Joshua I Barzilay1, Barry R Davis2, Sara L Pressel2, Alokananda Ghosh2, Rachel Puttnam3, Karen L Margolis4, Paul K Whelton5. 1. Division of Endocrinology, Kaiser Permanente of Georgia, 3650 Steve Reynolds Blvd, Duluth, Atlanta, GA, 30096, USA. Joshua.barzilay@kp.org. 2. Coordinating Center for Clinical Trials, the University of Texas School of Public Health, Houston, TX, USA. 3. Division of Endocrinology, Kaiser Permanente of Georgia, 3650 Steve Reynolds Blvd, Duluth, Atlanta, GA, 30096, USA. 4. HealthPartners Institute for Education and Research, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 5. Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review summarizes the impact of thiazide diuretics on fracture risk in older hypertensive individuals. RECENT FINDINGS: We performed a post hoc evaluation of the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial, a randomized, prospective, double blind hypertension study comparing a thiazide-like diuretic, a calcium channel blocker (CCB), and an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi). We examined the risk of hip and pelvic fractures during the in-trial period (n = 22,180 participants; mean 4.9-year follow-up) and during the post-trial period using national data bases (n = 16,622 participants) (mean total follow-up 7.8 years). During the trial, participants randomized to the thiazide diuretic versus the CCB or the ACEi had a lower risk of fracture on adjusted analyses (HR 0.79 [95% CI, 0.63, 0.98], p = 0.04). Risk of fracture was significantly lower in participants randomized to the diuretic as compared to those randomized to the ACEi (HR 0.75 [95% CI, 0.58, 0.98]; p = 0.04), but not significantly different compared to the CCB (HR 0.87 [95% CI, 0.71, 1.09]; p = 0.17). Over the entire trial and post-trial period of follow-up, the cumulative incidence of fractures was non-significantly lower in participants assigned to the diuretic vs assignment to the ACEi or the CCB (HR 0.87 [0.74-1.03], p = 0.10) and versus each medication separately. These findings establish a benefit for thiazide diuretic treatment for the prevention of fractures versus other commonly used antihypertensive medications using prospective, randomized data. The effects of the thiazide diuretic on bone appear to be long lasting.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review summarizes the impact of thiazide diuretics on fracture risk in older hypertensive individuals. RECENT FINDINGS: We performed a post hoc evaluation of the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial, a randomized, prospective, double blind hypertension study comparing a thiazide-like diuretic, a calcium channel blocker (CCB), and an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi). We examined the risk of hip and pelvic fractures during the in-trial period (n = 22,180 participants; mean 4.9-year follow-up) and during the post-trial period using national data bases (n = 16,622 participants) (mean total follow-up 7.8 years). During the trial, participants randomized to the thiazide diuretic versus the CCB or the ACEi had a lower risk of fracture on adjusted analyses (HR 0.79 [95% CI, 0.63, 0.98], p = 0.04). Risk of fracture was significantly lower in participants randomized to the diuretic as compared to those randomized to the ACEi (HR 0.75 [95% CI, 0.58, 0.98]; p = 0.04), but not significantly different compared to the CCB (HR 0.87 [95% CI, 0.71, 1.09]; p = 0.17). Over the entire trial and post-trial period of follow-up, the cumulative incidence of fractures was non-significantly lower in participants assigned to the diuretic vs assignment to the ACEi or the CCB (HR 0.87 [0.74-1.03], p = 0.10) and versus each medication separately. These findings establish a benefit for thiazide diuretic treatment for the prevention of fractures versus other commonly used antihypertensive medications using prospective, randomized data. The effects of the thiazide diuretic on bone appear to be long lasting.
Authors: J L Pérez-Castrillón; J C Martín-Escudero; P Alvarez Manzanares; R Cortés Sancho; S Iglesias Zamora; M García Alonso Journal: Am J Hypertens Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 2.689
Authors: Mary E Tinetti; Ling Han; David S H Lee; Gail J McAvay; Peter Peduzzi; Cary P Gross; Bingqing Zhou; Haiqun Lin Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Melita M Dvorak; Cyrille De Joussineau; D Howard Carter; Trairak Pisitkun; Mark A Knepper; Gerardo Gamba; Paul J Kemp; Daniela Riccardi Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2007-07-26 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: V Gasco; L Roncoroni; M Zavattaro; C Bona; A Berton; E Ghigo; M Maccario; S Grottoli Journal: J Endocrinol Invest Date: 2019-08-22 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: L D Carbone; S Vasan; R L Prentice; G Harshfield; B Haring; J A Cauley; K C Johnson Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2019-06-17 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Erlangga Dominic; Wolfgang Brozek; Raphael Simon Peter; Ella Fromm; Hanno Ulmer; Kilian Rapp; Hans Concin; Gabriele Nagel Journal: Bone Rep Date: 2020-01-13
Authors: Christian Adolf; Leah T Braun; Carmina T Fuss; Stefanie Hahner; Heike Künzel; Laura Handgriff; Lisa Sturm; Daniel A Heinrich; Holger Schneider; Martin Bidlingmaier; Martin Reincke Journal: Endocrine Date: 2020-06-27 Impact factor: 3.633