Correlation between estimated pulse wave velocity values from two equations in healthy and under cardiovascular risk populations.

INTRODUCTION: Equations can calculate pulse wave velocity (ePWV) from blood pressure values (BP) and age. The ePWV predicts cardiovascular events beyond carotid-femoral PWV. We aimed to evaluate the correlation between four different equations to calculate ePWV. METHODS: The ePWV was estimated utilizing mean BP (MBP) from office BP (MBPOBP) or 24-hour ambulatory BP (MBP24-hBP). We separated the whole sample into two groups: individuals with risk factors and healthy individuals. The e-PWV was calculated as follows: [Formula: see text] [Formula: see text] We calculated the concordance correlation coefficient (Pc) between e1-PWVOBP vs e2-PWVOBP, e1-PWV24-hBP vs e2-PWV24-hBP, and mean values of e1-PWVOBP, e2-PWVOBP, e1-PWV24-hBP and e2-PWV24-hBP. The multilevel regression model determined how much the ePWVs are influenced by age and MBP values. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 1541 individuals; 1374 ones with risk factors and 167 healthy ones. The values are presented for the entire sample, for risk-factor patients and for healthy individuals respectively. The correlation between e1-PWVOBP with e2-PWVOBP and e1-PWV24-hBP with e2-PWV24-hBP was almost perfect. The Pc for e1-PWVOBP vs e2-PWVOBP was 0.996 (0.995-0.996), 0.996 (0.995-0.996), and 0.994 (0.992-0.995); furthermore, it was 0.994 (0.993-0.995), 0.994 (0.994-0.995), 0.987 (0.983-0.990) to the e1-PWV24-hBP vs e2-PWV24-hBP. There were no significant differences between mean values (m/s) for e1-PWVOBP vs e2-PWVOBP 8.98±1.9 vs 8.97±1.8; p = 0.88, 9.14±1.8 vs 9.13±1.8; p = 0.88, and 7.57±1.3 vs 7.65±1.3; p = 0.5; mean values are also similar for e1-PWV24-hBP vs e2-PWV24-hBP, 8.36±1.7 vs 8.46±1.6; p = 0.09, 8.50±1.7 vs 8.58±1.7; p = 0.21 and 7.26±1.3 vs 7.39±1.2; p = 0.34. The multiple linear regression showed that age, MBP, and age2 predicted more than 99.5% of all four e-PWV. CONCLUSION: Our data presents a nearly perfect correlation between the values of two equations to calculate the estimated PWV, whether utilizing office or ambulatory blood pressure.

Inflammatory cytokines are associated to lower glomerular filtration rate in patients with hypertensive crisis.

Introduction: Hypertension and kidney function are closely related. However, there are few studies on renal function during acute elevation of blood pressure (BP), denominated hypertensive crisis (HC). Objectives: To evaluate the relationship between renal function and inflammatory cytokines in HC, subdivided into hypertensive urgency (HUrg) and emergency (HEmerg). Materials and methods: This cross-sectional study was carried out in 74 normotensive (NT) and 74 controlled hypertensive individuals (ContrHT) followed up in outpatient care. Additionally, 78 subjects with hypertensive emergency (HEmerg) and 50 in hypertensive urgency (HUrg), attended in emergency room, were also evaluated. Hypertensive crisis was classified into HEmerg, defined by systolic blood pressure (BP) ≥ 180 mmHg and/or diastolic BP ≥ 120 mmHg in presence of target-organ damage (TOD), and HypUrg, clinical situation with BP elevation without TOD. The glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was estimated, and cytokine levels were measured. Statistical analysis was performed using the Kruskal-Wallis or Mann-Whitney test and Spearman's correlation, with significant differences p-value < 0.05. Results: The median age was 53.5 years in the NT group (52 female), 61 years in the ContrHT group (52 female), and 62.5 years in the HC group (63 female) (p-value < 0.0001). The median BP was 118.5/75 mmHg for NT, 113.5/71 for ContrHT, and 198.5/120 mmHg for HC, respectively (p-value < 0.0001 among groups). BP and heart rate levels were significantly higher in the HC group compared to the NT and ContrHT groups (P < 0.001 for all). The eGFR was significantly lower in HC group compared to the NT and ContrHT groups. The cytokine levels were higher in the HEmerg and HUrg groups compared to ContrHT group (P < 0.0001, except for IL-1ß in HUrg vs. ContrHT), without difference between the acute elevation of BP groups. Thus, all cytokines were significantly elevated in patients with HC compared to the control groups (NT and ContrHT). There was a negative correlation between eGFR and the cytokines (IL-1ß, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, and TNF-α) in the HC group. Conclusion: Elevated inflammatory cytokines are associated with reduced eGFR in individuals with HC compared to control groups, suggesting that the inflammatory process participates in the pathogenesis of acute elevations of BP.

Implications for Clinical Practice from a Multicenter Survey of Heart Failure Management Centers.

OBJECTIVES: This observational, cross-sectional study based aimed to test whether heart failure (HF)-disease management program (DMP) components are influencing care and clinical decision-making in Brazil. METHODS: The survey respondents were cardiologists recommended by experts in the field and invited to participate in the survey via printed form or email. The survey consisted of 29 questions addressing site demographics, public versus private infrastructure, HF baseline data of patients, clinical management of HF, performance indicators, and perceptions about HF treatment. RESULTS: Data were obtained from 98 centers (58% public and 42% private practice) distributed across Brazil. Public HF-DMPs compared to private HF-DMP were associated with a higher percentage of HF-DMP-dedicated services (79% vs 24%; OR: 12, 95% CI: 94-34), multidisciplinary HF (MHF)-DMP [84% vs 65%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 1-8), HF educational programs (49% vs 18%; OR: 4; 95% CI: 1-2), written instructions before hospital discharge (83% vs 76%; OR: 1; 95% CI: 0-5), rehabilitation (69% vs 39%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 1-9), monitoring (44% vs 29%; OR: 2; 95% CI: 1-5), guideline-directed medical therapy-HF use (94% vs 85%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 0-15), and less B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) dosage (73% vs 88%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 1-9), and key performance indicators (37% vs 60%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 1-7). In comparison to non- MHF-DMP, MHF-DMP was associated with more educational initiatives (42% vs 6%; OR: 12; 95% CI: 1-97), written instructions (83% vs 68%; OR: 2: 95% CI: 1-7), rehabilitation (69% vs 17%; OR: 11; 95% CI: 3-44), monitoring (47% vs 6%; OR: 14; 95% CI: 2-115), GDMT-HF (92% vs 83%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 0-15). In addition, there were less use of BNP as a biomarker (70% vs 84%; OR: 2; 95% CI: 1-8) and key performance indicators (35% vs 51%; OR: 2; 95% CI: 91,6) in the non-MHF group. Physicians considered changing or introducing new medications mostly when patients were hospitalized or when observing worsening disease and/or symptoms. Adherence to drug treatment and non-drug treatment factors were the greatest medical problems associated with HF treatment. CONCLUSION: HF-DMPs are highly heterogeneous. New strategies for HF care should consider the present study highlights and clinical decision-making processes to improve HF patient care.

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.

Implications for clinical practice from a multicenter survey of heart failure management centers

OBJECTIVES: This observational, cross-sectional study based aimed to test whether heart failure (HF)-disease management program (DMP) components are influencing care and clinical decision-making in Brazil. METHODS: The survey respondents were cardiologists recommended by experts in the field and invited to participate in the survey via printed form or email. The survey consisted of 29 questions addressing site demographics, public versus private infrastructure, HF baseline data of patients, clinical management of HF, performance indicators, and perceptions about HF treatment. RESULTS: Data were obtained from 98 centers (58% public and 42% private practice) distributed across Brazil. Public HF-DMPs compared to private HF-DMP were associated with a higher percentage of HF-DMP-dedicated services (79% vs 24%; OR: 12, 95% CI: 94-34), multidisciplinary HF (MHF)-DMP [84% vs 65%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 1-8), HF educational programs (49% vs 18%; OR: 4; 95% CI: 1-2), written instructions before hospital discharge (83% vs 76%; OR: 1; 95% CI: 0-5), rehabilitation (69% vs 39%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 1-9), monitoring (44% vs 29%; OR: 2; 95% CI: 1-5), guideline-directed medical therapy-HF use (94% vs 85%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 0-15), and less B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) dosage (73% vs 88%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 1-9), and key performance indicators (37% vs 60%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 1-7). In comparison to non- MHF-DMP, MHF-DMP was associated with more educational initiatives (42% vs 6%; OR: 12; 95% CI: 1-97), written instructions (83% vs 68%; OR: 2: 95% CI: 1-7), rehabilitation (69% vs 17%; OR: 11; 95% CI: 3-44), monitoring (47% vs 6%; OR: 14; 95% CI: 2-115), GDMT-HF (92% vs 83%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 0-15). In addition, there were less use of BNP as a biomarker (70% vs 84%; OR: 2; 95% CI: 1-8) and key performance indicators (35% vs 51%; OR: 2; 95% CI: 91,6) in the non-MHF group. Physicians considered changing or introducing new medications mostly when patients were hospitalized or when observing worsening disease and/or symptoms. Adherence to drug treatment and non-drug treatment factors were the greatest medical problems associated with HF treatment. CONCLUSION: HF-DMPs are highly heterogeneous. New strategies for HF care should consider the present study highlights and clinical decision-making processes to improve HF patient care.

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.

Effectiveness of Chlorthalidone Plus Amiloride for the Prevention of Hypertension: The PREVER-Prevention Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Prehypertension is associated with higher cardiovascular risk, target organ damage, and incidence of hypertension. The Prevention of Hypertension in Patients with PreHypertension (PREVER-Prevention) trial aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a low-dose diuretic for the prevention of hypertension and end-organ damage. METHODS AND RESULTS: This randomized, parallel, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted in 21 Brazilian academic medical centers. Participants with prehypertension who were aged 30 to 70 years and who did not reach optimal blood pressure after 3 months of lifestyle intervention were randomized to a chlorthalidone/amiloride combination pill or placebo and were evaluated every 3 months during 18 months of treatment. The primary outcome was incidence of hypertension. Development or worsening of microalbuminuria, new-onset diabetes mellitus, and reduction of left ventricular mass were secondary outcomes. Participant characteristics were evenly distributed by trial arms. The incidence of hypertension was significantly lower in 372 study participants allocated to diuretics compared with 358 allocated to placebo (hazard ratio 0.56, 95% CI 0.38-0.82), resulting in a cumulative incidence of 11.7% in the diuretic arm versus 19.5% in the placebo arm (P=0.004). Adverse events; levels of blood glucose, glycosylated hemoglobin, creatinine, and microalbuminuria; and incidence of diabetes mellitus were no different between the 2 arms. Left ventricular mass assessed through Sokolow-Lyon voltage and voltage-duration product decreased to a greater extent in participants allocated to diuretic therapy compared with placebo (P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: A combination of low-dose chlorthalidone and amiloride effectively reduces the risk of incident hypertension and beneficially affects left ventricular mass in patients with prehypertension. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov, www.ensaiosclinicos.gov. Unique identifiers: NCT00970931, RBR-74rr6s.

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

OBJECTIVES: To compare the blood pressure (BP)-lowering efficacy of a chlorthalidone/amiloride combination pill with losartan, during initial management of stage I hypertension. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial, 655 participants were followed for 18 months in 21 Brazilian academic centers. Trial participants were adult volunteers aged 30-70 years with stage I hypertension (BP 140-159 or 90-99 mmHg) following 3 months of a lifestyle intervention. Participants were randomized to 12.5/2.5 mg of chlorthalidone/amiloride (N = 333) or 50 mg of losartan (N = 322). If BP remained uncontrolled after 3 months, study medication dose was doubled, and if uncontrolled after 6 months, amlodipine (5 and 10 mg) and propranolol (40 and 80 mg twice daily) were added as open-label drugs in a progressive fashion. At the end of follow-up, 609 (93%) participants were evaluated. RESULTS: The difference in SBP during 18 months of follow-up was 2.3 (95% confidence interval: 1.2 to 3.3) mmHg favoring chlorthalidone/amiloride. Compared with those randomized to diuretic, more participants allocated to losartan had their initial dose doubled and more of them used add-on antihypertensive medication. Levels of blood glucose, glycosilated hemoglobin, and incidence of diabetes were no different between the two treatment groups. Serum potassium was lower and serum cholesterol was higher in the diuretic arm. Microalbuminuria tended to be higher in patients with diabetes allocated to losartan (28.5 ±â€Š40.4 versus 16.2 ±â€Š26.7 mg, P = 0.09). CONCLUSION: Treatment with a combination of chlorthalidone and amiloride compared with losartan yielded a greater reduction in BP. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00971165.

Effect of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation on peripheral to central blood pressure ratio in healthy subjects.

PURPOSE: To investigate the effect of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) on the arterial stiffness in healthy young adult and middle-aged men using the augmentation index (AI-x) and hemodynamic measures. METHODS: Twenty-four men (12 aged 27·25 ± 5·53 years and 12 aged 54·83 ± 5·10 years) were randomly allocated to two subgroups: TENS or placebo in ganglion region for 45 min. The AI-x and hemodynamic measures [late systolic blood pressure (SBP), central blood pressure (CBP), difference between P1 and P2 (ΔP) and tension time index (TTI)] were determined before and after protocols. RESULTS: TENS resulted in reduction of SBP in younger adults (TENSpre: 111 ± 2; post: 105 ± 2·2 mm Hg; PLACEBOpre: 113 ± 1·8; post: 114 ± 2·5 mm Hg; GEE, P<0·01), whereas no difference was found in middle-aged group. TENS also resulted in reduction of AI-x younger adults group (TENSpre: 56 ± 2·8; post: 53 ± 2%; PLACEBOpre: 55 ± 3; post: 58 ± 2·5%; GEE, P<0·01). ΔP and TTI were significantly decreased after the application of TENS in both groups, but significantly greater reductions in TTI and the SBP/CBP ratio were found in the group of younger adults. CONCLUSIONS: The acute application of ganglion TENS attenuated arterial stiffness in younger adults as well as hemodynamic measures in the middle-aged group. This method could emerge as effective therapy for the management of arterial blood pressure.

Blockade of renin angiotensin system in heart failure post-myocardial infarction: what is the best therapy?

Heart Failure (HF) is a progressive and fatal disorder, which ranks among the major public health problems in Brazil and worldwide. However, survival for patients who developed the syndrome after myocardial infarction (MI) enhanced significantly, as a result of an improvement of pharmacological therapies. A medical breakthrough was the discovery that remodelling of the left ventricle (LV) may be limited by the blockade of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS), at the level of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) and binding of angiotensin (Ang) II to its AT1 receptor. This review shows that the therapeutic effects of both ACE inhibitors and the angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) go beyond the interference in the biochemical pathway ACE-Ang II AT1-receptor. Such effects are also related to the potentiation of bradykinin and increased beneficial effects mediated by the AT2 receptor. Therefore, the results of five randomized trials were presented, which evaluated the use of losartan, valsartan or candesartan, considering their effects on survival and risk of clinical deterioration in patients with symptomatic HF after MI. These studies confirmed the advantage of ARBs over inhibitors in case of cough, rashes and angioneurotic edema, despite similar adverse effects, such as hyperkalemia, renal failure and hypotension. Thus, in this article we have discussed with patents that ACE inhibitors also appear as the first option as RAS inhibitors in search of relevant results for the patient, allowing the alternative use of ARBs to those patients with intolerance.

Renin angiotensin system blockage associates with insertion/deletion polymorphism of angiotensin-converting enzyme in patients with hypertensive emergency.

Hypertensive crisis (HC) stands out as a form of acute elevation of blood pressure (BP). It can manifest itself as hypertensive emergency (HE) or hypertensive urgency (HU), which is usually accompanied with levels of diastolic BP ≥120 mmHg. Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) gene insertion/deletion (I/D) polymorphism may influence manifestations of HC. Thus, this study evaluated the influence of ACE I/D polymorphism in individuals with HC. A total of 187 patients admitted with HC (HU [n=69] and HE [n=118]) and 75 normotensive individuals were included in the study. Peripheral blood was drawn for a biochemical and genetic analysis of the ACE I/D polymorphism by Polymerase Chain Reaction. HC group showed higher systolic BP, body mass index (BMI), glycemia, creatinine, and lower high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol compared with normotensive individuals. The use of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockers was more frequent in the HU group than in the HE group (p=0.020). The II genotype was more predominant in normotensive and HU individuals than among HE individuals (18.7%, 11.6%, and 2.5%, respectively; p=0.004). Higher BMI and glycemia were associated with HC in the logistic regression model. ACE II genotype (odds ratio [OR] 0.14; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.04-0.51) and HDL cholesterol were protective for the development of HE. ACE II genotype was present in the HU group, compared with the HE group (OR 0.18; 95% CI 0.04-0.88). This study shows an association between the low prevalence of ACE I/D polymorphism II genotype and a greater occurrence of HE in Brazilian individuals. The lower blockage of RAS, which was detected in the HE group, may interact with the low frequency of II genotype, conferring an increased risk for HE.

Is there an association between vitamin D and hypertension?

Vitamin D has an important role in bone mineralization and maintenance of calcium homeostasis. Thus, vitamin D deficiency is better characterized in the situations that involve the musculoskeletal system and bone metabolism. Recently, there is an interest in the association of vitamin D deficiency with the presence of metabolic syndrome, diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular disease and arterial hypertension. The mechanism underlying the inverse relationship between vitamin D levels and blood pressure is not completely understood, but it seems to involve several systems. Clinical and experimental studies suggest that vitamin D may influence blood pressure by regulating renin-angiotensin system, improving endothelial function, blunting cardiomyocyte hypertrophy, improving insulin sensitivity, reducing the concentrations of serum free fatty acids and regulating the expression of the natriuretic peptide receptor. In accordance with recent clinical studies and meta-analyses, the association between blood 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations and hypertension is controversy. There is no doubt about the role of vitamin D in skeletal health. However, the vitamin D supplementation to prevent or treat hypertension has been the subject of recent debate. Thus, the decision to use supplementation with vitamin D would be important in patients with vitamin D deficiency. This review article discusses the association between vitamin D and hypertension, vitamin D supplementation and some recent patents related to vitamin D and hypertension.

Prevention of hypertension in patients with pre-hypertension: protocol for the PREVER-prevention trial.

BACKGROUND: Blood pressure (BP) within pre-hypertensive levels confers higher cardiovascular risk and is an intermediate stage for full hypertension, which develops in an annual rate of 7 out of 100 individuals with 40 to 50 years of age. Non-drug interventions to prevent hypertension have had low effectiveness. In individuals with previous cardiovascular disease or diabetes, the use of BP-lowering agents reduces the incidence of major cardiovascular events. In the absence of higher baseline risk, the use of BP agents reduces the incidence of hypertension. The PREVER-prevention trial aims to investigate the efficacy, safety and feasibility of a population-based intervention to prevent the incidence of hypertension and the development of target-organ damage. METHODS: This is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial, with participants aged 30 to 70 years, with pre-hypertension. The trial arms will be chlorthalidone 12.5 mg plus amiloride 2.5 mg or identical placebo. The primary outcomes will be the incidence of hypertension, adverse events and development or worsening of microalbuminuria and of left ventricular hypertrophy in the EKG. The secondary outcomes will be fatal or non-fatal cardiovascular events: myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, evidence of new sub-clinical atherosclerosis, and sudden death. The study will last 18 months. The sample size was calculated on the basis of an incidence of hypertension of 14% in the control group, a size effect of 40%, power of 85% and P alpha of 5%, resulting in 625 participants per group. The project was approved by the Ethics committee of each participating institution. DISCUSSION: The early use of blood pressure-lowering drugs, particularly diuretics, which act on the main mechanism of blood pressure rising with age, may prevent cardiovascular events and the incidence of hypertension in individuals with hypertension. If this intervention shows to be effective and safe in a population-based perspective, it could be the basis for an innovative public health program to prevent hypertension in Brazil. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials NCT00970931.

A comparison between diuretics and angiotensin-receptor blocker agents in patients with stage I hypertension (PREVER-treatment trial): study protocol for a randomized double-blind controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in Brazil, and hypertension is its major risk factor. The benefit of its drug treatment to prevent major cardiovascular events was consistently demonstrated. Angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARB) have been the preferential drugs in the management of hypertension worldwide, despite the absence of any consistent evidence of advantage over older agents, and the concern that they may be associated with lower renal protection and risk for cancer. Diuretics are as efficacious as other agents, are well tolerated, have longer duration of action and low cost, but have been scarcely compared with ARBs. A study comparing diuretic and ARB is therefore warranted. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a randomized, double-blind, clinical trial, comparing the association of chlorthalidone and amiloride with losartan as first drug option in patients aged 30 to 70 years, with stage I hypertension. The primary outcomes will be variation of blood pressure by time, adverse events and development or worsening of microalbuminuria and of left ventricular hypertrophy in the EKG. The secondary outcomes will be fatal or non-fatal cardiovascular events: myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, evidence of new subclinical atherosclerosis and sudden death. The study will last 18 months. The sample size will be of 1200 participants for group in order to confer enough power to test for all primary outcomes. The project was approved by the Ethics committee of each participating institution. DISCUSSION: The putative pleiotropic effects of ARB agents, particularly renal protection, have been disputed, and they have been scarcely compared with diuretics in large clinical trials, despite that they have been at least as efficacious as newer agents in managing hypertension. Even if the null hypothesis is not rejected, the information will be useful for health care policy to treat hypertension in Brazil. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00971165.