Pregnancy Outcomes of Nifedipine Compared With Labetalol for Oral Treatment of Mild Chronic Hypertension.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate maternal and neonatal outcomes by type of antihypertensive used in participants of the CHAP (Chronic Hypertension in Pregnancy) trial. METHODS: We conducted a planned secondary analysis of CHAP, an open-label, multicenter, randomized trial of antihypertensive treatment compared with standard care (no treatment unless severe hypertension developed) in pregnant patients with mild chronic hypertension (blood pressure 140-159/90-104 mm Hg before 20 weeks of gestation) and singleton pregnancies. We performed three comparisons based on medications prescribed at enrollment: labetalol compared with standard care, nifedipine compared with standard care, and labetalol compared with nifedipine. Although active compared with standard care groups were randomized, medication assignment within the active treatment group was not random but based on clinician or patient preference. The primary outcome was the occurrence of superimposed preeclampsia with severe features, preterm birth before 35 weeks of gestation, placental abruption, or fetal or neonatal death. The key secondary outcome was small for gestational age (SGA) neonates. We also compared medication adverse effects between groups. Relative risks (RRs) and 95% CIs were estimated with log binomial regression to adjust for confounding. RESULTS: Of 2,292 participants analyzed, 720 (31.4%) received labetalol, 417 (18.2%) received nifedipine, and 1,155 (50.4%) received no treatment. The mean gestational age at enrollment was 10.5±3.7 weeks; nearly half of participants (47.5%) identified as non-Hispanic Black; and 44.5% used aspirin. The primary outcome occurred in 217 (30.1%), 130 (31.2%), and 427 (37.0%) in the labetalol, nifedipine, and standard care groups, respectively. Risk of the primary outcome was lower among those receiving treatment (labetalol use vs standard adjusted RR 0.82, 95% CI, 0.72-0.94; nifedipine use vs standard adjusted RR 0.84, 95% CI, 0.71-0.99), but there was no significant difference in risk when labetalol was compared with nifedipine (adjusted RR 0.98, 95% CI, 0.82-1.18). There were no significant differences in SGA or serious adverse events between participants receiving labetalol and those receiving nifedipine. CONCLUSION: No significant differences in predetermined maternal or neonatal outcomes were detected on the basis of the use of labetalol or nifedipine for treatment of chronic hypertension in pregnancy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02299414.

Orthostatic Hypotension and Antihypertensive Treatment in Lung Transplant Recipients: A Cross-Sectional Study.

OBJECTIVES: Lung transplant is the ultimate treatment of many end-stage lung diseases. Calcineurin inhibitors, crucial in immunosuppression for lung transplant recipients, are linked to secondary hypertension, necessitating antihypertensive treatment. In addition, lung transplant recipients frequently experience orthostatic hypotension, occasionally stemming from autonomic dysfunction, but also commonly attributed as a negative side effect of antihypertensive treatment. Our study aimed to evaluate the frequency of orthostatic blood pressure irregularities and investigate the involvement of antihypertensive treatment as a potential risk factor in the occurrence among lung transplant recipients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-six consecutive lung transplant recipients, both inpatient and outpatient, at the University Hospital Zurich (Switzerland) were monitored from 1999 to 2013. Transplant recipients underwent a Schellong test (an active standing test). Our evaluation encompassed their initial traits, such as the existence of supine hypertension. We computed the odds ratio for the comparison of the likelihood of experiencing orthostatic hypotension while using a minimum of 1 type of antihypertensive medication versus absence of antihypertensive drugs. RESULTS: Of the lung transplant recipients, 25% showed a positive Schellong test. Within this group, 64% had supine hypertension, and 29% displayed symptoms of orthostatic hypotension. Among the patients, 71% were using at least 1 type of antihypertensive medication. The odds ratio for showing orthostatic hypotension while taking at least 1 type of antihypertensive drug versus the absence of antihypertensive medications was 1.64 (95% exact CI, 0.39-6.90) with P = .50. This finding remained consistent regardless of age, sex, inpatient or outpatient status, and the duration since transplant. CONCLUSIONS: Orthostatic blood pressure dysregulation is prevalent among lung transplant recipients, frequently without noticeable symptoms. In our cohort, the use of antihypertensive medications did not elevate the risk of orthostatic hypotension.

Effects of the discontinuation of antihypertensive treatment on neuropsychiatric symptoms and quality of life in nursing home residents with dementia (DANTON): a multicentre, open-label, blinded-outcome, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Based on observational studies and randomised controlled trials (RCTs), the benefit-harm balance of antihypertensive treatment in older adults with dementia is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether discontinuing antihypertensive treatment reduces neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPSs) and maintains quality of life (QoL) in nursing home residents with dementia. DESIGN: Open-label, blinded-outcome RCT. Randomisation 1:1, stratified by nursing home organisation and baseline NPS. Trial registration: NL7365. SUBJECTS: Dutch long-term care residents with moderate-to-severe dementia and systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≤160 mmHg during antihypertensive treatment. Exclusion criteria included heart failure NYHA-class-III/IV, recent cardiovascular events/procedures or life expectancy <4 months (planned sample size n = 492). MEASUREMENTS: Co-primary outcomes NPS (Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Nursing Home [NPI-NH]) and QoL (Qualidem) at 16 weeks. RESULTS: From 9 November 2018 to 4 May 2021, 205 participants (median age 85.8 [IQR 79.6-89.5] years; 79.5% female; median SBP 134 [IQR 123-146] mmHg) were randomised to either antihypertensive treatment discontinuation (n = 101) or usual care (n = 104). Safety concerns, combined with lacking benefits, prompted the data safety and monitoring board to advice a premature cessation of randomisation. At 16-week follow-up, no significant differences were found between groups for NPI-NH (adjusted mean difference 1.6 [95% CI -2.3 to 5.6]; P = 0.42) or Qualidem (adjusted mean difference - 2.5 [95% CI -6.0 to 1.0]; P = 0.15). Serious adverse events (SAEs) occurred in 36% (discontinuation) and 24% (usual care) of the participants (adjusted hazard ratio 1.65 [95% CI 0.98-2.79]). All 32-week outcomes favoured usual care. CONCLUSION: Halfway through this study, a non-significant increased SAE risk associated with discontinuing antihypertensive treatment was observed, and an associated interim analysis showed that significant worthwhile health gain for discontinuation of antihypertensive treatment was unlikely. This unbeneficial benefit-harm balance shows that discontinuation of antihypertensive treatment in this context does not appear to be either safe or beneficial enough to be recommended in older adults with dementia.

Removing the FDA's Boxed Hepatotoxicity Warning and Liver Function Testing Requirement for Ambrisentan.

Importance: Endothelin receptor antagonists are first-line therapy for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). The first 2 agents approved in the class, bosentan and ambrisentan, initially carried boxed warnings for hepatotoxicity and required monthly liver function tests (LFTs) as part of a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS); however, in 2011, as further safety data emerged on ambrisentan, the boxed hepatotoxicity warning and LFT requirements were removed. Objective: To analyze changes in the use of and LFT monitoring for ambrisentan and bosentan after changes to the ambrisentan labeling and REMS. Design, Setting, and Participants: This serial cross-sectional study used data from 3 longitudinal health care insurance claims databases-Medicaid, Optum's deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart, and Merative Marketscan-to perform an interrupted time series analysis of prescription fills and LFTs for patients taking ambrisentan and bosentan. Participants were patients filling prescriptions for ambrisentan and bosentan from July 1, 2007, to December 31, 2018. Data analysis was performed from April 2021 to August 2023. Exposure: Removal of the boxed warning for hepatotoxicity and the REMS LFT monitoring requirements on ambrisentan in March 2011. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were use of ambrisentan (ie, individuals with at least 1 dispensing per 1 000 000 individuals enrolled in the 3 datasets) vs bosentan and LFT monitoring (ie, proportion of initiators with at least 1 ordered test) before initiation and before the first refill. Results: A total of 10 261 patients received a prescription for ambrisentan during the study period (7442 women [72.5%]; mean [SD] age, 52.6 [17.6] years), and 11 159 patients received a prescription for bosentan (7931 women [71.1%]; mean [SD] age, 47.7 [23.7] years). Removal of the ambrisentan boxed hepatotoxicity warning and LFT monitoring requirement was associated with an immediate increase in the use of ambrisentan (1.50 patients per million enrollees; 95% CI, 1.08 to 1.92 patients per million enrollees) but no significant change in the use of bosentan. There were reductions in recorded LFTs before drug initiation (13.1% absolute decrease; 95% CI, -18.2% to -8.0%) and before the first refill (26.4% absolute decrease; 95% CI, -34.4% to -18.5%) of ambrisentan but not bosentan. Conclusions and Relevance: In this serial cross-sectional study of ambrisentan, labeling changes and removal of the REMS-related LFT requirement were associated with shifts in prescribing and testing behavior for ambrisentan but not bosentan. Further clinician education may be needed to maximize the benefits of REMS programs and labeling warnings designed to ensure the safe administration of high-risk medications.

Should antihypertensives be administrated at bedtime?

Ongoing monitoring and targeted treatment are important to ensure the best blood-pressure control and thus prevent cardiovascular risks. In this review, we evaluate the findings of four clinical studies investigating the effects of morning versus bedtime dosing of antihypertensives. In three out of four studies, overwhelming results were found favouring bedtime dosing. The same studies have been criticized for mechanistic implausible results and multiple study biases. No harmful effects were reported in relation to bedtime dosing. Thus, antihypertensives can be taken as it is most convenient for the patient.

Thinking Three-Dimensionally: A Self- and Externally-Controlled Approach to Screening for Drug-Drug-Drug Interactions Among High-Risk Populations.

The global rise in polypharmacy has increased both the necessity and complexity of drug-drug interaction (DDI) assessments, given the growing potential for interactions involving more than two drugs. Leveraging large-scale healthcare claims data, we piloted a semi-automated, high-throughput case-crossover-based approach for drug-drug-drug interaction (3DI) screening. Cases were direct-acting oral anticoagulant (DOAC) users with either a major bleeding event during ongoing dispensings for potentially interacting, enzyme-inhibiting antihypertensive drugs (AHDs) (Study 1), or a thromboembolic event during ongoing dispensings for potentially interacting, enzyme-inducing antiseizure medications (ASMs) (Study 2). 3DI detection was based on screening for additional drug exposures that served as acute outcome triggers. To mitigate direct effects and confounding by concomitant drugs, self-controlled estimates were adjusted using negative cases (external "control" DOAC users with the same outcomes but co-dispensings for non-interacting AHDs or ASMs). Signal thresholds were set based on P-values and false discovery rate q-values to address multiple comparisons. Study 1: 285 drugs were examined among 3,306 episodes. Self-controlled assessments with q-value thresholds yielded 9 3DI signals (cases) and 40 DDI signals (negative cases). External adjustment generated 10 3DI signals from the P-value threshold and no signals from the q-value threshold. Study 2: 126 drugs were examined among 604 episodes. Assessments with P-value thresholds yielded 3 3DI and 26 DDI signals following self-control, as well as 4 3DI signals following adjustment. No 3DI signals met the q-value threshold. The presented self- and externally-controlled approach aimed to advance paradigms for real-world higher order drug interaction screening among high-susceptibility populations with pre-existent DDI risk.

MARRIAGE: A Randomized Trial of Moxonidine Versus Ramipril or in Combination With Ramipril in Overweight Patients With Hypertension and Impaired Fasting Glucose or Diabetes Mellitus. Impact on Blood Pressure, Heart Rate and Metabolic Parameters.

BACKGROUND: Moxonidine, an imidazoline I1 receptor agonist, is an effective antihypertensive drug that was shown to improve insulin sensitivity. RAAS-blockers are recommended as first-line therapy in patients with diabetes, alone or in combination with a calcium-channel antagonist or a diuretic. AIMS: This study compared the effects of moxonidine and ramipril on blood pressure (BP) and glucose metabolism in overweight patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension and impaired fasting glucose or type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Treatment-naïve patients for hypertension and dysglycemia were randomized to 12 weeks of double-blind moxonidine 0.4 mg or ramipril 5 mg once-daily treatment. At 12 weeks, for a further 12 weeks non-responders received combination of mox/ram, while responders continued blinded treatment. RESULTS: Moxonidine and ramipril were equivalent in lowering SiDBP and SiSBP at the end of the first 12 weeks. The responder rate was approximately 50% in both groups, with a mean SiDBP and SiSBP decrease of 10 and 15 mm Hg in the responders, respectively. The normalization rate (SiDBP < 85 mm Hg) was non significantly different between treatments groups. Moxonidine reduced heart rate (HR) (average -3.5 bpm, p = 0.017) during monotherapy, and when added to ramipril. HbA1c decreased significantly at Week 12 in both groups. Neither drug affected glucose or insulin response to the oral glucose tolerance test. In non-responders, moxonidine/ramipril combination further reduced BP without compromising metabolic parameters. CONCLUSION: Moxonidine 0.4 mg and ramipril 5 mg were equally effective on BP lowering and were well tolerated and mostly metabolically neutral either as monotherapies or in combination. HR was lowered on moxonidine treatment.

May Measure Month 2022 in Italy: A Focus on Fixed-dose Combination, Therapeutic Adherence, and Medical Inertia in a Nationwide Survey.

INTRODUCTION: Hypertension is the main risk factor for cardiovascular diseases (CVD). Notably, only about half of hypertensive patients manage to achieve the recommended blood pressure (BP) control. Main reasons for the persistence of uncontrolled BP during treatment are lack of compliance on the patients' side, and therapeutic inertia on physicians' side. METHODS: During the global BP screening campaign "May Measure Month" (MMM) (May 1st to July 31st, 2022), a nationwide, cross-sectional, opportunistic study endorsed by the Italian Society of Hypertension was conducted on volunteer adults ≥ 18 years to raise awareness of the health issues surrounding high BP. A questionnaire on demographic/clinical features and questions on the use of fixed-dose single-pills for the treatment of hypertension was administered. BP was measured with standard procedures. RESULTS: A total of 1612 participants (mean age 60.0±15.41 years; 44.7% women) were enrolled. Their mean BP was 128.5±18.1/77.1±10.4 mmHg. About half of participants were sedentary, or overweight/obese, or hypertensive. 55.5% individuals with complete BP assessment had uncontrolled hypertension. Most were not on a fixed-dose combination of antihypertensive drugs and did not regularly measure BP at home. Self-reported adherence to BP medications was similar between individuals with controlled and uncontrolled BP (95% vs 95.5%). CONCLUSIONS: This survey identified a remarkable degree of therapeutic inertia and poor patients' involvement in the therapeutic process and its monitoring in the examined population, underlining the importance of prevention campaigns to identify areas of unsatisfactory management of hypertension, to increase risk factors' awareness in the population with the final purpose of reducing cardiovascular risk.

Intensive Ambulance-Delivered Blood-Pressure Reduction in Hyperacute Stroke.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of acute stroke, before a distinction can be made between ischemic and hemorrhagic types, is challenging. Whether very early blood-pressure control in the ambulance improves outcomes among patients with undifferentiated acute stroke is uncertain. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with suspected acute stroke that caused a motor deficit and with elevated systolic blood pressure (≥150 mm Hg), who were assessed in the ambulance within 2 hours after the onset of symptoms, to receive immediate treatment to lower the systolic blood pressure (target range, 130 to 140 mm Hg) (intervention group) or usual blood-pressure management (usual-care group). The primary efficacy outcome was functional status as assessed by the score on the modified Rankin scale (range, 0 [no symptoms] to 6 [death]) at 90 days after randomization. The primary safety outcome was any serious adverse event. RESULTS: A total of 2404 patients (mean age, 70 years) in China underwent randomization and provided consent for the trial: 1205 in the intervention group and 1199 in the usual-care group. The median time between symptom onset and randomization was 61 minutes (interquartile range, 41 to 93), and the mean blood pressure at randomization was 178/98 mm Hg. Stroke was subsequently confirmed by imaging in 2240 patients, of whom 1041 (46.5%) had a hemorrhagic stroke. At the time of patients' arrival at the hospital, the mean systolic blood pressure in the intervention group was 159 mm Hg, as compared with 170 mm Hg in the usual-care group. Overall, there was no difference in functional outcome between the two groups (common odds ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87 to 1.15), and the incidence of serious adverse events was similar in the two groups. Prehospital reduction of blood pressure was associated with a decrease in the odds of a poor functional outcome among patients with hemorrhagic stroke (common odds ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.92) but an increase among patients with cerebral ischemia (common odds ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.60). CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, prehospital blood-pressure reduction did not improve functional outcomes in a cohort of patients with undifferentiated acute stroke, of whom 46.5% subsequently received a diagnosis of hemorrhagic stroke. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and others; INTERACT4 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03790800; Chinese Trial Registry number, ChiCTR1900020534.).

Multiple drug intolerance in antihypertensive patients: what is known and what is missing.

Drug allergy and intolerance are increasingly recognized as significant public health concerns, leading to adverse reactions in patients undergoing pharmacological treatments. Multiple drug intolerance syndrome (MDIS), characterized by adverse reactions to at least three different drug classes without a clear immunological mechanism, poses a substantial challenge, particularly in hypertensive patients. Despite its link to suboptimal adherence and uncontrolled blood pressure, MDIS in the context of hypertension remains insufficiently explored. This review synthesizes existing literature on MDIS, emphasizing clinical characteristics, pathogenesis, and psychiatric comorbidity. Furthermore, it delves into MDIS in the context of hypertension, highlighting the importance of a multidisciplinary approach in diagnosis and management, including innovative therapeutic strategies such as novel therapeutic algorithms or renal denervation. The review concludes by emphasizing the necessity for further research and clinical trials to enhance our understanding and address MDIS, especially in hypertensive patients.

Phase 1 Study of MK-5475, an Inhaled Soluble Guanylate Cyclase Stimulator, in Participants with Pulmonary Hypertension Associated with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

Purpose: This phase 1 study (NCT04370873) evaluated safety and pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics (PK/PD) of MK-5475 in participants with pulmonary hypertension associated with COPD (PH-COPD). Methods: Eligible participants were 40-80 years old with COPD (FEV1/FVC <0.7; FEV1 >30% predicted) and PH (mean pulmonary arterial pressure ≥25 mmHg). Participants were randomized 2:1 to MK-5475 or placebo via dry-powder inhaler once daily for 7 days in Part 1 (360 µg) or 28 days in Part 2 (380 µg). Safety was assessed by adverse events (AEs) and arterial blood oxygenation. Part-2 participants had pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR; primary PD endpoint) and pulmonary blood volume (PBV; secondary PD endpoint) measured at baseline and Day 28. A non-informative prior was used to calculate posterior probability (PP) that the between-group difference (MK-5475 - placebo) in mean percent reduction from baseline in PVR was less than -15%. Results: Nine participants were randomized in Part 1, and 14 participants in Part 2. Median age of participants (86.4% male) was 68.5 years (41-77 years); 95.5% had moderate-to-severe COPD. Incidences of AEs were comparable between MK-5475 and placebo: overall (5/14 [36%] versus 5/8 [63%]), drug-related (1/14 [7%] versus 2/8 [25%]), and serious (1/14 [7%] versus 1/8 [13%]). MK-5475 caused no meaningful changes in arterial blood oxygenation or PBV. MK-5475 versus placebo led to numerical improvements from baseline in PVR (-21.2% [95% CI: -35.4, -7.0] versus -5.4% [95% CI: -83.7, 72.9]), with between-group difference in PVR less than -15% and calculated PP of 51%. Conclusion: The favorable safety profile and numerical reductions in PVR observed support further clinical development of inhaled MK-5475 for PH-COPD treatment.

Antihypertensive Medications and Eczematous Dermatitis in Older Adults.

Importance: Rates of physician-diagnosed eczema have been increasing among older adults, but little is known regarding the pathophysiologic processes and best treatments in this subgroup. Preliminary data suggest that medications-antihypertensive medications in particular-may contribute to eczematous dermatitis; however, there are limited population-based data on the proportion of eczematous dermatitis diagnoses among older adults that may be attributed to antihypertensive drugs. Objectives: To determine whether antihypertensive drug use is associated with eczematous dermatitis in older adults. Design, Settings, and Participants: This was a longitudinal cohort study of a population-based sample of individuals 60 years and older without a diagnosis of eczematous dermatitis at baseline. It was conducted at primary care practices participating in The Health Improvement Network in the United Kingdom from January 1, 1994, to January 1, 2015. Data analyses were performed from January 6, 2020, to February 6, 2024. Exposure: Exposure date by first prescription for an antihypertensive drug within each drug class. Main outcome measures: Newly active eczematous dermatitis was based on the first date for 1 of the 5 most common eczema codes used in a previously validated algorithm. Results: Among the total study sample of 1 561 358 older adults (mean [SD] age, 67 [9] years; 54% female), the overall prevalence of eczematous dermatitis was 6.7% during a median (IQR) follow-up duration of 6 (3-11) years. Eczematous dermatitis incidence was higher among participants receiving antihypertensive drugs than those who did not (12 vs 9 of 1000 person-years of follow-up). Adjusted Cox proportional hazard models found that participants who received any antihypertensive drugs had a 29% increased hazard rate of any eczematous dermatitis (hazard ratio [HR], 1.29; 95% CI, 1.26-1.31). When assessing each antihypertensive drug class individually, the largest effect size was observed for diuretic drugs (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.19-1.24) and calcium channel blockers (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.14-1.18), and the smallest effect sizes were for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.00-1.04) and ß-blockers (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.06). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found that antihypertensive drugs were associated with a small increased rate of eczematous dermatitis, with effect sizes largest for calcium channel blockers and diuretic drugs, and smallest for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and ß-blockers. Although additional research is needed to understand the mechanisms underlying the association, these data could be helpful to clinicians to guide management when a patient presents with eczematous dermatitis in older age.

Not first-line antihypertensive agents, but still effective-The efficacy and safety of imidazoline receptor agonists: A network meta-analysis.

Cardiovascular disorders are the leading cause of death in the world. Many organ diseases (kidney, heart, and brain) are substantially more prone to develop in people with hypertension. In the treatment of hypertension, first-line medications are recommended, while imidazoline receptor agonists are not first-line antihypertensives. Our goal was to conduct a network meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of imidazoline receptor agonists. The meta-analysis was performed following the PRISMA guidelines using the PICOS format, considering the CONSORT recommendations. Studies were collected from four databases: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase. A total of 5960 articles were found. After filtering, 27 studies remained eligible for network meta-analysis. Moxonidine reduced blood pressure in sitting position statistically significantly after 8 weeks of treatment (SBP MD: 23.80; 95% CI: 17.45-30.15; DBP MD: 10.90; 95% CI: 8.45-13.35) compared to placebo. Moreover, moxonidine reduced blood pressure more effectively than enalapril; however, this difference was not significant (SBP MD: 3.10; 95% CI: -2.60-8.80; DBP MD: 1.30; 95% CI: -1.25-3.85). Dry mouth was experienced as a side effect in the case of all imidazoline receptor agonists. After 8 weeks of treatment, the appearance of dry mouth was highest with clonidine (OR: 9.27 95% CI: 4.70-18.29) and lowest with rilmenidine (OR: 6.46 95% CI: 0.85-49.13) compared to placebo. Somnolence was less frequent with moxonidine compared to rilmenidine (OR: 0.63 95% CI: 0.17-2.31). Imidazoline receptor agonists were nearly as effective as the first-line drugs in the examined studies. However, their utility as antihypertensives is limited due to their side effects. As a result, they are not first-line antihypertensives and should not be used in monotherapy. However, in the case of resistant hypertension, they are a viable option. According to our findings, from the point of view of safety and efficacy, moxonidine appears to be the best choice among imidazoline receptor agonists.

New use of thiazide diuretics vs. nonthiazide antihypertensive drugs was linked to hyponatremia over 2 y.

SOURCE CITATION: Andersson NW, Wohlfahrt J, Feenstra B, et al. Cumulative incidence of thiazide-induced hyponatremia: a population-based cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2024;177:1-11. 38109740.