Treatments (GenHAT) study, we aimed to identify variants associated with the efficacy of chlorthalidone. An additional aim was to find variants that contributed to changes in fasting glucose (FG) in these individuals. We performed genome-wide association analyses on the change of systolic and diastolic BP (SBP and DBP) over six months and FG levels over 24 months of treatment. We sought replication in the International Consortia of Pharmacogenomics Studies. We identified eight variants statistically associated with BP response and nine variants associated with FG response. One suggestive LINC02211-CDH9 intergenic variant was marginally replicated with the same direction of effect. Given the impact of hypertension in AAs, this study implies that understanding the genetic background for BP control and glucose changes during chlorthalidone treatment may help prevent adverse cardiovascular events in this population.

Aim: The main treatment strategy in type 1 cardiorenal syndrome (CRS1) is vascular decongestion. It is probable that sequential blockage of the renal tubule with combined diuretics (CD) will obtain similar benefits compared with stepped-dose furosemide (SF)., Methods: In a pilot double-blind randomized controlled trial of CRS1 patients were allocated in a 1:1 fashion to SF or CD. The SF group received a continuous infusion of furosemide 100 mg during the first day, with daily incremental doses to 200 mg, 300 mg and 400 mg. The CD group received a combination of diuretics, including 4 consecutive days of oral chlorthalidone 50 mg, spironolactone 50 mg and infusion of furosemide 100 mg. The objectives were to assess renal function recovery and variables associated with vascular decongestion., Results: From July 2017 to February 2020, 80 patients were randomized, 40 to the SF and 40 to the CD group. Groups were similar at baseline and had several very high-risk features. Their mean age was 59 ± 14.5 years, there were 37 men (46.2%). The primary endpoint occurred in 20% of the SF group and 15.2% of the DC group (p = 0.49). All secondary and exploratory endpoints were similar between groups. Adverse events occurred frequently (85%) with no differences between groups (p = 0.53)., Conclusion: In patients with CRS1 and a high risk of resistance to diuretics, the use of CD compared to SF offers the same results in renal recovery, diuresis, vascular decongestion and adverse events, and it can be considered an alternative treatment. ClinicalTrials.gov with number NCT04393493 on 19/05/2020 retrospectively registered., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

According to this study: Hyponatremia and hypokalemia occur in approximately 20% of patients who take thiazide diuretics., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Little evidence has been available to support the use of thiazide diuretics to treat hypertension in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease., Methods: We randomly assigned patients with stage 4 chronic kidney disease and poorly controlled hypertension, as confirmed by 24-hour ambulatory blood-pressure monitoring, in a 1:1 ratio to receive chlorthalidone at an initial dose of 12.5 mg per day, with increases every 4 weeks if needed to a maximum dose of 50 mg per day, or placebo; randomization was stratified according to previous use of loop diuretics. The primary outcome was the change in 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure from baseline to 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes were the change from baseline to 12 weeks in the urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level, plasma renin and aldosterone levels, and total body volume. Safety was also assessed., Results: A total of 160 patients underwent randomization, of whom 121 (76%) had diabetes mellitus and 96 (60%) were receiving loop diuretics. At baseline, the mean (±SD) estimated glomerular filtration rate was 23.2±4.2 ml per minute per 1.73 m 2 of body-surface area and the mean number of antihypertensive medications prescribed was 3.4±1.4. At randomization, the mean 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure was 142.6±8.1 mm Hg in the chlorthalidone group and 140.1±8.1 mm Hg in the placebo group and the mean 24-hour ambulatory diastolic blood pressure was 74.6±10.1 mm Hg and 72.8±9.3 mm Hg, respectively. The adjusted change in 24-hour systolic blood pressure from baseline to 12 weeks was -11.0 mm Hg (95% confidence interval [CI], -13.9 to -8.1) in the chlorthalidone group and -0.5 mm Hg (95% CI, -3.5 to 2.5) in the placebo group. The between-group difference was -10.5 mm Hg (95% CI, -14.6 to -6.4) (P<0.001). The percent change in the urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio from baseline to 12 weeks was lower in the chlorthalidone group than in the placebo group by 50 percentage points (95% CI, 37 to 60). Hypokalemia, reversible increases in serum creatinine level, hyperglycemia, dizziness, and hyperuricemia occurred more frequently in the chlorthalidone group than in the placebo group., Conclusions: Among patients with advanced chronic kidney disease and poorly controlled hypertension, chlorthalidone therapy improved blood-pressure control at 12 weeks as compared with placebo. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the Indiana Institute of Medical Research; CLICK ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02841280.)., (Copyright © 2021 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Objectives: This post-trial data linkage analysis was to utilize the data of Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) participants linked with their Medicare data to examine the risk of hospitalized and non-hospitalized gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding associated with antihypertensives., Settings: ALLHAT was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled trial conducted in a total of 42,418 participants aged ≥55 years with hypertension in 623 North American centers. Data for ALLHAT participants who were aged at ≥65 have been linked with their Medicare claims data., Participants: A total of 16,676 patients (4,480 for lisinopril, 4,537 for amlodipine, and 7,659 for chlorthalidone) with complete Medicare claims data were available for the final analysis., Results: The cumulative incidences through March 31, 2002 of hospitalized GI bleeding were 5.4%, 5.8% and 5.4% for amlodipine, lisinopril, and chlorthalidone arms, respectively, but were not statistically significant among the 3 arms after adjusting for confounders in Cox regression models. The cumulative incidences of non-hospitalized GI bleeding were also similar across the 3 arms (12.0%, 12.2% and 12.0% for amlodipine, lisinopril, and chlorthalidone, respectively). The increased risk of GI bleeding by age was statistically significant after adjusting for confounders (HR = 1.04 per year, 95% CI: 1.03-1.05). Smokers also had a significantly higher risk of having hospitalized GI bleeding (1.45, 1.19-1.76). Hispanics, those who used aspirin or atenolol in-trial, had diabetes, more education, and a history of stroke had a significantly lower risk of having GI bleeding than their counterparts. Other factors such as gender, history of CHD, prior antihypertensive use, use of estrogen in women, and obesity did not have significant effects on the risk of GI bleeding., Conclusion: There were no statistically significant differences on the risk of hospitalized or non-hospitalized GI bleeding among the 3 ALLHAT trial arms (amlodipine, lisinopril, and chlorthalidone) during the entire in-trial follow-up., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background and Objectives: In a randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, treatment with spironolactone in early-stage CKD reduced left ventricular mass and arterial stiffness compared with placebo. It is not known if these effects were due to BP reduction or specific vascular and myocardial effects of spironolactone., Design, Setting, Participants, & Measurements: A prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded end point study conducted in four UK centers (Birmingham, Cambridge, Edinburgh, and London) comparing spironolactone 25 mg to chlorthalidone 25 mg once daily for 40 weeks in 154 participants with nondiabetic stage 2 and 3 CKD (eGFR 30-89 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 ). The primary end point was change in left ventricular mass on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Participants were on treatment with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker and had controlled BP (target ≤130/80 mm Hg)., Results: There was no significant difference in left ventricular mass regression; at week 40, the adjusted mean difference for spironolactone compared with chlorthalidone was -3.8 g (95% confidence interval, -8.1 to 0.5 g, P =0.08). Office and 24-hour ambulatory BPs fell in response to both drugs with no significant differences between treatment. Pulse wave velocity was not significantly different between groups; at week 40, the adjusted mean difference for spironolactone compared with chlorthalidone was 0.04 m/s (-0.4 m/s, 0.5 m/s, P =0.90). Hyperkalemia (defined ≥5.4 mEq/L) occurred more frequently with spironolactone (12 versus two participants, adjusted relative risk was 5.5, 95% confidence interval, 1.4 to 22.1, P =0.02), but there were no patients with severe hyperkalemia (defined ≥6.5 mEq/L). A decline in eGFR >30% occurred in eight participants treated with chlorthalidone compared with two participants with spironolactone (adjusted relative risk was 0.2, 95% confidence interval, 0.05 to 1.1, P =0.07)., Conclusions: Spironolactone was not superior to chlorthalidone in reducing left ventricular mass, BP, or arterial stiffness in nondiabetic CKD., (Copyright © 2021 by the American Society of Nephrology.)

Thiazide diuretics (hydrochlorothiazide) and « thiazide-like » (chlorthalidone, indapamide) are widely prescribed due to their effectiveness in the treatment of arterial hypertension. The use of thiazides may be complicated by hyponatremia that is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. The pathophysiology of thiazide-induced hyponatremia is not yet clear. It is currently difficult to predict who will develop thiazide-induced hyponatremia. Genetic predisposition is considered, and several studies are attempting to clarify it in order to identify patients at risk of developing hyponatremia after taking a thiazide. Their reintroduction to a patient who already presented hyponatremia upon thiazide should be avoided., Competing Interests: Les auteurs n’ont déclaré aucun conflit d’intérêts en relation avec cet article.

Importance: Thiazide diuretics are commonly prescribed for the treatment of hypertension, a disease highly prevalent among older individuals and in those with chronic kidney disease. How specific thiazide diuretics compare in regard to safety and clinical outcomes in these populations remains unknown., Objective: To compare safety and clinical outcomes associated with chlorthalidone or hydrochlorothiazide use among older adults with varying levels of kidney function., Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based retrospective cohort study was conducted in Ontario, Canada, from 2007 to 2015. Participants included adults aged 66 years or older who initiated chlorthalidone or hydrochlorothiazide during this period. Data were analyzed from December 2019 through September 2020., Exposures: New chlorthalidone users were matched 1:4 with new hydrochlorothiazide users by a high-dimensional propensity score. Time-to-event models accounting for competing risks examined the associations between chlorthalidone vs hydrochlorothiazide use and the outcomes of interest overall and within estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) categories (≥60, 45-59, and <45 mL/min/1.73 m2)., Main Outcomes and Measures: The outcomes of interest were adverse kidney events (ie, eGFR decline ≥30%, dialysis, or kidney transplantation), cardiovascular events (composite of myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization, heart failure, or atrial fibrillation), all-cause mortality, and electrolyte anomalies (ie, sodium or potassium levels outside reference ranges)., Results: After propensity score matching, the study cohort included 12 722 adults (mean [SD] age, 74 [7] years; 7063 [56%] women; 5659 [44%] men; mean [SD] eGFR, 69 [19] mL/min/1.73 m2), including 2936 who received chlorthalidone and 9786 who received hydrochlorothiazide. Chlorthalidone use was associated with a higher risk of eGFR decline of 30% or greater (hazard ratio [HR], 1.24 [95% CI, 1.13-1.36]) and cardiovascular events (HR, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.04-1.22]) across all eGFR categories compared with hydrochlorothiazide use. Chlorthalidone use was also associated with a higher risk of hypokalemia compared with hydrochlorothiazide use, which was more pronounced among those with higher eGFR (eGFR ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2: HR, 1.86 [95% CI, 1.67-2.08]; eGFR 45-59 mL/min/1.73 m2: HR, 1.57 [95% CI, 1.25-1.96]; eGFR <45 mL/min/1.73 m2: HR, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.84-1.45]; P for interaction = .001). No significant differences were observed between chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide for dialysis or kidney transplantation (HR, 1.44 [95% CI, 0.88-2.36]), all-cause mortality (HR, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.93-1.29]), hyperkalemia (HR, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.79-1.39]), or hyponatremia (HR, 1.14 [95% CI, CI 0.98-1.32])., Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found that among older adults, chlorthalidone use was associated with a higher risk of eGFR decline, cardiovascular events, and hypokalemia compared with hydrochlorothiazide use. The excess risk of hypokalemia with chlorthalidone was attenuated in participants with reduced kidney function. Placed in context with prior observational studies comparing the safety and clinical outcomes associated with thiazide diuretics, these results suggest that there is no evidence to prefer chlorthalidone over hydrochlorothiazide.

Background: Chlorthalidone is recommended over hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) as the preferred thiazide, but the supporting evidence is not robust at routinely used doses, or in whites vs blacks, in whom differences in response to thiazides are well known. We compare the efficacy and safety of HCTZ and chlorthalidone as first-line therapies for white and black hypertensive patients., Methods: We compared treatment-related outcomes between the HCTZ arm (12.5 mg for 2-3 weeks; 25 mg for additional 6 weeks) of the Pharmacogenomic Evaluation of Antihypertensive Responses (PEAR, n = 376) and chlorthalidone arm (15 mg for 2 weeks; 25 mg for additional 6 weeks) of PEAR-2 (n = 326) clinical trials, in 17-65-year-old mild-moderate uncomplicated hypertensive whites and blacks., Results: Mean systolic/diastolic blood pressure (SBP/DBP) reduction with HCTZ vs chlorthalidone: 8 ± 8/4 ± 5 vs 12 ± 9/7 ± 5 mm Hg in whites (P < 10 -6 SBP and DBP); 12 ± 10/7 ± 6 vs 15 ± 10/9 ± 6 in blacks (P = .008 SBP, P = .054 DBP). Treatment with HCTZ vs chlorthalidone in whites resulted in significantly fewer patients achieving target BP (<140/90 mm Hg) (44% vs 57%, P = .018) and clinical response rate (≥10 mm Hg DBP reduction); and significantly higher nonresponse rate (<6 mm Hg DBP reduction); but no significant differences in rates among blacks (eg, target-BP rate: 56% vs 63%, P = .31). HCTZ treatment led to significantly lower rates of hypokalemia and hyperuricemia in whites and blacks, vs chlorthalidone, and significantly lower odds of requiring potassium supplementation among blacks (odds ratio 0.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.07-0.37; P = 3.4e -7 )., Conclusion: Compared with HCTZ, chlorthalidone showed greater blood pressure lowering and adverse metabolic effects in whites, but similar blood pressure lowering and greater adverse effects in blacks; suggesting that the recent guideline recommendations to choose chlorthalidone over HCTZ may not be warranted in blacks., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: There is continuous debate whether chlorthalidone (CTD) and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) differ in reducing major cardiovascular events (MACE). HCTZ is prescribed 10 times more commonly than CTD., Method: A systematic literature search yielded 14 references, including two network meta-analyses of randomized trials with MACE and left ventricular mass as outcomes., Results: The network meta-analysis of randomized trials showed CTD reducing MACE more than HCTZ, hazard ratio = 0.79 (0.72-0.88), P < 0.0001, and an observational cohort study gave an identical point estimate: hazard ratio = 0.79 (0.68-0.92), P = 0.002. In contrast, two observational cohort studies reported no differences between CTD and HCTZ. However, in the studies showing the superiority of CTD median follow-up was 4.3 and 7.0 years, respectively, whereas in the latter studies showing no difference between the two drugs follow-up was only 0.95 and 0.25 years. As differences in outcomes for MACE in hypertension trials with various interventions only emerge after prolonged (>1 year) therapy, differences in follow-up explain these discrepant results. CTD also more effectively reduced left ventricular mass in observational data and network analysis of trials. These advantages of CTD over HCTZ are consistent with greater reductions in night-time blood pressure, greater reductions in oxidative stress and platelet aggregation, and greater improvements in endothelial function., Conclusion: Over the short-term there were no differences in the net clinical benefit between HCTZ and CTD. However, long-term available data document CTD to be significantly more effective in reducing MACE than HCTZ. The Veterans Administration's trial in progress may provide definitive answer to these questions., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Hypertension is a chronic condition leading to increased stress on the heart and blood vessels, a critical risk factor for clinically significant events such as myocardial infarction heart failure, stroke and death. Chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide are first-line antihypertensive agents for most patients with hypertension. The aim of our meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of both therapies in patients with hypertension. Searches of electronic databases PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, PsycInfo and eLIBRARY.ru, were performed. We used network meta-analysis to combine direct and indirect evidence. Forest plots and closed loops depict estimated results from studies included in our meta-analysis. Of 1289 identified sources, only 37 were included in our meta-analysis. Our analysis has demonstrated a slight superiority for chlorthalidone regarding SBP and not statistically significant differences regarding DBP. Simultaneously, hydrochlorothiazide seems to be a safer choice of therapy, as evidenced by the levels of serum potassium. The two diuretics can be used interchangeably., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Diuretics are the most commonly used drugs for the treatment of hypertension, either alone or in combination with other antihypertensive drugs. Of all diuretics, hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) and chlorthalidone (CTD) are the most commonly used, with HCTZ being the most widely prescribed diuretic. Recent studies have shown that CTD is a better diuretic with superior antihypertensive effectiveness and cardiovascular protection. Although these diuretics are chemically, pharmacokinetically and pharmacodynamically different, CTD continues to be called a "thiazide-like" diuretic. The only common features they both share are a sulfhydryl group in their molecules and their common mechanism and site of diuretic action. In order to get a better understanding of the true pharmacologic actions as well as the benefits and risks of these diuretics, a MEDLINE search of the English language literature between 1964 and January 2021 was conducted, using the terms "diuretics", "hydrochlorothiazide", "chlorthalidone", "hypertension", "cardiovascular disease" and "treatment". From this search, 28 pertinent papers were selected and they will be discussed in this review together with collateral literature. The analysis of results revealed that CTD is superior to HCTZ in antihypertensive effectiveness and cardioprotection and should be the preferred diuretic for the treatment of hypertension., (Copyright 2021 Clarivate Analytics.)

Aims: To compare the blood pressure (BP)-lowering efficacy of a chlorthalidone/amiloride combination pill with losartan, during initial management of JNC 7 Stage I hypertension in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus., Methods: In an a priori subgroup analysis of a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial, volunteers aged 30-70 years, with stage I hypertension and diabetes mellitus, were randomized to 12.5/2.5 mg of chlorthalidone/amiloride (N = 47) or 50 mg of losartan (N = 50), and followed for 18 months in 21 clinical centers. If BP remained uncontrolled after three months, study medication dose was doubled, and if uncontrolled after six months, amlodipine (5 and 10 mg) and propranolol (40 and 80 mg BID) were added as open label drugs in a progressive fashion., Results: Systolic BP decreased to a greater extent in participants allocated to diuretics compared to losartan (P < 0.001). After 18 months of follow-up, systolic BP was 128.4 ± 10.3 mmHg in the diuretic group versus 133.5 ± 8.0 in the losartan group (P < 0.01). In the diuretic group, 36 out of 43 participants (83.7%) had a JNC 7 normal BP, compared to 31/47 (66%) in the losartan group (P = 0.089). Serum cholesterol was higher in the diuretic arm at the end of the trial. Other biochemical parameters and reports of adverse events did not differ by treatment., Conclusions: Treatment of hypertension based on a combination of chlorthalidone and amiloride is more effective for BP lowering compared to losartan in patients with diabetes mellitus and hypertension., Trial Registration: Clinical trials registration number: NCT00971165.

Background: Azilsartan medoxomil (AZM) is the newest representative in the class of angiotensin receptor blockers. Azilsartan medoxomil in combination with the older diuretic chlorthalidone (CLD) in fixed-doses of AZM/CLD 40/12.5 mg and 40/25 mg has been approved by the FDA for use in patients with essential hypertension. We sought to evaluate the safety and tolerability of AZL-M alone and in combination with CLD., Methods: We conducted a search in PubMed using the keywords 'azilsartan', 'azilsartan medoxomil', 'chlorthalidone, 'safety', 'tolerability' in order to find scientific studies evaluating the safety of these drugs. We included studies reporting side effects of these drugs, alone or in combination, in comparison to placebo or other antihypertensive medications. For our systematic review, we followed the PRISMA guidelines., Results: Azilsartan medoxomil is a potent antihypertensive medicine with an acceptable safety profile. The most commonly reported adverse events are dizziness, headache, fatigue, upper respiratory tract infection and urinary tract infection. Chlorthalidone is more potent and has a considerably longer duration of action than the most commonly prescribed diuretic hydrochlorothiazide. Safety and tolerability between these two drugs are similar except higher serum uric acid and lower potassium levels with chlorthalidone., Conclusion: The combination of azilsartan medoxomil with chlorthalidone has been shown to be effective in lowering blood pressure with an acceptable safety and tolerability profile. This fixeddose combination is an attractive treatment option for hypertension management., (Copyright© Bentham Science Publishers; For any queries, please email at epub@benthamscience.net.)

Objectives: Gout is a common complication of blood pressure management and a frequently cited cause of medication nonadherence. Little trial evidence exists to inform antihypertensive selection with regard to gout risk., Methods: The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) was a randomized clinical trial on the effects of first-step hypertension therapy with amlodipine, chlorthalidone, or lisinopril on fatal coronary heart disease or nonfatal myocardial infarction (1994-2002). Trial participants were linked to CMS and VA gout claims (ICD9 274.XX). We determined the effect of drug assignment on gout with Cox regression models. We also determined the adjusted association of self-reported atenolol use (ascertained at the 1-month visit for indications other than hypertension) with gout., Results: Claims were linked to 23 964 participants (mean age 69.8 ± 6.8 years, 45% women, 31% black). Atenolol use was reported by 928 participants at the 1-month visit. Over a mean follow-up of 4.9 years, we documented 597 gout claims. Amlodipine reduced the risk of gout by 37% (hazard ratio 0.63; 95% CI 0.51--0.78) compared with chlorthalidone and by 26% (hazard ratio 0.74; 95% CI 0.58--0.94) compared with lisinopril. Lisinopril nonsignificantly lowered gout risk compared with chlorthalidone (hazard ratio 0.85; 95% CI 0.70--1.03). Atenolol use was not associated with gout risk (adjusted hazard ratio 1.18; 95% CI 0.78--1.80). Gout risk reduction was primarily observed after 1 year of follow-up., Conclusion: Amlodipine lowered long-term gout risk compared with lisinopril or chlorthalidone. This finding may be useful in cases where gout risk is a principal concern among patients being treated for hypertension.This trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov, number: NCT00000542.

Importance: Chlorthalidone is currently recommended as the preferred thiazide diuretic to treat hypertension, but no trials have directly compared risks and benefits., Objective: To compare the effectiveness and safety of chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide as first-line therapies for hypertension in real-world practice., Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a Large-Scale Evidence Generation and Evaluation in a Network of Databases (LEGEND) observational comparative cohort study with large-scale propensity score stratification and negative-control and synthetic positive-control calibration on databases spanning January 2001 through December 2018. Outpatient and inpatient care episodes of first-time users of antihypertensive monotherapy in the United States based on 2 administrative claims databases and 1 collection of electronic health records were analyzed. Analysis began June 2018., Exposures: Chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were acute myocardial infarction, hospitalization for heart failure, ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, and a composite cardiovascular disease outcome including the first 3 outcomes and sudden cardiac death. Fifty-one safety outcomes were measured., Results: Of 730 225 individuals (mean [SD] age, 51.5 [13.3] years; 450 100 women [61.6%]), 36 918 were dispensed or prescribed chlorthalidone and had 149 composite outcome events, and 693 337 were dispensed or prescribed hydrochlorothiazide and had 3089 composite outcome events. No significant difference was found in the associated risk of myocardial infarction, hospitalized heart failure, or stroke, with a calibrated hazard ratio for the composite cardiovascular outcome of 1.00 for chlorthalidone compared with hydrochlorothiazide (95% CI, 0.85-1.17). Chlorthalidone was associated with a significantly higher risk of hypokalemia (hazard ratio [HR], 2.72; 95% CI, 2.38-3.12), hyponatremia (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.16-1.47), acute renal failure (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.15-1.63), chronic kidney disease (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.09-1.42), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.12-1.30). Chlorthalidone was associated with a significantly lower risk of diagnosed abnormal weight gain (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.61-0.86)., Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that chlorthalidone use was not associated with significant cardiovascular benefits when compared with hydrochlorothiazide, while its use was associated with greater risk of renal and electrolyte abnormalities. These findings do not support current recommendations to prefer chlorthalidone vs hydrochlorothiazide for hypertension treatment in first-time users was found. We used advanced methods, sensitivity analyses, and diagnostics, but given the possibility of residual confounding and the limited length of observation periods, further study is warranted.

Background: Hypertension often accompanies chronic kidney disease (CKD), and diuretics are widely prescribed to reduce blood pressure (BP). Chlorthalidone (CTD) is a thiazide-like diuretic and an effective antihypertensive drug, yet little data exist to support its use in treating hypertension in individuals with advanced CKD., Methods: Chlorthalidone in Chronic Kidney Disease (CLICK) is a phase II, single-institution, multicenter, double-blind randomized control trial to test the hypothesis that CTD improves BP, through reduction of extracellular fluid volume, and results in target organ protection in patients with stage 4 CKD and poorly controlled hypertension. After a single-blind placebo run-in for 2 weeks and confirmation of hypertension by 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (ABP), patients are randomized to either placebo or CTD 12.5 mg once daily (QD) followed by dose escalation. Randomization is stratified by prior loop diuretic use, and the double-blind phase lasts 12 weeks. With a total of 160 patients, the study will have ≥80% power to detect a 6 mm Hg difference in systolic 24-h ABP between the 2 treatment groups., Results: Between June 2016 and October 2019, 131 patients have been randomized. The baseline characteristics are as follows: average age 65.8 years, 79% men, 36% Black, 79% with diabetes, mean eGFR 23.2 mL/min/1.73 m2, median urine albumin/creatinine ratio 923 mg/g, average number of BP medications 3.4, 60% on loop diuretics, and 24-h ABP averaged 141.7/73.8 mm Hg., Conclusion: Among patients with stage 4 CKD and uncontrolled hypertension, CLICK should answer the question whether CTD is safe and effective., (© 2020 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background: Thiazide diuretics have demonstrated favorable blood pressure lowering efficacy, but the equivalent doses of their more common agents, chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide, are still unclear. Further, concerns exist regarding adverse metabolic effects, which may be attenuated with the concomitant administration of a potassium-sparing diuretic, such as amiloride. This trial aims to investigate the efficacy of chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide, in combination with amiloride at different doses, for initial management of patients with primary hypertension., Methods/design: This is a factorial (2 × 2) randomized double-blinded clinical trial comparing the association of a thiazide diuretic (chlorthalidone 25 mg/day or hydrochlorothiazide 50 mg/day) with a potassium-sparing diuretic (amiloride 10 mg/day or amiloride 20 mg/day) in patients with primary hypertension. The primary outcome will be the mean change from baseline in 24-h systolic and diastolic blood pressure measured by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. The secondary outcomes will be the mean change from baseline in daytime and nighttime systolic and diastolic blood pressure measured by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, mean change from baseline in systolic and diastolic blood pressure measured by office blood pressure, incidence of adverse events, variation of laboratory parameters, and proportion of patients who achieved blood pressure control. The follow-up will last 12 weeks. For a P alpha of 0.05, power of 80%, standard deviation of 9 mmHg, and absolute difference of 6 mmHg on systolic blood pressure on 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, it will be necessary to study a total of 76 patients. The sample size will be increased by 10% to compensate for losses, resulting in 84 patients being randomized., Discussion: Diuretics are pivotal drugs for the treatment of hypertension. Chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide, in combination with amiloride in multiple doses, will be tested in terms of blood pressure lowering efficacy and safety. Since the intensity of blood pressure reduction is the major determinant of reduction in cardiovascular risk in hypertensive patients, this study will help to determine which combination of diuretics represents the most appropriate treatment for this population., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03928145. Registered on 25 April 2019. Last update on 29 April 2019.

Hypertension is a complex syndrome of multiple hemodynamic, neuroendocrine, and metabolic abnormalities. The goals of treatment in hypertension are to optimally control high blood pressure and to reduce associated cardiovascular morbidity and mortality using the most suitable therapy available. Hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) and chlorthalidone (CTLD) are with proven hypertensive effects. The topic of our meta-analysis is to compare the efficacy of HCTZ and CTLD therapy in patient with hypertension. A search of electronic databases PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, PsyInfo, eLIBRARY.ru was performed. We chose the random-effects method for the analysis and depicted the results as forest plots. Sensitivity analyses were performed in order to evaluate the degree of significance of each study. Of the 1289 identified sources, only nine trials directly compared HCTZ and CTLD and were included in the meta-analysis. Changes in SBP lead to WMD (95% CI) equal to -3.26 mmHg showing a slight but statistically significant prevalence of CTLD. Results from analyzed studies referring to DBP lead to WMD (95% CI) equal to -2.41 mmHg, which is also statistically significant. During our analysis, we found that there were not enough studies presenting enough data on the effect of CTLD and HCTZ on levels of serum potassium and serum sodium. Our meta-analysis has demonstrated a slight superiority for CTLD regarding blood pressure control. At the same time, the two medications do not show significant differences in their safety profile.

We examined the association of orthostatic hypertension with all-cause mortality in the active treatment and placebo randomized groups of the Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program (SHEP). SHEP was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of the effect of chlorthalidone-based antihypertensive treatment on the rate of occurrence of stroke among older persons with isolated systolic hypertension (ISH). Men and women aged 60 years and above with ISH defined by a systolic blood pressure (SBP) of 160 mm Hg or higher and diastolic blood pressure lower than 90 mm Hg were randomized to chlorthalidone-based stepped care therapy or matching placebo. Among 4736 SHEP participants, 4073 had a normal orthostatic response, 203 had orthostatic hypertension, and 438 had orthostatic hypotension. Compared with normal response, orthostatic hypertension was associated with higher all-cause mortality at 4.5 and 17 years in analyses adjusted for age, gender, treatment, SBP, and pulse pressure (PP, HR 1.87, 95% CI 1.30-2.69, p = 0.0007; HR 1.40, 95% CI 1.17-1.68, p = 0.0003, respectively). These associations remained significant after additional adjustment for risk factors and comorbidities (HR 1.43, 95% CI 0.99-0.08, p = 0.0566 at 4.5 years, and HR 1.27, 95% CI 1.06-1.53, p = 0.0096 at 17 years). The increased risk of all-cause mortality associated with orthostatic hypertension was observed in both the active and placebo groups without significant interaction between randomization group and the effect on mortality. Orthostatic hypertension is associated with future mortality risk, is easily detected, and can be used in refining cardiovascular risk assessment.

Patients with grade 2-3 essential hypertension and postplacebo mean clinic systolic blood pressure (SBP) 160-190 mm Hg and 24-hour SBP 140-175 mm Hg by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) received 40 mg azilsartan medoxomil (AZL-M) monotherapy for 4 weeks. "Nonresponders" were then randomized to 8 weeks of double-blind treatment with AZL-M 40 mg, AZL-M/chlortalidone (CLD) 40/25, or AZL-M/CLD 40/12.5 mg. After 8 weeks, mean clinic SBP change was -21.1 (±1.04) mm Hg for AZL-M/CLD 40/25 mg, -15.8 (±1.08) mm Hg for AZL-M/CLD 40/12.5 mg, and -6.4 (±1.05) mm Hg for AZL-M 40 mg (P < 0.001 for both AZL-M/CLD vs AZL-M, ANCOVA). Drug discontinuation rates were 8.9% (AZL-M/CLD 40/25 mg), 7.5% (AZL-M 40 mg), and 3.9% (AZL-M/CLD 40/12.5 mg). Creatinine increased in 8.1% (AZL-M/CLD 40/25), 3.1% (AZL-M/CLD 40/12.5 mg), and 3.0% (AZL-M 40 mg) of patients. AZL-M/CLD was effective and well tolerated in patients not achieving blood pressure targets with AZL-M., (©2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Importance: Poorly controlled hypertension is a leading global public health problem requiring new treatment strategies., Objective: To assess whether a low-dose triple combination antihypertensive medication would achieve better blood pressure (BP) control vs usual care., Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, open-label trial of a low-dose triple BP therapy vs usual care for adults with hypertension (systolic BP >140 mm Hg and/or diastolic BP >90 mm Hg; or in patients with diabetes or chronic kidney disease: >130 mm Hg and/or >80 mm Hg) requiring initiation (untreated patients) or escalation (patients receiving monotherapy) of antihypertensive therapy. Patients were enrolled from 11 urban hospital clinics in Sri Lanka from February 2016 to May 2017; follow-up ended in October 2017., Interventions: A once-daily fixed-dose triple combination pill (20 mg of telmisartan, 2.5 mg of amlodipine, and 12.5 mg of chlorthalidone) therapy (n = 349) or usual care (n = 351)., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion achieving target systolic/diastolic BP (<140/90 mm Hg or <130/80 mm Hg in patients with diabetes or chronic kidney disease) at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included mean systolic/diastolic BP difference during follow-up and withdrawal of BP medications due to an adverse event., Results: Among 700 randomized patients (mean age, 56 years; 58% women; 29% had diabetes; mean baseline systolic/diastolic BP, 154/90 mm Hg), 675 (96%) completed the trial. The triple combination pill increased the proportion achieving target BP vs usual care at 6 months (70% vs 55%, respectively; risk difference, 12.7% [95% CI, 3.2% to 22.0%]; P < .001). Mean systolic/diastolic BP at 6 months was 125/76 mm Hg for the triple combination pill vs 134/81 mm Hg for usual care (adjusted difference in postrandomization BP over the entire follow-up: systolic BP, -9.8 [95% CI, -7.9 to -11.6] mm Hg; diastolic BP, -5.0 [95% CI, -3.9 to -6.1] mm Hg; P < .001 for both comparisons). Overall, 419 adverse events were reported in 255 patients (38.1% for triple combination pill vs 34.8% for usual care) with the most common being musculoskeletal pain (6.0% and 8.0%, respectively) and dizziness, presyncope, or syncope (5.2% and 2.8%). There were no significant between-group differences in the proportion of patient withdrawal from BP-lowering therapy due to adverse events (6.6% for triple combination pill vs 6.8% for usual care)., Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with mild to moderate hypertension, treatment with a pill containing low doses of 3 antihypertensive drugs led to an increased proportion of patients achieving their target BP goal vs usual care. Use of such medication as initial therapy or to replace monotherapy may be an effective way to improve BP control., Trial Registration: anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12612001120864; slctr.lk Identifier: SLCTR/2015/020.

Introduction: We measured the effects of azilsartan medoxomil co-administered with chlorthalidone 25 mg in stage 2 hypertension., Methods: Azilsartan medoxomil 40 or 80 mg plus chlorthalidone were compared with placebo plus chlorthalidone once daily in a randomized, double-blind, 6-week trial. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in 24-hour mean systolic blood pressure by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring., Results: Patients ( N=551; mean age 59 years; 51.7% men) were randomly assigned to placebo plus chlorthalidone ( n=184), azilsartan medoxomil 40 mg plus chlorthalidone ( n=185), or azilsartan medoxomil 80 mg plus chlorthalidone ( n=182). Baseline systolic blood pressures were similar among groups. After 6 weeks, least squares mean (standard error) reductions with azilsartan medoxomil 40 mg and 80 mg plus chlorthalidone were similar in magnitude (-31.7 (1.0) and -31.3 (1.0) mmHg, respectively), but greater than chlorthalidone alone (-15.9 (1.0) mmHg). Hypotension and serum creatinine elevations were more frequent with azilsartan medoxomil plus chlorthalidone than chlorthalidone alone (reversed with drug discontinuation). Notably, plasma potassium reduction of 0.43 meq/L with chlorthalidone was attenuated to 0.13 and 0.05 meq/L by azilsartan medoxomil 40 mg and 80 mg, respectively., Conclusion: Azilsartan medoxomil 40 mg or 80 mg plus chlorthalidone 25 mg was significantly more efficacious than chlorthalidone alone in reducing blood pressure and was well tolerated. Clinicaltrial.gov , https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00591773 , NCT00591773.

Background: The efficacy of a combination of a calcium channel blocker (CCB) plus chlorthalidone (diuretic) versus a CCB plus an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) in patients not responding to CCB monotherapy has not been evaluated previously. We plan to compare the efficacy and safety of S-amlodipine (CCB) plus chlorthalidone versus S-amlodipine plus telmisartan (ARB) combinations among hypertension patients unresponsive to amlodipine monotherapy., Methods/design: This study is a prospective, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, parallel, non-inferiority phase 4 study. Hypertension patients who have been treated with amlodipine (5 mg) or S-amlodipine (2.5 mg) monotherapy for ≥2 weeks and whose mean diastolic blood pressure (DBP) is greater than 90 mmHg will be randomized to either S-amlodipine (2.5 mg) plus chlorthalidone (25 mg) or S-amlodipine (2.5 mg) plus telmisartan (40 mg) therapy. The primary efficacy endpoint is mean sitting DBP change after 12 weeks of treatment. The study objective is to prove the non-inferiority of the former combination (test drug) as compared to the latter one (control) with a non-inferiority margin of 3 mmHg in mean DBP change. The secondary endpoints are 6-week DBP change, 6- and 12-week sitting systolic BP (SBP) change, and the attainment of the target BP (SBP < 140 mmHg or DBP < 90 mmHg). Urine albumin, albumin/creatinine ratio (ACR), pulse wave velocity, central BP, 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring, and body fluid composition analysis will be performed at each hospital's discretion. The sample size was estimated as 170 in total with 1:1 randomization., Discussion: This is the first study comparing the efficacy of a CCB plus chlorthalidone versus a CCB plus an ARB in patients who are not responding to CCB single therapy. The study result will help clinicians to choose between chlorthalidone and telmisartan in CCB-unresponsive patients., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03226340. Registered on 2 December 2015.

An open-label, long-term study evaluated safety and tolerability of azilsartan medoxomil/chlorthalidone (AZL-M/CLD) vs olmesartan/hydrochlorothiazide (OLM/HCTZ) in hypertensive participants with stage 3 chronic kidney disease. Initial therapy was AZL-M/CLD 20/12.5 mg (n = 77) or OLM/HCTZ 20/12.5 mg (n = 76), but could be up-titrated (AZL-M/CLD to 40/25 mg; OLM/HCTZ to 40/25 mg [US] or 20/25 mg [Europe]) with other agents added during weeks 4-52. Primary endpoint was proportion of participants with ≥ 1 adverse event (AE) through week 52. Baseline demographics were similar. AEs did not differ between groups (88.3%, AZL-M/CLD vs 76.3%, OLM/HCTZ; P = .058). AZL-M/CLD showed greater systolic BP reductions after initial dosing (P = .037) but not during long-term follow-up (P = .588). A greater proportion of participants up-titrated to the highest dose with OLM/HCTZ (48.7%) vs AZL-M/CLD (29.9%) (P = .021) and were taking additional antihypertensive medications (26.3% vs 16.9%). Both AZL-M/CLD and OLM/HCTZ showed similar efficacy and tolerability., (©2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: Thiazide and thiazide-like diuretics are first-line medications for treating uncomplicated hypertension. However, their use has been associated with adverse metabolic events, including hyperglycemia and incident diabetes mellitus, with incompletely understood mechanisms. Our goal was to identify genomic variants associated with thiazide-like diuretic/chlorthalidone-induced glucose change., Methods and Results: Genome-wide analysis of glucose change after treatment with chlorthalidone was performed by race among the white (n=175) and black (n=135) participants from the PEAR-2 (Pharmacogenomic Evaluation of Antihypertensive Responses-2). Single-nucleotide polymorphisms with P <5×10 -8 were further prioritized using in silico analysis based on their expression quantitative trait loci function. Among blacks, an intronic single-nucleotide polymorphism (rs9943291) in the HMGCS2 was associated with increase in glucose levels following chlorthalidone treatment (ß=12.5; P =4.17×10 -8 ). G-allele carriers of HMGCS2 had higher glucose levels (glucose change=+16.29 mg/dL) post chlorthalidone treatment compared with noncarriers of G allele (glucose change=+2.80 mg/dL). This association was successfully replicated in an independent replication cohort of hydrochlorothiazide-treated participants from the PEAR study (ß=5.54; P =0.023). A meta-analysis of the 2 studies was performed by race in Meta-Analysis Helper, where this single-nucleotide polymorphism, rs9943291, was genome-wide significant with a meta-analysis P value of 3.71×10 -8 . HMGCS2 , a part of the HMG-CoA synthase family, is important for ketogenesis and cholesterol synthesis pathways that are essential in glucose homeostasis., Conclusions: These results suggest that HMGCS2 is a promising candidate gene involved in chlorthalidone and Hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ)-induced glucose change. This may provide insights into the mechanisms involved in thiazide-induced hyperglycemia that may ultimately facilitate personalized approaches to antihypertensive selection for hypertension treatment., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifiers: NCT00246519 and NCT01203852., (© 2018 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley.)

Background: Antihypertensive treatment improves echocardiographic parameters of hypertensive target organ damage in stage II hypertension, but less is known about the effects in stage I hypertension., Methods: In a cohort study nested in the randomized double-blind trial PREVER-treatment, 2-dimensional echocardiograms were performed in 110 individuals, aged 54.8 ± 7.9 years-old, with stage I hypertension at baseline and after 18 months of treatment with chlorthalidone/amiloride or losartan., Results: At baseline, 66 (60%) participants had concentric remodeling. After antihypertensive treatment, systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (BP) were reduced from 141/90 to 130/83 mm Hg (P = 0.009). There was a significant reduction in left ventricular (LV) mass (LVM) index (82.7 ± 17.1 to 79.2 ± 17.5 g/m2; P = 0.005) and relative wall thickness (0.45 ± 0.06 to 0.42 ± 0.05; P < 0.001), increasing the proportion of participants with normal LV geometry (31% to 49%, P = 0.006). Left atrial (LA) volume index reduced (26.8 ± 7.3 to 24.9 ± 6.5 ml/m2; P = 0.001), and mitral E-wave deceleration time increased (230 ± 46 to 247 ± 67 ms; P = 0.005), but there was no change in other parameters of diastolic function. LVM reduction was significantly higher in the 2 higher tertiles of SBP reduction compared to the lower tertile., Conclusions: Treatment of patients with stage I hypertension for 18 months promotes favorable effects in the LA and LV remodeling. This improvement in cardiac end-organ damage might be associated with reduction of long term clinical consequences of hypertensive cardiomyopathy, particularly heart failure with preserved ejection fraction., (© American Journal of Hypertension, Ltd 2017. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com)

Arterial hypertension is a disease that still affects a major part of the population worldwide, and leads to fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events, primarily strokes and myocardial infarctions. From the CDC statistical analysis, as regarding to United States, 1 of every 3 adults has high blood pressure, and οnly about half (54%) of them have it under control. Furthermore, all that leads to a nation cost about $46 billion each year. Efforts to find new ways to regulate arterial hypertension are therefore imperative. In our days, a lot of references have been made to the use of a new therapeutic combination, that of azilsartan - an innovative ARB, in combination with chlorthalidone. Ιn fact, it is a combination now prescribed in a number of countries. A significant number of trials shows both azilsartan vs popular antihypertensive drugs, as well as chlorthalidone vs chlorothiazide, to present a better antihypertensive effect. This effect is even greater when the two substances are combined. In this article, we will try to present the latest findings concerning the efficacy, safety and clinical utility of this combination, as well as its adverse events, in comparison with other widely used therapeutic options., (Copyright© Bentham Science Publishers; For any queries, please email at epub@benthamscience.org.)

Background: Although atrial fibrillation (AF) guidelines indicate that pharmacological blockade of the renin-angiotensin system may be considered for primary AF prevention in hypertensive patients, previous studies have yielded conflicting results. We sought to determine whether randomization to lisinopril reduces incident AF or atrial flutter (AFL) compared with chlorthalidone in a large clinical trial cohort with extended post-trial surveillance., Methods and Results: We performed a secondary analysis of the ALLHAT (Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial), a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled clinical trial that enrolled hypertensive individuals ≥55 years of age with at least one other cardiovascular risk factor. Participants were randomly assigned to receive amlodipine, lisinopril, or chlorthalidone. Individuals with elevated fasting low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels were also randomized to pravastatin versus usual care. The primary outcome was the development of either AF or AFL as diagnosed by serial study ECGs or by Medicare claims data. Among 14 837 participants without prevalent AF or AFL, 2514 developed AF/AFL during a mean 7.5±3.2 years of follow-up. Compared with chlorthalidone, randomization to either lisinopril (hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.15; P =0.46) or amlodipine (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.84-1.03; P =0.16) was not associated with a significant reduction in incident AF/AFL., Conclusions: Compared with chlorthalidone, treatment with lisinopril is not associated with a meaningful reduction in incident AF or AFL among older adults with a history of hypertension., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00000542., (© 2017 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Thiazide diuretics are widely used for the management of hypertension. In recent years, it has been actively debated that there is interchangeability of thiazide-type diuretics hydrochlorothiazide and thiazide-like diuretics including indapamide and chlorthalidone for the treatment of hypertension. With the purpose of seeking out the best thiazide diuretic for clinicians, we summarized the existing evidence on the two types of drugs and conducted a meta-analysis on their efficacy in lowering blood pressure and effects on blood electrolyte, glucose and total cholesterol. Twelve trials were identified: five based on the comparison of indapamide versus hydrochlorothiazide and seven based on the chlorthalidone versus hydrochlorothiazide. In the meta-analysis of blood pressure reduction, thiazide-like diuretics seemed to further reduce systolic BP ([95% CI]; -5.59 [-5.69, -5.49]; P < 0.001) and diastolic BP ([95% CI]; -1.98 [-3.29, -0.66]; P = 0.003). Meanwhile, in the analysis of side effects, the incidence of hypokalemia ([95% CI]; 1.58 [0.80, 3.12]; P = 0.19), hyponatremia ([95% CI]; -0.14 [-0.57, 0.30], P = 0.54), change of blood glucose ([95% CI];0.13 [-0.16, 0.41], P = 0.39) and total cholesterol ([95% CI]; 0.13 [-0.16, 0.41], P = 0.39) showed that there is no statistical significant differences between the two groups of drugs. In conclusion, using thiazide-like diuretics is superior to thiazide-type diuretics in reducing blood pressure without increasing the incidence of hypokalemia, hyponatraemia and any change of blood glucose and serum total cholesterol., (© 2017 The Authors. Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd and Foundation for Cellular and Molecular Medicine.)

Randomized trials of hypertension have seldom examined heterogeneity in response to treatments over time and the implications for cardiovascular outcomes. Understanding this heterogeneity, however, is a necessary step toward personalizing antihypertensive therapy. We applied trajectory-based modeling to data on 39 763 study participants of the ALLHAT (Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial) to identify distinct patterns of systolic blood pressure (SBP) response to randomized medications during the first 6 months of the trial. Two trajectory patterns were identified: immediate responders (85.5%), on average, had a decreasing SBP, whereas nonimmediate responders (14.5%), on average, had an initially increasing SBP followed by a decrease. Compared with those randomized to chlorthalidone, participants randomized to amlodipine (odds ratio, 1.20; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.10-1.31), lisinopril (odds ratio, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.73-2.03), and doxazosin (odds ratio, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.52-1.78) had higher adjusted odds ratios associated with being a nonimmediate responder (versus immediate responder). After multivariable adjustment, nonimmediate responders had a higher hazard ratio of stroke (hazard ratio, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.21-1.84), combined cardiovascular disease (hazard ratio, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.11-1.31), and heart failure (hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.24-1.78) during follow-up between 6 months and 2 years. The SBP response trajectories provided superior discrimination for predicting downstream adverse cardiovascular events than classification based on difference in SBP between the first 2 measurements, SBP at 6 months, and average SBP during the first 6 months. Our findings demonstrate heterogeneity in response to antihypertensive therapies and show that chlorthalidone is associated with more favorable initial response than the other medications., (© 2017 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Azilsartan medoxomil is a long-acting angiotensin II receptor blocker used to treat hypertension as monotherapy or in fixed-dose combination (FDC) with chlorthalidone. This study assessed the effects of food intake on the plasma pharmacokinetics of the active moiety, azilsartan, and of chlorthalidone when administered as separate tablets or in FDC. Cohort 1 (n = 24) received azilsartan medoxomil (80 mg) and chlorthalidone (25 mg) once in a fasted condition and once 30 minutes after the initiation of a high-fat meal (fed). Cohort 2 (n = 24) received the same drugs as an FDC tablet in the fasted and fed conditions. In cohort 1, the fed-fasted ratios for AUC0-inf and Cmax were 108.3 (101.6-115.5) and 103.7 (94.3-114.1), respectively, for azilsartan and 112.3 (106.5-118.4) and 100.3 (90.6-111.1), respectively, for chlorthalidone. In cohort 2, the corresponding ratios were 78.6 (67.6-91.4) and 78.6 (64.4-96.0) for azilsartan and 101.0 (96.5-86.7) and 75.9 (66.5-86.7) for chlorthalidone. The combination therapies were well tolerated, and food intake had no consistent effect on adverse events. Food intake had a somewhat greater effect on plasma pharmacokinetics after administration of the FDC tablet than after administration of separate tablets, but the effects of food on the plasma pharmacokinetics of the FDC were not expected to be clinically meaningful., (© 2016, The Authors. Clinical Pharmacology in Drug Development Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of The American College of Clinical Pharmacology.)

Background and Objective: Combination therapy is recommended for the effective management of hypertension according to most treatment guidelines, including those of the US Joint National Committee. Therefore, pharmacokinetic drug interactions are an important issue in combination therapy for hypertension. In this study, the pharmacokinetic properties of telmisartan and chlorthalidone were evaluated to investigate their pharmacokinetic interactions in healthy subjects., Methods: Two separate, randomized, multiple-dose, two-period, one-sequence studies were conducted. In study A, 43 participants received 80 mg of telmisartan orally for 7 days, and were then administered oral chlorthalidone 25 mg for 14 days (days 8-21), coadministered with 80 mg of telmisartan from day 15. In study B, 14 participants received oral chlorthalidone (25 mg) for 13 days, followed by coadministration with 80 mg of telmisartan orally for 7 days., Results: The geometric mean ratios (GMRs) (90 % confidence intervals [CIs]) of the maximum plasma concentration (C max,ss) and area under the concentration-time curve for the dosing interval at steady state (AUCτ,ss) of telmisartan (with and without chlorthalidone) were 1.018 (0.861-1.203) and 1.099 (1.015-1.190), respectively. For chlorthalidone (with/without telmisartan), the GMRs (90 % CIs) for C max,ss and AUCτ,ss were 0.996 (0.922-1.075) and 0.992 (0.925-1.064), respectively. The GMRs and 90 % CIs for telmisartan and chlorthalidone were all within the 0.80-1.25 range., Conclusion: Thus, in this study, there was no significant pharmacokinetic interaction between telmisartan and chlorthalidone. CLINICALTRIAL., Gov Identifier: NCT01806363.

Objective: To describe the efficacy and safety profile of the new angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), "Azilsartan Medoxomil", reviewing data available from both clinical and pre-clinical studies., Material: We completed a review of the English literature from PubMed using the keywords- azilsartan medoxomil, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and hypertension., Data Evaluation: Many clinical trials have been conducted comparing the efficacy of azilsartan with other ARB's and also with the ACEi ramipril. The trials have shown azilsartan to be more effective in reducing the mean 24-hour systolic blood pressure compared to its counterparts., Conclusions: Azilsartan is a recently approved ARB and appears to be more efficacious in reducing blood pressure (BP) than the other ARBs with a similar safety and tolerability profile. Azilsartan's very high affinity to and slow dissociation from the angiotensin 1 receptor (AT1R) along with its inverse agonistic properties make it a very good candidate for clinical effects beyond simple BP control, potentially counteracting cardiac hypertrophy, cardiac fibrosis and insulin resistance, together with improved reno-protection and atherosclerotic plaque stabilization.

Chlorthalidone is commonly used for blood pressure control in hypertensive patients. However, it increases sympathetic nervous system activity and insulin resistance. Both conditions are related with an elevated number of complications and worsen patients' prognosis. Recently has been demonstrated that these adverse effects are avoided with spironolactone administration. Mechanisms to explain increasing sympathetic nervous activity and insulin resistance with chlorthalidone, but not with spironolactone are unclear and under investigation. It should be necessary to continue medical investigation on this field with long-term studies, a larger number of patients and associated comorbidities. The aim should be to establish whether the association of both drugs could be an effective and safety choice to be implemented extensively in clinical practice. That possibility could represent a new alternative for patients' management.