Antihypertensive efficacy of hydrochlorothiazide vs chlorthalidone combined with azilsartan medoxomil

George L. Bakris, Domenic Sica, William B. White, William Cushman, Michael A. Weber, Alison Handley, Eric Song, Stuart Kupfer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

51 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Chlorthalidone has proven efficacy to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, yet it is infrequently used in practice. This study provides a direct comparison of chlorthalidone with hydrochlorothiazide, each combined with the angiotensin receptor blocker azilsartan medoxomil, on blood pressure reduction and control rates. Methods: This is a randomized, double-blind, titrate-to-target blood pressure trial comparing the single-pill combination of azilsartan medoxomil and chlorthalidone versus co-administration of azilsartan medoxomil and hydrochlorothiazide in participants with stage 2 primary hypertension. After 2 weeks of treatment with azilsartan medoxomil 40 mg alone, all participants also received 12.5 mg of diuretic for 4 weeks (up to week 6) and were titrated to 25 mg for another 4 weeks (up to week 10) if they failed to achieve target blood pressure. The primary end point was change in clinic systolic blood pressure. Target blood pressure was defined as clinic blood pressure <140/90 mm Hg for participants without diabetes or chronic kidney disease or <130/80 mm Hg for participants with diabetes or chronic kidney disease. Results: The mean age of the 609 participants was 56.4 years, and the mean baseline clinic blood pressure was 164.6/95.4 mm Hg. The primary end point analysis at week 6 demonstrated a greater reduction of clinic systolic blood pressure for the chlorthalidone (-35.1 mm Hg) versus hydrochlorothiazide combination (-29.5 mm Hg) (mean difference, -5.6 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval, -8.3 to -2.9; P <.001). The mean difference in 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure at week 6 was -5.8 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, -8.4 to -3.2; P <.001), favoring the azilsartan medoxomil/chlorthalidone group. The percentage of participants achieving target clinic blood pressure at week 6 was greater for the chlorthalidone versus hydrochlorothiazide combination (64.1% vs 45.9%, P <.001). Drug discontinuations due to adverse events were not statistically significantly different between groups (9.3% vs 7.3%, P =.38), and hypokalemia was uncommon in both groups. Conclusions: Chlorthalidone combined with azilsartan medoxomil provides better blood pressure reduction and a higher likelihood of achieving blood pressure control than hydrochlorothiazide combined with azilsartan medoxomil. This benefit occurred without a difference in safety measurements.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalAmerican Journal of Medicine
Volume125
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2012

Fingerprint

Chlorthalidone
Hydrochlorothiazide
Antihypertensive Agents
Blood Pressure
azilsartan medoxomil
Chronic Renal Insufficiency
Confidence Intervals
Hypokalemia
Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Antihypertensive efficacy of hydrochlorothiazide vs chlorthalidone combined with azilsartan medoxomil. / Bakris, George L.; Sica, Domenic; White, William B.; Cushman, William; Weber, Michael A.; Handley, Alison; Song, Eric; Kupfer, Stuart.

In: American Journal of Medicine, Vol. 125, No. 12, 01.12.2012.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Bakris, George L. ; Sica, Domenic ; White, William B. ; Cushman, William ; Weber, Michael A. ; Handley, Alison ; Song, Eric ; Kupfer, Stuart. / Antihypertensive efficacy of hydrochlorothiazide vs chlorthalidone combined with azilsartan medoxomil. In: American Journal of Medicine. 2012 ; Vol. 125, No. 12.
@article{1b4b7ccd7a1548dfb637347508a469ab,
title = "Antihypertensive efficacy of hydrochlorothiazide vs chlorthalidone combined with azilsartan medoxomil",
abstract = "Background: Chlorthalidone has proven efficacy to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, yet it is infrequently used in practice. This study provides a direct comparison of chlorthalidone with hydrochlorothiazide, each combined with the angiotensin receptor blocker azilsartan medoxomil, on blood pressure reduction and control rates. Methods: This is a randomized, double-blind, titrate-to-target blood pressure trial comparing the single-pill combination of azilsartan medoxomil and chlorthalidone versus co-administration of azilsartan medoxomil and hydrochlorothiazide in participants with stage 2 primary hypertension. After 2 weeks of treatment with azilsartan medoxomil 40 mg alone, all participants also received 12.5 mg of diuretic for 4 weeks (up to week 6) and were titrated to 25 mg for another 4 weeks (up to week 10) if they failed to achieve target blood pressure. The primary end point was change in clinic systolic blood pressure. Target blood pressure was defined as clinic blood pressure <140/90 mm Hg for participants without diabetes or chronic kidney disease or <130/80 mm Hg for participants with diabetes or chronic kidney disease. Results: The mean age of the 609 participants was 56.4 years, and the mean baseline clinic blood pressure was 164.6/95.4 mm Hg. The primary end point analysis at week 6 demonstrated a greater reduction of clinic systolic blood pressure for the chlorthalidone (-35.1 mm Hg) versus hydrochlorothiazide combination (-29.5 mm Hg) (mean difference, -5.6 mm Hg; 95{\%} confidence interval, -8.3 to -2.9; P <.001). The mean difference in 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure at week 6 was -5.8 mm Hg (95{\%} confidence interval, -8.4 to -3.2; P <.001), favoring the azilsartan medoxomil/chlorthalidone group. The percentage of participants achieving target clinic blood pressure at week 6 was greater for the chlorthalidone versus hydrochlorothiazide combination (64.1{\%} vs 45.9{\%}, P <.001). Drug discontinuations due to adverse events were not statistically significantly different between groups (9.3{\%} vs 7.3{\%}, P =.38), and hypokalemia was uncommon in both groups. Conclusions: Chlorthalidone combined with azilsartan medoxomil provides better blood pressure reduction and a higher likelihood of achieving blood pressure control than hydrochlorothiazide combined with azilsartan medoxomil. This benefit occurred without a difference in safety measurements.",
author = "Bakris, {George L.} and Domenic Sica and White, {William B.} and William Cushman and Weber, {Michael A.} and Alison Handley and Eric Song and Stuart Kupfer",
year = "2012",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.amjmed.2012.05.023",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "125",
journal = "American Journal of Medicine",
issn = "0002-9343",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Antihypertensive efficacy of hydrochlorothiazide vs chlorthalidone combined with azilsartan medoxomil

AU - Bakris, George L.

AU - Sica, Domenic

AU - White, William B.

AU - Cushman, William

AU - Weber, Michael A.

AU - Handley, Alison

AU - Song, Eric

AU - Kupfer, Stuart

PY - 2012/12/1

Y1 - 2012/12/1

N2 - Background: Chlorthalidone has proven efficacy to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, yet it is infrequently used in practice. This study provides a direct comparison of chlorthalidone with hydrochlorothiazide, each combined with the angiotensin receptor blocker azilsartan medoxomil, on blood pressure reduction and control rates. Methods: This is a randomized, double-blind, titrate-to-target blood pressure trial comparing the single-pill combination of azilsartan medoxomil and chlorthalidone versus co-administration of azilsartan medoxomil and hydrochlorothiazide in participants with stage 2 primary hypertension. After 2 weeks of treatment with azilsartan medoxomil 40 mg alone, all participants also received 12.5 mg of diuretic for 4 weeks (up to week 6) and were titrated to 25 mg for another 4 weeks (up to week 10) if they failed to achieve target blood pressure. The primary end point was change in clinic systolic blood pressure. Target blood pressure was defined as clinic blood pressure <140/90 mm Hg for participants without diabetes or chronic kidney disease or <130/80 mm Hg for participants with diabetes or chronic kidney disease. Results: The mean age of the 609 participants was 56.4 years, and the mean baseline clinic blood pressure was 164.6/95.4 mm Hg. The primary end point analysis at week 6 demonstrated a greater reduction of clinic systolic blood pressure for the chlorthalidone (-35.1 mm Hg) versus hydrochlorothiazide combination (-29.5 mm Hg) (mean difference, -5.6 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval, -8.3 to -2.9; P <.001). The mean difference in 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure at week 6 was -5.8 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, -8.4 to -3.2; P <.001), favoring the azilsartan medoxomil/chlorthalidone group. The percentage of participants achieving target clinic blood pressure at week 6 was greater for the chlorthalidone versus hydrochlorothiazide combination (64.1% vs 45.9%, P <.001). Drug discontinuations due to adverse events were not statistically significantly different between groups (9.3% vs 7.3%, P =.38), and hypokalemia was uncommon in both groups. Conclusions: Chlorthalidone combined with azilsartan medoxomil provides better blood pressure reduction and a higher likelihood of achieving blood pressure control than hydrochlorothiazide combined with azilsartan medoxomil. This benefit occurred without a difference in safety measurements.

AB - Background: Chlorthalidone has proven efficacy to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, yet it is infrequently used in practice. This study provides a direct comparison of chlorthalidone with hydrochlorothiazide, each combined with the angiotensin receptor blocker azilsartan medoxomil, on blood pressure reduction and control rates. Methods: This is a randomized, double-blind, titrate-to-target blood pressure trial comparing the single-pill combination of azilsartan medoxomil and chlorthalidone versus co-administration of azilsartan medoxomil and hydrochlorothiazide in participants with stage 2 primary hypertension. After 2 weeks of treatment with azilsartan medoxomil 40 mg alone, all participants also received 12.5 mg of diuretic for 4 weeks (up to week 6) and were titrated to 25 mg for another 4 weeks (up to week 10) if they failed to achieve target blood pressure. The primary end point was change in clinic systolic blood pressure. Target blood pressure was defined as clinic blood pressure <140/90 mm Hg for participants without diabetes or chronic kidney disease or <130/80 mm Hg for participants with diabetes or chronic kidney disease. Results: The mean age of the 609 participants was 56.4 years, and the mean baseline clinic blood pressure was 164.6/95.4 mm Hg. The primary end point analysis at week 6 demonstrated a greater reduction of clinic systolic blood pressure for the chlorthalidone (-35.1 mm Hg) versus hydrochlorothiazide combination (-29.5 mm Hg) (mean difference, -5.6 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval, -8.3 to -2.9; P <.001). The mean difference in 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure at week 6 was -5.8 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, -8.4 to -3.2; P <.001), favoring the azilsartan medoxomil/chlorthalidone group. The percentage of participants achieving target clinic blood pressure at week 6 was greater for the chlorthalidone versus hydrochlorothiazide combination (64.1% vs 45.9%, P <.001). Drug discontinuations due to adverse events were not statistically significantly different between groups (9.3% vs 7.3%, P =.38), and hypokalemia was uncommon in both groups. Conclusions: Chlorthalidone combined with azilsartan medoxomil provides better blood pressure reduction and a higher likelihood of achieving blood pressure control than hydrochlorothiazide combined with azilsartan medoxomil. This benefit occurred without a difference in safety measurements.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84869230585&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84869230585&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.amjmed.2012.05.023

DO - 10.1016/j.amjmed.2012.05.023

M3 - Article

VL - 125

JO - American Journal of Medicine

JF - American Journal of Medicine

SN - 0002-9343

IS - 12

ER -