氯噻酮与氢氯噻嗪降低轻中度高血压患者收缩压和舒张压的疗效和安全性比较:一项随机临床试验

{"title":"氯噻酮与氢氯噻嗪降低轻中度高血压患者收缩压和舒张压的疗效和安全性比较:一项随机临床试验","authors":"","doi":"10.35755/jmedassocthai.2023.05.13768","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: Hypertension is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality, and blood pressure (BP) control is shown to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events. The present study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide for reducing systolic and diastolic BP in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension.\n\nMaterials and Methods: The present study was a randomized clinical trial. Patients 18 years or older with mild-to-moderate hypertension with or without prior antihypertensive medications were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to the chlorthalidone or hydrochlorothiazide group. The dose of study medication could be up-titrated at the 6-week. The primary outcomes were the reduction in systolic and diastolic BP, the rate of office BP control at 12 weeks, and the rate of adverse events.\n\nResults: Fifty-six patients (mean age of 49.8±11.1 years) and 42.9% male, were included. Forty-three patients (76.8%) had known hypertension. Mean sitting office systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) at baseline was 153.2±9.6 and 91.8±9.2 mmHg, respectively. The average daily dose of chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide was 16.1±5.8 and 32.4±11.6 mg. The mean reduction in SBP in the chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide groups was 28.7±12.2 and 22.8±13.7 mmHg (p=0.118), and DBP was 14.4±7.5 and 9.1±6.6 mmHg (p=0.011), respectively. The rate of office BP control was significantly greater in the chlorthalidone group at 91.7% versus 61.5% (p=0.013). There was no significant difference in the rate of adverse events between the groups.\n\nConclusion: Chlorthalidone was shown to be more effective than hydrochlorothiazide for office BP control. There was no difference in adverse events. Trial registration: The trial had been registered with the Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TCTR) which complied with WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform dataset. The registration number was TCTR20191006002 (06/10/2019).\n\nKeywords: Efficacy; Safety; Chlorthalidone; Hydrochlorothiazide; Reducing; Systolic and diastolic blood pressure; Patients with mild to moderate hypertension","PeriodicalId":17486,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand = Chotmaihet thangphaet","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy and Safety Compared between Chlorthalidone and Hydrochlorothiazide for Reducing Systolic and Diastolic Blood Pressure in Patients with Mild-to- Moderate Hypertension: A Randomized Clinical Trial\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.35755/jmedassocthai.2023.05.13768\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective: Hypertension is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality, and blood pressure (BP) control is shown to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events. The present study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide for reducing systolic and diastolic BP in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension.\\n\\nMaterials and Methods: The present study was a randomized clinical trial. Patients 18 years or older with mild-to-moderate hypertension with or without prior antihypertensive medications were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to the chlorthalidone or hydrochlorothiazide group. The dose of study medication could be up-titrated at the 6-week. The primary outcomes were the reduction in systolic and diastolic BP, the rate of office BP control at 12 weeks, and the rate of adverse events.\\n\\nResults: Fifty-six patients (mean age of 49.8±11.1 years) and 42.9% male, were included. Forty-three patients (76.8%) had known hypertension. Mean sitting office systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) at baseline was 153.2±9.6 and 91.8±9.2 mmHg, respectively. The average daily dose of chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide was 16.1±5.8 and 32.4±11.6 mg. The mean reduction in SBP in the chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide groups was 28.7±12.2 and 22.8±13.7 mmHg (p=0.118), and DBP was 14.4±7.5 and 9.1±6.6 mmHg (p=0.011), respectively. The rate of office BP control was significantly greater in the chlorthalidone group at 91.7% versus 61.5% (p=0.013). There was no significant difference in the rate of adverse events between the groups.\\n\\nConclusion: Chlorthalidone was shown to be more effective than hydrochlorothiazide for office BP control. There was no difference in adverse events. Trial registration: The trial had been registered with the Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TCTR) which complied with WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform dataset. The registration number was TCTR20191006002 (06/10/2019).\\n\\nKeywords: Efficacy; Safety; Chlorthalidone; Hydrochlorothiazide; Reducing; Systolic and diastolic blood pressure; Patients with mild to moderate hypertension\",\"PeriodicalId\":17486,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand = Chotmaihet thangphaet\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand = Chotmaihet thangphaet\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.35755/jmedassocthai.2023.05.13768\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand = Chotmaihet thangphaet","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.35755/jmedassocthai.2023.05.13768","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:高血压是发病率和死亡率的主要原因,控制血压可以降低心血管事件的风险。本研究旨在探讨氯噻酮和氢氯噻嗪降低轻中度高血压患者收缩压和舒张压的有效性和安全性。材料与方法:本研究为随机临床试验。患者年龄≥18岁,伴有或未伴有既往抗高血压药物治疗的轻度至中度高血压。患者随机分为氯噻酮组和氢氯噻嗪组。研究用药剂量可在6周时增加。主要结果是收缩压和舒张压降低,12周时办公室血压控制率和不良事件发生率。结果:56例患者(平均年龄49.8±11.1岁),男性占42.9%。已知高血压43例(76.8%)。基线时平均坐位收缩压(SBP)和舒张压(DBP)分别为153.2±9.6和91.8±9.2 mmHg。氯噻酮和氢氯噻嗪的平均日剂量分别为16.1±5.8 mg和32.4±11.6 mg。氯噻酮组和氢氯噻嗪组收缩压平均降低28.7±12.2和22.8±13.7 mmHg (p=0.118),舒张压平均降低14.4±7.5和9.1±6.6 mmHg (p=0.011)。氯噻酮组办公室血压控制率为91.7%,高于61.5% (p=0.013)。两组间不良事件发生率无显著差异。结论:氯噻酮比氢氯噻嗪更有效地控制血压。两组不良事件发生率无差异。试验注册:该试验已在符合世卫组织国际临床试验注册平台数据集的泰国临床试验注册中心(TCTR)注册。注册号为TCTR20191006002(06/10/2019)。关键词:功效;安全;氯噻酮;氢氯噻嗪;减少;收缩压和舒张压;轻度至中度高血压患者
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Efficacy and Safety Compared between Chlorthalidone and Hydrochlorothiazide for Reducing Systolic and Diastolic Blood Pressure in Patients with Mild-to- Moderate Hypertension: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Objective: Hypertension is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality, and blood pressure (BP) control is shown to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events. The present study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide for reducing systolic and diastolic BP in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. Materials and Methods: The present study was a randomized clinical trial. Patients 18 years or older with mild-to-moderate hypertension with or without prior antihypertensive medications were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to the chlorthalidone or hydrochlorothiazide group. The dose of study medication could be up-titrated at the 6-week. The primary outcomes were the reduction in systolic and diastolic BP, the rate of office BP control at 12 weeks, and the rate of adverse events. Results: Fifty-six patients (mean age of 49.8±11.1 years) and 42.9% male, were included. Forty-three patients (76.8%) had known hypertension. Mean sitting office systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) at baseline was 153.2±9.6 and 91.8±9.2 mmHg, respectively. The average daily dose of chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide was 16.1±5.8 and 32.4±11.6 mg. The mean reduction in SBP in the chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide groups was 28.7±12.2 and 22.8±13.7 mmHg (p=0.118), and DBP was 14.4±7.5 and 9.1±6.6 mmHg (p=0.011), respectively. The rate of office BP control was significantly greater in the chlorthalidone group at 91.7% versus 61.5% (p=0.013). There was no significant difference in the rate of adverse events between the groups. Conclusion: Chlorthalidone was shown to be more effective than hydrochlorothiazide for office BP control. There was no difference in adverse events. Trial registration: The trial had been registered with the Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TCTR) which complied with WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform dataset. The registration number was TCTR20191006002 (06/10/2019). Keywords: Efficacy; Safety; Chlorthalidone; Hydrochlorothiazide; Reducing; Systolic and diastolic blood pressure; Patients with mild to moderate hypertension
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis between Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy (PELD) and Conventional Lumbar Discectomy for Herniated Nucleus Pulposus (HNP) Behavioral Risk Score for Predicting Well-Controlled HbA1c Level in Diabetes Type 2 Patients The Choice of Anesthesia after First Failed Spinal Block and Its Impact on Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes in Cesarean Delivery: A Cross-Sectional Study Efficacy of Levetiracetam versus Phenytoin in Neonatal Seizure in Rural Area of Thailand Spontaneous Sternal Fracture in Multiple Myeloma: A Case Report
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1