Key result
Azelnidipine and trichlormethiazide similarly exacerbated glycemic control in type 2 diabetic patients with hypertension, with both groups showing a 0.19% increase in HbA1c levels at 48 weeks (p=0.988).
Why the study?
Does azelnidipine compared to trichlormethiazide improve HbA1c levels in Japanese type 2 diabetic patients with inadequately controlled hypertension on olmesartan?
RCT (n=240)
Open-label
Permuted block method with central computer-based randomization
Yes
Does azelnidipine compared to trichlormethiazide improve HbA1c levels in Japanese type 2 diabetic patients with inadequately controlled hypertension on olmesartan?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes and hypertension, azelnidipine provided superior blood pressure control compared to trichlormethiazide, while trichlormethiazide was more effective for reducing albuminuria, though both similarly exacerbated glycemic control.
OBJECTIVE: This study compared the efficacy and safety of azelnidipine with that of trichlormethiazide in Japanese type 2 diabetic patients with hypertension. METHODS: In a multicenter, open-label trial, 240 patients with adequately controlled diabetes (HbA1c ≤ 7.0%) under lifestyle modification and/or administration of hypoglycemic agents and inadequately controlled hypertension (systolic blood pressure [sBP] ≥ 130 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure [dBP] ≥ 80 mmHg) who were being treated with olmesartan were enrolled. Participants were randomly assigned to an azelnidipine group or a trichlormethiazide group and were followed up for 48 weeks. Main outcome measure was the difference in the change in HbA1c levels from the baseline values at 48 weeks between these two groups. RESULTS: Of the 240 subjects that were enrolled, 209 subjects (azelnidipine group: 103 patients, trichlormethiazide group: 106 patients) completed this trial. At 48 weeks, the following changes were observed in the azelnidipine and trichlormethiazide groups, respectively: HbA1c levels, 0.19 ± 0.52% and 0.19 ± 0.54%; sBP/dBP, -10.7 ± 9.6/-6.6 ± 6.6 mmHg and -7.1 ± 7.7/-3.3 ± 6.1 mmHg (P < 0.001 for both sBP and dBP). In both groups, dizziness (12 patients [11.7%] and 16 patients [15.1%]) and edema (16 patients [15.5%] and 7 patients [6.6%], P = 0.047) were observed during the 48-week follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: Azelnidipine was more effective for controlling blood pressure than trichlormethiazide in Japanese type 2 diabetes patients, whereas trichlormethiazide was more effective for reducing albuminuria than azelnidipine. Both of these agents, however, similarly exacerbated glycemic control in type 2 diabetic patients with hypertension. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN 000006081.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Takihata et al. (2015) conducted an RCT in Type 2 diabetes with hypertension (n=240). Azelnidipine vs. Trichlormethiazide 1 mg/day was evaluated on Difference in the change in HbA1c levels from baseline at 48 weeks (p=0.988). Azelnidipine and trichlormethiazide similarly exacerbated glycemic control in type 2 diabetic patients with hypertension, with both groups showing a 0.19% increase in HbA1c levels at 48 weeks (p=0.988).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: