Chlorthalidone vs Hydrochlorothiazide for Hypertension Treatment After Myocardial Infarction or Stroke: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Patients with prior myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke have a greater risk of recurrent cardiovascular (CV) events. Objective: To evaluate the association of chlorthalidone (CTD) vs hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) with CV outcomes and noncancer deaths in participants with and without prior MI or stroke. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a prespecified secondary analysis of the Diuretic Comparison Project (DCP), a pragmatic randomized clinical trial conducted within 72 participating Veterans Affairs health care systems from June 2016 to June 2021, in which patients aged 65 years or older with hypertension taking HCTZ at baseline were randomized to continue HCTZ or switch to CTD at pharmacologically comparable doses. This secondary analysis was performed from January 3, 2023, to February 29, 2024. Exposures: Pharmacologically comparable daily dose of HCTZ or CTD and history of MI or stroke. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcome ascertainment was performed from randomization to the end of the study. The primary outcome consisted of a composite of stroke, MI, urgent coronary revascularization because of unstable angina, acute heart failure hospitalization, or noncancer death. Additional outcomes included achieved blood pressure and hypokalemia (potassium level <3.1 mEq/L; to convert to mmol/L, multiply by 1.0). Results: The DCP randomized 13 523 participants to CTD or HCTZ, with a mean (SD) study duration of 2.4 (1.4) years. At baseline, median age was 72 years (IQR, 69-75 years), and 96.8% were male. Treatment effect was evaluated in subgroups of participants with (n = 1455) and without (n = 12 068) prior MI or stroke at baseline. There was a significant adjusted interaction between treatment group and history of MI or stroke. Participants with prior MI or stroke randomized to CTD had a lower risk of the primary outcome than those receiving HCTZ (105 of 733 [14.3%] vs 140 of 722 [19.4%]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57-0.94; P = .01) compared with participants without prior MI or stroke, among whom incidence of the primary outcome was slightly higher in the CTD arm compared with the HCTZ arm (597 of 6023 [9.9%] vs 535 of 6045 [8.9%]; HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.00-1.26; P = .054) (P = .01 for interaction). The incidence of a nadir potassium level less than 3.1 mEq/L and hospitalization for hypokalemia differed among those with and without prior MI or stroke when comparing those randomized to CTD vs HCTZ, with a difference only among those without prior MI or stroke (potassium level <3.1 mEq/L: prior MI or stroke, 43 of 733 [5.9%] vs 37 of 722 [5.1%] [P = .57]; no prior MI or stroke, 292 of 6023 [4.9%] vs 206 of 6045 [3.4%] [P < .001]; hospitalization for hypokalemia: prior MI or stroke, 14 of 733 [1.9%] vs 16 of 722 [2.2%] [P = .72]; no prior MI or stroke: 84 of 6023 [1.4%] vs 57 of 6045 [0.9%] [P = .02]). Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this secondary analysis of the DCP trial suggest that CTD may be associated with reduced major adverse CV events and noncancer deaths in patients with prior MI or stroke compared with HCTZ. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02185417.

The Effect in Renal Function and Vascular Decongestion in Type 1 Cardiorenal Syndrome Treated with Two Strategies of Diuretics, a Pilot Randomized Trial.

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.

Chlorthalidone for Hypertension in Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease.

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 m2 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.).

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes and Safety Associated With Chlorthalidone vs Hydrochlorothiazide in Older Adults With Varying Levels of Kidney Function.

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.

Synchronized determination of sacubitril and valsartan with some co-administered drugs in human plasma via UPLC-MS/MS method using solid-phase extraction.

An accurate and sensitive UPLC-MS/MS method was developed and validated for the simultaneous estimation of the newly developed combination of sacubitril and valsartan and the co-administered drugs nebivolol, chlorthalidone and esomeprazole in human plasma. Solid-phase extraction was conducted for the purification and extraction of the drugs from human plasma. Chromatographic separation was carried out on an Agilent SB-C18 (1.8 µm, 2.1 × 50 mm) column using losartan as internal standard. Isocratic elution was applied using acetonitrile-0.1% formic acid in water (85: 15, v/v) as mobile phase. Detection was carried out using a triple-quadrupole tandem mass spectrometer using multiple reaction monitoring, at positive mode at m/z 412.23 → 266.19 for sacubitril, m/z 436.29 → 235.19 for valsartan, m/z 405.8 → 150.98 for nebivolol, m/z 346.09 → 198 for esomeprazole and a selected combination of two fragments m/z 423.19 → 207.14 and 423.19 → 192.2 for losartan (internal standard), and in negative ionization mode at m/z 337.02 → 190.12 for chlorthalidone. The method was linear over the concentration ranges 30-2,000 ng/ml for sacubitril, 70-2,000 ng/ml for valsartan, esomeprazole and chlorthalidone and 70-5,000 pg/ml for nebivolol. The developed method is sensitive and selective and could be applied for dose adjustment, bioavailability and drug-drug interaction studies.

Effectiveness of chlorthalidone/amiloride versus losartan in patients with stage I hypertension and diabetes mellitus: results from the PREVER-treatment randomized controlled trial.

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.

Design and Baseline Characteristics of the Chlorthalidone in Chronic Kidney Disease (CLICK) Trial.

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.

Association of Low-Dose Triple Combination Therapy With Therapeutic Inertia and Prescribing Patterns in Patients With Hypertension: A Secondary Analysis of the TRIUMPH Trial.

Importance: Fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapies are being increasingly recommended for initial or early management of patients with hypertension, as they reduce treatment complexity and potentially reduce therapeutic inertia. Objective: To investigate the association of antihypertensive triple drug FDC therapy with therapeutic inertia and prescribing patterns compared with usual care. Design, Setting, and Participants: A post hoc analysis of the Triple Pill vs Usual Care Management for Patients With Mild-to-Moderate Hypertension (TRIUMPH) study, a randomized clinical trial of 700 patients with hypertension, was conducted. Patients were enrolled from 11 urban hospital clinics in Sri Lanka from February 2016 to May 2017; follow-up ended in October 2017. Data were analyzed from September to November 2019. Interventions: Once-daily FDC antihypertensive pill (telmisartan, 20 mg; amlodipine, 2.5 mg; and chlorthalidone, 12.5 mg) or usual care. Main Outcomes and Measures: Therapeutic inertia, defined as not intensifying therapy in those with blood pressure (BP) above target, was assessed at baseline and during follow-up visits. Prescribing patterns were characterized by BP-lowering drug class and treatment regimen potency. Predictors of therapeutic inertia were assessed with binomial logistic regression. Results: Of the 700 included patients, 403 (57.6%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 56 (11) years. Among patients who did not reach the BP target, therapeutic inertia was more common in the triple pill group compared with the usual care group at the week 6 visit (92 of 106 [86.8%] vs 124 of 194 [63.9%]; P < .001) and week 12 visit (81 of 90 [90%] vs 116 of 179 [64.8%]; P < .001). At the end of the study, 221 of 318 patients in the triple pill group (69.5%) and 182 of 329 patients in the usual care group (55.3%) reached BP targets. Among those who received treatment intensification, the increase in estimated regimen potency was greater in the triple pill group compared with the usual care group at baseline (predicted mean [SD] increase in regimen potency: triple pill, 15 [6] mm Hg; usual care, 10 [5] mm Hg; P < .001), whereas there were no significant differences at the week 6 or at week 12 visit. Clinic systolic BP level was the only consistent predictor of treatment intensification during follow-up. During follow-up, there were 23 vs 54 unique treatment regimens per 100 treated patients in the triple pill vs usual care groups, respectively (P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Triple pill FDC therapy was associated with greater rates of therapeutic inertia compared with usual care. Despite this, triple pill FDC therapy substantially simplified prescribing patterns and improved 6-month BP control rates compared with usual care. Further improvements in hypertension control could be achieved by addressing therapeutic inertia among the minority of patients who do not achieve BP control after initial FDC therapy. Trial Registration: ANZCTR Identifier: ACTRN12612001120864.

Single-pill Combination Therapy of Azilsartan Medoxomil/Chlorthalidone for Treatment of Hypertension: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to review recent clinical studies of azilsartan medoxomil (AZL-M) and chlorthalidone (CLD), a combined angiotensin receptor blocker and thiazide-like diuretic, and its role in recently published guidelines. This review explores the role of AZL-M/CLD in treating patients with hypertension. METHODS: A systematic review of literature published from 1990 to 2018 was performed by using the following key words: Edarbyclor, azilsartan, chlorthalidone, pharmacokinetic, and hypertension. Available English-language data from reviews, abstracts, presentations, and clinical trials regarding the use of AZL-M/CLD therapy specifically detailing effects of lowering blood pressure (BP) and outcomes on cardiovascular disease in humans and rats were reviewed. FINDINGS: One study compared a single-pill combination of AZL-M/CLD with co-administration of AZL-M and hydrochlorothiazide and found a greater reduction in clinic systolic BP with AZL-M/CLD (-35.1 mm Hg vs -29.5 mm Hg) than for AZL-M and hydrochlorothiazide. Another study of 153 patients with chronic kidney disease who received AZL-M/CLD or other single-pill combination agents found that AZL-M/CLD was more effective in lowering BP, achieving superior adherence. According to new guidelines, an increase in the prevalence of resistant hypertension can occur as a result of trying to lower target BP. IMPLICATIONS: A powerful and effective medication that can increase patient compliance is essential to reduce the incidence of resistant hypertension. AZL-M/CLD is a powerful and safe antihypertensive medication that has been thoroughly studied in patients with hypertension.

Efficacy of chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide in combination with amiloride in multiple doses on blood pressure in patients with primary hypertension: a protocol for a factorial randomized controlled trial.

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.

Chlorthalidone Is Superior to Potassium Citrate in Reducing Calcium Phosphate Stones and Increasing Bone Quality in Hypercalciuric Stone-Forming Rats.

BACKGROUND: The pathophysiology of genetic hypercalciuric stone-forming rats parallels that of human idiopathic hypercalciuria. In this model, all animals form calcium phosphate stones. We previously found that chlorthalidone, but not potassium citrate, decreased stone formation in these rats. METHODS: To test whether chlorthalidone and potassium citrate combined would reduce calcium phosphate stone formation more than either medication alone, four groups of rats were fed a fixed amount of a normal calcium and phosphorus diet, supplemented with potassium chloride (as control), potassium citrate, chlorthalidone (with potassium chloride to equalize potassium intake), or potassium citrate plus chlorthalidone. We measured urine every 6 weeks and assessed stone formation and bone quality at 18 weeks. RESULTS: Potassium citrate reduced urine calcium compared with controls, chlorthalidone reduced it further, and potassium citrate plus chlorthalidone reduced it even more. Chlorthalidone increased urine citrate and potassium citrate increased it even more; the combination did not increase it further. Potassium citrate, alone or with chlorthalidone, increased urine calcium phosphate supersaturation, but chlorthalidone did not. All control rats formed stones. Potassium citrate did not alter stone formation. No stones formed with chlorthalidone, and rats given potassium citrate plus chlorthalidone had some stones but fewer than controls. Rats given chlorthalidone with or without potassium citrate had higher bone mineral density and better mechanical properties than controls, whereas those given potassium citrate did not. CONCLUSIONS: In genetic hypercalciuric stone-forming rats, chlorthalidone is superior to potassium citrate alone or combined with chlorthalidone in reducing calcium phosphate stone formation and improving bone quality.

Efficacy and safety of azilsartan medoxomil/chlortalidone fixed-dose combination in hypertensive patients uncontrolled on azilsartan medoxomil alone: A randomized trial.

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.

Comparison of Effectiveness of Azilsartan Medoxomil and Olmesartan in Blacks Versus Whites With Systemic Hypertension.

Two post hoc analyses in self-identified black and white patients with hypertension evaluated the angiotensin II receptor blocker azilsartan medoxomil (AZL-M) and the fixed-dose combination of AZL-M with chlorthalidone (AZL-M/CLD) versus the ARB olmesartan (OLM) and the OLM fixed-dose combination with hydrochlorothiazide (OLM/HCTZ). One analysis pooled 1,610 patients from two 6-week randomized controlled trials to compare once daily AZL-M 40 mg, AZL-M 80 mg, OLM 40 mg, and placebo. The second analysis included 1,020 patients from a 12-week randomized controlled trial to compare once daily AZL-M/CLD 40/25 mg, AZL-M/CLD 80/25 mg, and OLM/HCTZ 40/25 mg. Efficacy end points were 24-hour mean ambulatory and clinic systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SPB/DBP) and the percentage of patients achieving clinic SBP/DBP targets. Treatment with AZL-M 80 mg lowered mean clinic SBP by 12.5 mm Hg (p <0.01 vs OLM), treatment with AZL-M/CLD 40 mg/25 mg lowered mean ambulatory SBP by 31.0 mm Hg and mean clinic SBP by 39.3 mm Hg (both p <0.05 vs OLM/HCTZ), and treatment with AZL-M/CLD 80 mg/25 mg lowered mean ambulatory SBP by 34.4 mm Hg (p <0.01 vs OLM/HCTZ) and mean clinic SBP by 39.2 mm Hg (p <0.05 vs OLM/HCTZ). Target BP goals were achieved more frequently with AZL-M versus OLM and with AZL-M/CLD versus OLM/HCTZ. In conclusion, in both black and white patients, BP was lowered more effectively with AZL-M versus OLM and with AZL-M/CLD versus OLM/HCTZ. The AZL-M/CLD 40 mg/25 mg combination resulted in a statistically significant reduction in BP in both black and white patients.

Hydrochlorothiazide vs chlorthalidone, indapamide, and potassium-sparing/hydrochlorothiazide diuretics for reducing left ventricular hypertrophy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Left ventricular hypertrophy develops in 36%-41% of hypertensive patients and independently predicts cardiovascular events and total mortality. Moreover, drug-induced reduction in left ventricular mass (LVM) correlates with improved prognosis. The optimal thiazide-type diuretic for reducing LVM is unknown. Evidence regarding potency, cardiovascular events, sodium, and potassium suggested the hypothesis that "CHIP" diuretics (CHlorthalidone, Indapamide, and Potassium-sparing diuretic/hydrochlorothiazide [PSD/HCTZ]) would reduce LVM more than HCTZ. Systematic searches of five databases were conducted. Among the 38 randomized trials, a 1% reduction in systolic blood pressure (SBP) predicted a 1% reduction in LVM, P = 0.00001. CHIP-HCTZ differences in reducing LVM differed across trials (ie, heterogeneity), making interpretation uncertain. However, among the 28 double-blind trials, heterogeneity was undetectable, and HCTZ reduced LVM (percent reduction [95% CI]) by -7.3 (-10.4, -4.2), P < 0.0001. CHIP diuretics surpassed HCTZ in reducing LVM: chlorthalidone -8.2 (-14.7, -1.6), P = 0.015; indapamide -7.5 (-12.7, -2.3), P = 0.005; and all CHIP diuretics combined -7.7 (-12.2, -3.1), P < 0.001. The comparison of PSD/HCTZ with HCTZ had low statistical power but favored PSD/HCTZ: -6.0 (-14.1, +2.1), P = 0.149. Thus, compared to HCTZ, CHIP diuretics had twice the effect on LVM. CHIP diuretics did not surpass HCTZ in reducing systolic or diastolic blood pressure: -0.3 (-5.0, +4.3) and -1.6 (-5.6, +2.4), respectively. The strength of evidence that CHIP diuretics surpass HCTZ for reducing LVM was high (GRADE criteria). In conclusion, these novel results have demonstrated that CHIP diuretics reduce LVM 2-fold more than HCTZ among hypertensive patients. Although generally related to LVM, blood pressure fails to explain the superiority of CHIP diuretics for reducing LVM.

Fixed Low-Dose Triple Combination Antihypertensive Medication vs Usual Care for Blood Pressure Control in Patients With Mild to Moderate Hypertension in Sri Lanka: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

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.

Long-term efficacy and tolerability of azilsartan medoxomil/chlorthalidone vs olmesartan medoxomil/hydrochlorothiazide in chronic kidney disease.

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.

A randomized titrate-to-target study comparing fixed-dose combinations of azilsartan medoxomil and chlorthalidone with olmesartan and hydrochlorothiazide in stage-2 systolic hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Azilsartan medoxomil (AZL-M), an angiotensin II receptor blocker, has been developed in fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) with chlorthalidone (CTD). OBJECTIVE/METHODS: We compared FDCs of AZL-M/CTD 20/12.5 mg once daily titrated to 40/25 mg if needed or AZL-M/CTD 40/12.5 mg once daily titrated to 80/25 mg if needed with an olmesartan medoxomil (OLM)-hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 20/12.5 mg FDC once daily titrated to 40/25 mg if needed in a randomized, double-blind, 8-week study of 1085 participants with clinic SBP 160-190 mmHg and DBP 119 mmHg or less. Titration to higher doses occurred at week 4 if BP was at least 140/90 mmHg (≥130/80 mmHg if diabetes or chronic kidney disease). The primary endpoint was change from baseline in clinic SBP; 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring was also measured. RESULTS: Greater reductions in clinic SBP from a baseline of 165 mmHg were observed (P < 0.001) in both AZL-M/CTD arms (-37.6 and -38.2 mmHg) versus OLM/HCTZ (-31.5 mmHg), despite greater dose titration in the OLM/HCTZ group. At 8 weeks, both AZL-M/CTD FDCs reduced 24-h SBP more than OLM/HCTZ (-26.4 and -27.9 versus -20.7 mmHg; both P < 0.001), and higher proportions in both AZL-M/CTD groups achieved target BP compared with the OLM/HCTZ group (69.4 and 68.9 versus 54.7%, both P < 0.001). Adverse events leading to drug discontinuation occurred in 6.2, 9.5, and 3.1% with the AZL-M/CTD lower and higher doses, and OLM/HCTZ, respectively. CONCLUSION: This large, titration-to-target BP study demonstrated AZL-M/CTD FDCs to have superior antihypertensive efficacy compared with the maximum approved dose of OLM/HCTZ.

Investigation of novel supersaturating drug delivery systems of chlorthalidone: The use of polymer-surfactant complex as an effective carrier in solid dispersions.

Supersaturating drug delivery systems (SDDS), as solid dispersions (SDs), stand out among strategies to enhance bioavailability of poorly soluble drugs. After oral administration, their dissolution in gastrointestinal fluids often leads to supersaturation, which drives to a rapid and sustained absorption. Polymers and surfactants play important roles in SDs through inhibiting precipitation caused by transitions from amorphous into crystalline form, in supersaturated solutions, and also through improving SDs physical stability. Novel chlorthalidone SDs, a BCS IV drug, were developed using polymeric and non-polymeric carriers, specially a polymer-surfactant complex. SDs drug releases were evaluated using sink and non-sink conditions in water and biorelevant medium. Their physical stability was also monitored under different storage conditions. Polyvinyl caprolactam-polyvinyl acetate-polyethylene glycol graft copolymer (SOL), sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) and a combination of both showed promising results in apparent solubility studies, and therefore they were selected to compose the spray dried SDs. Dissolution studies demonstrated the SOL-SLS complex potential for providing chlorthalidone fast release (>80% in 15min), producing and maintaining in vitro supersaturation. This formulation comprising high drug loading (75%) reached a high supersaturation degree under non-sink condition (up to 6-fold the equilibrium solubility) once maintained for 6h in biorelevant medium. In addition, this SD presented better physical stability when compared to the chlorthalidone neat amorphous. The SOL-SLS complex impacts positively on chlorthalidone release and physical stability, highlighting its potential as carrier in SDDS of a poorly soluble drug.

Effectiveness of low-dose diuretics for blood pressure reduction to optimal values in prehypertension: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: To determine the effectiveness of low-dose diuretic therapy to achieve an optimal level of blood pressure (BP) in adults with prehypertension. METHODS: The PREVER-prevention trial was a randomized, parallel, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial, with 18 months of follow-up, conducted at 21 academic medical centers in Brazil. Of 1772 individuals evaluated for eligibility, 730 volunteers with prehypertension who were aged 30-70 years, and who did not reach optimal blood pressure after 3 months of lifestyle intervention, were randomized to a fixed association of chlorthalidone 12.5 mg and amiloride 2.5 mg or placebo once a day. The main outcomes were the percentage of participants who achieved an optimal level of BP. RESULTS: A total of 372 participants were randomly allocated to diuretics and 358 to placebo. After 18 months of treatment, optimal BP was noted in 25.6% of the diuretic group and 19.3% in the placebo group (P < 0.05). The mean net reduction in SBP and DBP for the diuretic group compared with placebo was 2.8 mmHg (95% CI 1.1 to 4.5) and 1.1 mmHg (95% CI -0.09 to 2.4), respectively. Most participants in the active treatment group (74.5%) and in the placebo group (80.7%) continued to have BP in the prehypertension range or progressed to hypertension. CONCLUSION: Low-dose diuretic therapy increased the probability of individuals with prehypertension to achieve optimal BP but most of those treated continued to have a BP in the prehypertension range or progressed to having overt hypertension.

Comparison of Fixed-dose Combinations of Amlodipine/Losartan Potassium/Chlorthalidone and Amlodipine/Losartan Potassium in Patients With Stage 2 Hypertension Inadequately Controlled With Amlodipine/Losartan Potassium: A Randomized, Double-blind, Multicenter, Phase III Study.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combinations of amlodipine/losartan potassium/chlorthalidone (A/L/C) and A/L in Korean patients with stage 2 hypertension inadequately controlled by A/L. METHODS: This study was an 8-week, randomized double-blind, multicenter, phase III clinical trial. Three hundred forty volunteer patients with stage 2 hypertension were randomized to receive A/L/C or A/L. The primary end point was a change in sitting systolic blood pressure (SitSBP) after 8 weeks of treatment. As secondary end points, the change in SitSBP after 2 weeks of treatment and the change in sitting diastolic blood pressure (SitDBP) were compared between treatment groups. All patients were assessed for adverse events, clinical laboratory data, and vital signs. FINDINGS: Of 330 patients from 33 medical centers, 328 patients who had available efficacy data were analyzed. After 8 weeks of double-blind treatment, the mean (SD) changes in SitSBP at 8 weeks were -16.4 (0.9) mm Hg and -6.9 (1.0) mm Hg in the A/L/C and A/L groups, respectively. A/L/C had a statistically superior blood pressure-lowering effect compared with that of A/L (mean [SD] difference, 9.5 [1.3] mm Hg; P < 0.001). The mean (SD) change in SitDBP at 8 weeks was significantly greater with A/L/C (-8.0 [0.6] mm Hg) than with A/L (-3.6 [0.6] mm Hg) (P < .001). In terms of the mean (SD) change in SitDBP at 2 weeks compared with baseline, A/L/C (-5.9 [0.5] mm Hg) was statistically different from A/L (-2.9 [0.5] mm Hg) (P < .001). Mean (SD) SitSBP change from baseline to week 2 was -13.2 (0.9) and -5.5 (0.9) in the A/L/C and A/L groups, respectively, with a statistically significant blood pressure-lowering effect (P < 0.001). The number of participants who achieved target blood pressure at week 8 was significantly higher in the A/L/C group (93 patients [55.7%]) than in the A/L group (48 [29.8%]) (P < 0.001). Adverse drug reactions were observed in 23 patients (7.0%), and the incidence of dizziness was significantly higher in the A/L/C group than in the A/L group (4.8% vs 0.6%, P = 0.037) There were no serious adverse events associated with the study drugs. IMPLICATIONS: The results of this study suggest that A/L/C had a significantly increased blood pressure-lowering efficacy compared with that of A/L and had a good safety profile. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02916602.