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.

Use trends of chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide among United States adults with hypertension: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2009-2018.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the national prevalence of chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide use among adults diagnosed with hypertension by sociodemographic subgroup, healthcare access status, and clinical factors. METHODS: Data was extracted from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey for 2009-2010 through 2017-2018 survey waves. Patients at least 20 years old, diagnosed with hypertension, and on hydrochlorothiazide or chlorthalidone were included. Uni-variable logistic regression models estimated the odds of being on chlorthalidone compared with hydrochlorothiazide use by sociodemographic and clinical factors. Analyses were adjusted for multi-stage complex survey design and are nationally representative. RESULTS: Two thousand five hundred and eighty-five participants were included with 95.2% participants using hydrochlorothiazide and 4.8% using chlorthalidone. Participants over 65 years were more likely to be on chlorthalidone compared with younger counterparts [odds ratio (OR) 1.8; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12-2.88]. Participants with hypokalemia (OR 2.62; 95% CI 1.56-4.42) or hyponatremia [OR 2.298; 95% CI 1.23-4.30) were more likely to be using chlorthalidone compared with patients with normal levels. CONCLUSION: Chlorthalidone, a potent and effective first-line antihypertensive agent and thoroughly studied thiazide diuretic with substantial cardiovascular benefits, continues to be underutilized in patients with hypertension. Findings demonstrated that individuals receiving chlorthalidone were more likely to be 65 years or older and to experience hyponatremia or hypokalemia. Sociodemographic factors, healthcare access and use, clinical factors, and medical conditions did not appear to sway the choice in thiazide diuretic use.

Chlorthalidone versus hydrochlorothiazide for preventing cardiovascular disease in hypertension: Is the case closed?

The optimal diuretic choice [hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) or chlorthalidone (CTD)] for the management of hypertension has been an ongoing debate for several years. HCTZ is widely used in the form of single-pill combinations, whereas CTD is a more potent drug vs. HCTZ, especially in reducing nighttime blood pressure (BP), with some indirect evidence suggesting a superiority in terms of cardiovascular (CV) risk reduction. In addition, recent data showed that CTD was safe and effective in terms of BP lowering in predialysis patients with stage 4 chronic kidney disease. The Diuretic Comparison Project was the first head-to-head pragmatic, open-label trial that randomly assigned elderly patients with hypertension under HCTZ therapy to continue with HCTZ or to switch to CTD (equivalent doses). Office BP was similar for both groups throughout the study. The trial showed no difference in major CV events or non-cancer-related deaths during a median follow-up of 2.4 years; yet, CTD was associated with a benefit in participants with a previous myocardial infarction or stroke, which might be a chance finding but could also indicate that a high-risk population is more suitable for revealing the impact of slight differences in the 24-hour BP profile in a relatively short-term follow-up. Interestingly CTD vs. HCTZ was associated with higher hypokalemia rates apart from the latter group of patients where there was no difference. Overall, the available data do not confirm the superiority of CTD over HCTZ in general, but this could be questionable in selected patients.

Arterial Hypertension-clinical trials update 2023.

Arterial hypertension is associated with increased morbidity and mortality and research in the field is highly dynamic. This summary reviews the most important clinical trials published in 2022 and early 2023. Findings on new pharmacological approaches to treat resistant hypertension are presented and new knowledge about the optimal timing of the antihypertensive medication intake is discussed. It is focused on optimal blood pressure treatment targets and the problem of treatment and guideline inertia is acknowledged. Information about pregnancy-related hypertension is presented and blood pressure control following percutaneous thrombectomy after ischemic stroke is discussed. Finally, novel clinical data on device-based approaches to treat hypertension are summarized. The hypertension trials update summarizes the most important clincal trials on hypertension research in 2022 and early 2023. CTD - chlorthalidone, CV - cardiovascular, HCT - hydrochlorothiazide, SBP - systolic blood pressure, RDN - renal denervation *depicts systolic blood pressure only.

Usefulness of urinary potassium to creatinine ratio to predict diuretic response in patients with acute heart failure and preserved ejection fraction.

BACKGROUND: Patients with acute heart failure (AHF) require intensification in the diuretic strategy. However, the optimal diuretic strategy remains unclear. In this work, we aimed to evaluate the role of urinary potassium to creatinine ratio (K/Cr) to predict diuretic and natriuretic response to thiazide or mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) in a cohort of patients with AHF and preserved ejection fraction (AHF-pEF). HYPOTHESIS: Patients with a high urinary K/Cr ratio will have a better diuretic and natriuretic response with spironolactone versus chlorthalidone. METHODS: This is a study of 44 patients with AHF-pEF with suboptimal loop diuretic response. The primary endpoint was the baseline K/Cr associated with natriuretic and diuretic effect of chlorthalidone versus spironolactone at 24 and 72 h. Mixed linear regression models were used to analyze the endpoints. Estimates were reported as least squares mean with their respective 95% confidence interval (CIs). RESULTS: The median age of the study population was 85 years (82.5-88.5), and 30 (68.2%) were women. The inferential multivariate analysis suggested a greater natriuretic and diuretic effect of chlorthalidone across K/Cr levels. In the upper category, chlorthalidone translated into a statistically increase in natriuresis at 24 and 72 h. Chlorthalidone versus spironolactone showed ∆uNa of 25.7 mmol/L at 24 h (95% CI = -3.7 to 55.4, p = .098) and ∆uNa of 24.8 mmol/L at 72 h (95% CI = -4 to 53.6, p = .0106). The omnibus p value is .027. Multivariate analyses revealed a significant increase in 72 h cumulative diuresis irrespective of K/Cr status in those on chlorthalidone. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with AHF-pEF and suboptimal diuretic response, diuresis and natriuresis are higher with the administration of chlorthalidone over spironolactone. These data don't support the hypothesis that the K/Cr ratio can help guide the choice of thiazide diuretic versus MRA in AHF-pEF patients on loop diuretic.

Hypertension in chronic kidney disease-treatment standard 2023.

Hypertension is very common and remains often poorly controlled in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Accurate blood pressure (BP) measurement is the essential first step in the diagnosis and management of hypertension. Dietary sodium restriction is often overlooked, but can improve BP control, especially among patients treated with an agent to block the renin-angiotensin system. In the presence of very high albuminuria, international guidelines consistently and strongly recommend the use of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker as the antihypertensive agent of first choice. Long-acting dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers and diuretics are reasonable second- and third-line therapeutic options. For patients with treatment-resistant hypertension, guidelines recommend the addition of spironolactone to the baseline antihypertensive regimen. However, the associated risk of hyperkalemia restricts the broad utilization of spironolactone in patients with moderate-to-advanced CKD. Evidence from the CLICK (Chlorthalidone in Chronic Kidney Disease) trial indicates that the thiazide-like diuretic chlorthalidone is effective and serves as an alternative therapeutic opportunity for patients with stage 4 CKD and uncontrolled hypertension, including those with treatment-resistant hypertension. Chlorthalidone can also mitigate the risk of hyperkalemia to enable the concomitant use of spironolactone, but this combination requires careful monitoring of BP and kidney function for the prevention of adverse events. Emerging agents, such as the non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist ocedurenone, dual endothelin receptor antagonist aprocitentan and the aldosterone synthase inhibitor baxdrostat offer novel targets and strategies to control BP better. Larger and longer term clinical trials are needed to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of these novel therapies in the future. In this article, we review the current standards of treatment and discuss novel developments in pathophysiology, diagnosis, outcome prediction and management of hypertension in patients with CKD.

Clortalidona para adultos com hipertensão arterial sistêmica com controle inadequado da pressão arterial / Chlorthalidone for adults with systemic arterial hypertension with inadequate blood pressure control

INTRODUÇÃO: A hipertensão arterial sistêmica (HAS), uma doença crônica, é um grave problema de saúde pública, caracterizada por níveis elevados e persistentes da pressão sanguínea, medidos em geral como uma razão da pressão arterial sistólica e diastólica (respectivamente maior ou igual a 140 mmHg; e/ou maior ou igual a 90 mmHg). Esta é uma doença altamente prevalente em todo o mundo. No Brasil, os números podem variar de acordo com a metodologia utilizada. Reportou-se na Pesquisa Nacional de Saúde de 2013, cujos dados são obtidos por autorrelato, a prevalência de hipertensão em 21% dos pacientes, mas ao considerar a aferição da pressão arterial e uso de medicamentos, o percentual de adultos com pressão arterial ≥140/90 mmHg foi de 32%. Sabe-se que a falta de controle da pressão arterial pode elevar o risco de ocorrência de eventos cardiovasculares, como infarto agudo do miocárdio, insuficiência cardíaca, acidente vascular cerebral, doenças renais, entre outros. Isso consequentemente pode causar problemas crônicos que reduzem a qualidade de vida do indivídu

In older adults with hypertension, chlorthalidone vs. hydrochlorothiazide did not reduce major CV events or deaths at 2.4 y.

SOURCE CITATION: Diuretic Comparison Project Writing Group; Ishani A, Cushman WC, Leatherman SM, et al. Chlorthalidone vs. hydrochlorothiazide for hypertension-cardiovascular events. N Engl J Med. 2022;387:2401-10. 36516076.

Reduced efficacy of blood pressure lowering drugs in the presence of diabetes mellitus-results from the TRIUMPH randomised controlled trial.

We investigated whether diabetes mellitus (DM) affects the efficacy of a low-dose triple combination pill and usual care among people with mild-moderate hypertension. TRIUMPH (TRIple pill vs Usual care Management for Patients with mild-to-moderate Hypertension) was a randomised controlled open-label trial of patients requiring initiation or escalation of antihypertensive therapy. Patients were randomised to a once-daily low-dose triple combination polypill (telmisartan-20mg/amlodipine-2.5 mg/chlorthalidone-12.5 mg) or usual care. This analysis compared BP reduction in people with and without DM, both in the intervention and control groups over 24-week follow-up. Predicted efficacy of prescribed therapy was calculated (estimation methods of Law et al.). The trial randomised 700 patients (56 ± 11 yrs, 31% DM). There was no difference in the number of drugs prescribed or predicted efficacy of therapy between people with DM and without DM. However, the observed BP reduction from baseline to week 24 was lower in those with DM compared to non-diabetics in both the triple pill (25/11 vs 31/15 mmHg, p ≤ 0.01) and usual care (17/7 vs 22/11 mmHg, p ≤ 0.01) groups, and these differences remained after multivariable adjustment. DM was a negative predictor of change in BP (ß-coefficient -0.08, p = 0.02). In conclusion, patients with DM experienced reduced efficacy of BP lowering therapies as compared to patients without DM, irrespective of the type of BP lowering therapy received.

Financial implications of protocol-based hypertension treatment: an insight into medication costs in public and private health sectors in India.

Hypertension is a major public health challenge in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and calls for large-scale effective hypertension control programs. Adoption of drug and dose-specific treatment protocols recommended by the World Health Organization-HEARTS Initiative is key for hypertension control programs in LMICs. We estimated the annual medication cost per patient using three such protocols (protocol-1 and protocol-2 with Amlodipine, Telmisartan, using add-on doses and different drug orders, adding Chlorthalidone; protocol-3 with a single-pill combination (SPC) of Amlodipine/Telmisartan with dose up-titration, and addition of Chlorthalidone, if required) in India. The medication cost was simulated with different hypertension control assumptions for each protocol and calculated based on prices in the public and private sectors in India. The estimated annual medication cost per patient for protocol-1 and protocol-2 was $33.88-58.44 and $51.57-68.83 for protocol-3 in the private sector. The medication cost was lower in the generic stores ($5.78-9.57 for protocol-1 and protocol-2, and $7.35-9.89 for protocol-3). The medication cost for patients was the lowest ($2.05-3.89 for protocol-1 and protocol-2, and $2.94-3.98 for protocol-3) in the public sector. At less than $4 per patient per annum, scaling up a hypertension control program with specific treatment protocols is a potentially cost-effective public health intervention. Expanding low-cost generic retail networks would extend affordability in the private sector. The cost of treatment with SPC is comparable with non-SPC protocols and can be adopted in a public health program considering the advantage of simplified logistics, reduced pill burden, improved treatment adherence, and blood pressure control.

Chlorthalidone vs Hydrochlorothiazide for Hypertension-CV Events: Did the Design Influence the Outcome?

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.

Chlorthalidone vs. Hydrochlorothiazide for Hypertension-Cardiovascular Events.

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.).

Cardio-renal interaction - Clinical trials update 2022.

AIMS: Chronic kidney disease is a common cardiovascular risk indicator and strongly associated with increased morbidity and mortality. The heart and kidneys are pathophysiologically closely connected, which becomes particularly obvious in patients with cardiorenal syndrome. This review summarizes clinically relevant studies on the cardio-renal interaction published in 2021 and 2022. DATA SYNTHESIS: Selected trials published in high-impact journals were chosen from the database Pubmed and included in this review. New evidence about the selective mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist finerenone and the renoprotective sodium-glucose co-transporter-2-inhibitors (SGLT2-Inhibitors) are discussed and we update on novel insights about the treatment of arterial hypertension in patients with severe chronic kidney disease with the thiazide-like diuretic chlorthalidone. Finally, data on infective endocarditis in patients on chronic hemodialysis and the treatment of secondary hyperparathyroidism with the calcimimetic drug etelcalcetide in patients with end stage kidney disease are critically reviewed. CONCLUSION: Several important studies investigating cardio-renal interactions were recently published may affect clinical practice. The graphical abstract (Fig. 1) depicts the most relevant clinical studies investigating cardio-renal interactions.

Effect of the combination of bumetanide plus chlorthalidone on hypertension and volume overload in patients with chronic kidney disease stage 4-5 KDIGO without renal replacement therapy: a double-blind randomized HEBE-CKD trial.

BACKGROUND: The co-administration of loop diuretics with thiazide diuretics is a therapeutic strategy in patients with hypertension and volume overload. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of treatment with bumetanide plus chlorthalidone in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage 4-5 KDIGO. METHODS: A double-blind randomized study was conducted. Patients were randomized into two groups: bumetanide plus chlorthalidone group (intervention) and the bumetanide plus placebo group (control) to evaluate differences in TBW, ECW and ECW/TBW between baseline and 30 Days of follow-up. Volume overload was defined as 'bioelectrical impedance analysis as fluid volume above the 90th percentile of a presumed healthy reference population. The study's registration number was NCT03923933. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients with a mean age of 57.2 ± 9.34 years and a median estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 16.7 ml/min/1.73 m2 (2.2-29) were included. There was decreased volume overload in the liters of total body water (TBW) on Day 7 (intervention: -2.5 vs. control: -0.59, p = 0.003) and Day 30 (intervention: -5.3 vs. control: -0.07, p = 0.016); and in liters of extracellular water (ECW) on Day 7 (intervention: -1.58 vs. control: -0.43, p < 0.001) and Day 30 (intervention: -3.05 vs. control: -0.15, p < 0.000). There was also a decrease in systolic blood pressure on Day 7 (intervention: -18 vs. control: -7.5, p = 0.073) and Day 30 (intervention: -26.1 vs. control: -10, p = 0.028) and in diastolic blood pressure on Day 7 (intervention: -8.5 vs. control: -2.25, p = 0.059) and Day 30 (intervention: -13.5 vs. control: -3.4, p = 0.018). CONCLUSION: In CKD stage 4-5 KDIGO without renal replacement therapy, bumetanide in combination with chlorthalidone is more effective in treating volume overload and hypertension than bumetanide with placebo.

Efficacy and safety of adrenergic alpha-1 receptor antagonists in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis supporting the development of recommendations to reduce potentially inappropriate prescribing.

BACKGROUND: Adrenergic alpha-1 receptor antagonists (alpha-1 antagonists) are frequently used medications in the management of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) suggestive of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and in the management of therapy-resistant arterial hypertension, two conditions frequently found in older adults. This systematic review aims at presenting a complete overview of evidence over the benefits and risks of alpha-1 antagonist treatment in people ≥ 65 years, and at deriving recommendations for a safe application of alpha-1 antagonists in older adults from the evidence found. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was performed (last update March 25th 2022) including multiple databases (Medline/Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Library) and using the PICOS framework to define search terms. The selection of the studies was done by two independent reviewers in a two-step approach, followed by a systematic data extraction. Quality appraisal was performed for each study included using standardised appraisal tools. The studies retrieved and additional literature were used for the development of recommendations, which were rated for strength and quality according to the GRADE methodology. RESULTS: Eighteen studies were included: 3 meta-analyses, 6 randomised controlled trials and 9 observational trials. Doxazosin in the management of arterial hypertension was associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular disease, particularly heart failure, than chlorthalidone. Regarding treatment of LUTS suggestive of BPH, alpha-1 antagonists appeared to be effective in the relief of urinary symptoms and improvement of quality of life. They seemed to be less effective in preventing disease progression. Analyses of the risk profile indicated an increase in vasodilation related adverse events and sexual adverse events for some agents. The risk of falls and fractures as well as the effects of long-term treatment remained unclear. All meta-analyses and 5 out of 6 interventional studies were downgraded in the quality appraisal. 7 out of 9 observational studies were of good quality. CONCLUSIONS: It cannot be recommended to use doxazosin as first-line antihypertensive agent neither in older adults nor in younger patients. In the management of BPH alpha-1 antagonists promise to effectively relieve urinary symptoms with uncertainty regarding their efficacy in preventing long-term progression events.