Key result
Incident diabetes on chlorthalidone shows no link to increased CVD mortality, unlike other drugs.
Why the study?
Does incident diabetes associated with chlorthalidone use increase cardiovascular mortality compared to incident diabetes associated with amlodipine or lisinopril use in patients treated for hypertension?
Cohort (n=22,418)
Does incident diabetes associated with chlorthalidone use increase cardiovascular mortality compared to incident diabetes associated with amlodipine or lisinopril use in patients treated for hypertension?
Hazard Ratio: 1.04 (95% CI 0.74–1.47)
Thiazide-related incident diabetes appears to have a less adverse long-term cardiovascular impact than incident diabetes developing on other antihypertensive medications.
BACKGROUND: Thiazide-type diuretics are associated with an increased incidence of diabetes compared with other antihypertensive medications. In this study, we determined the long-term cardiovascular disease (CVD) consequences of incident diuretic-associated diabetes compared with the effects of incident diabetes associated with calcium channel blocker and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor use. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 22 418 participants from the ALLHAT (Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial) with baseline diabetes, incident diabetes (7.5% with chlorthalidone, 5.6% with amlodipine, and 4.3% with lisinopril), or no diabetes at 2 years of in-trial follow-up were followed for a mean total of 6.9 years (2.9 years in-trial and 4 additional years posttrial) through the use of national databases. The primary outcome was CVD mortality (death from coronary heart disease [CHD], stroke, heart failure, or other CVD). Among other outcomes were all-cause mortality, non-CVD mortality, and CHD (nonfatal myocardial infarction or fatal CHD). Participants on chlorthalidone with incident diabetes versus no diabetes had consistently lower, nonsignificant risk for CVD mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.04; 95% CI, 0.74-1.47), all-cause mortality (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.82-1.30), and non-CVD mortality (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.77-1.42) than participants on amlodipine or lisinopril with incident diabetes (HR range, 1.22-1.53). Participants with incident diabetes had elevated CHD risk compared with those with no diabetes (HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.09-1.96), but those on chlorthalidone had significantly lower risk than those on lisinopril (HR, 1.18 versus 2.57; P=0.04 for interaction). CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that thiazide-related incident diabetes has less adverse long-term CVD impact than incident diabetes that develops while on other antihypertensive medications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Barzilay et al. (2012) conducted a cohort in Hypertension (n=22,418). Incident diabetes on chlorthalidone vs. No diabetes was evaluated on CVD mortality (death from coronary heart disease [CHD], stroke, heart failure, or other CVD) (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.74-1.47). Incident diabetes in patients treated with chlorthalidone was not associated with increased CVD mortality compared to no diabetes (HR 1.04; 95% CI 0.74-1.47), unlike incident diabetes on other drugs.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: