Dataset Information

Effect of amiloride, or amiloride plus hydrochlorothiazide, versus hydrochlorothiazide on glucose tolerance and blood pressure (PATHWAY-3): a parallel-group, double-blind randomised phase 4 trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Potassium depletion by thiazide diuretics is associated with a rise in blood glucose. We assessed whether addition or substitution of a potassium-sparing diuretic, amiloride, to treatment with a thiazide can prevent glucose intolerance and improve blood pressure control.

Methods

We did a parallel-group, randomised, double-blind trial in 11 secondary and two primary care sites in the UK. Eligible patients were aged 18-80 years; had clinic systolic blood pressure of 140 mm Hg or higher and home systolic blood pressure of 130 mmHg or higher on permitted background drugs of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor blockers, β blockers, calcium-channel blockers, or direct renin inhibitors (previously untreated patients were also eligible in specific circumstances); and had at least one component of the metabolic syndrome in addition to hypertension. Patients with known diabetes were excluded. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to 24 weeks of daily oral treatment with starting doses of 10 mg amiloride, 25 mg hydrochlorothiazide, or 5 mg amiloride plus 12·5 mg hydrochlorothiazide; all doses were doubled after 12 weeks. Random assignment was done via a central computer system. Both participants and investigators were masked to assignment. Our hierarchical primary endpoints, assessed on a modified intention-to-treat basis at 12 and 24 weeks, were the differences from baseline in blood glucose measured 2 h after a 75 g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), compared first between the hydrochlorothiazide and amiloride groups, and then between the hydrochlorothiazide and combination groups. A key secondary endpoint was change in home systolic blood pressure at 12 and 24 weeks. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00797862, and the MHRA, Eudract number 2009-010068-41, and is now complete.

Findings

Between Nov 18, 2009, and Dec 15, 2014, 145 patients were randomly assigned to amiloride, 146 to hydrochlorothiazide, and 150 to the combination group. 132 participants in the amiloride group, 134 in the hydrochlorothiazide group, and 133 in the combination group were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. 2 h glucose concentrations after OGTT, averaged at 12 and 24 weeks, were significantly lower in the amiloride group than in the hydrochlorothiazide group (mean difference -0·55 mmol/L [95% CI -0·96 to -0·14]; p=0·0093) and in the combination group than in the hydrochlorothiazide group (-0·42 mmol/L [-0·84 to -0·004]; p=0·048). The mean reduction in home systolic blood pressure during 24 weeks did not differ significantly between the amiloride and hydrochlorothiazide groups, but the fall in blood pressure in the combination group was significantly greater than that in the hydrochlorothiazide group (p=0·0068). Hyperkalaemia was reported in seven (4·8%) patients in the amiloride group and three (2·3%) patients in the combination group; the highest recorded potassium concentration was 5·8 mmol/L in a patient in the amiloride group. 13 serious adverse events occurred but the frequency did not differ significantly between groups.

Interpretation

The combination of amiloride with hydrochlorothiazide, at doses equipotent on blood pressure, prevents glucose intolerance and improves control of blood pressure compared with montherapy with either drug. These findings, together with previous data about morbidity and mortality for the combination, support first-line use of amiloride plus hydrochlorothiazide in hypertensive patients who need treatment with a diuretic.

Funding

British Heart Foundation and National Institute for Health Research.

SUBMITTER: Brown MJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4728199 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionNeurodegeneration is a widely accepted contributor to the development of long-term disability in multiple sclerosis (MS). While current therapies in MS predominantly target inflammation and reduce relapse rate they have been less effective at preventing long-term disability. The identification and evaluation of effective neuroprotective therapies within a trial paradigm are key unmet needs. Emerging evidence supports amiloride, a licenced diuretic, as a neuroprotective agent in MS through acid sensing ion channel blockade. Optic neuritis (ON) is a common manifestation of MS with correlates of inflammation and neurodegeneration measurable within the visual pathways. Amiloride Clinical Trial In Optic Neuritis (ACTION) will utilise a multimodal approach to assess the neuroprotective efficacy of amiloride in acute ON.Methods and analysis46 patients will be recruited within 28 days from onset of ON visual symptoms and randomised on a 1:1 basis to placebo or amiloride 10 mg daily. Double-blinded treatment groups will be balanced for age, sex and visual loss severity by a random-deterministic minimisation algorithm. The primary objective is to demonstrate that amiloride is neuroprotective in ON as assessed by scanning laser polarimetry of the peripapillary retinal nerve fibre layer (RNFL) thickness at 6 months in the affected eye compared to the unaffected eye at baseline. RNFL in combination with further retinal measures will also be assessed by optical coherence tomography. Secondary outcome measures on brain MRI will include cortical volume, diffusion-weighted imaging, resting state functional MRI, MR spectroscopy and magnetisation transfer ratio. In addition, high and low contrast visual acuity, visual fields, colour vision and electrophysiology will be assessed alongside quality of life measures.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was given by the south central Oxford B research ethics committee (REC reference: 13/SC/0022). The findings from ACTION will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and at scientific conferences.Trial registration numberEudraCT2012-004980-39, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01802489.

Project description:BackgroundHigh sugar and refined carbohydrate intake is associated with weight gain, increased incidence of diabetes and is linked with increased cardiovascular mortality. Reducing the health impact of poor quality carbohydrate intake is a public health priority. Reducose, a proprietary mulberry leaf extract (ME), may reduce blood glucose responses following dietary carbohydrate intake by reducing absorption of glucose from the gut.MethodsA double-blind, randomised, repeat measure, phase 2 crossover design was used to study the glycaemic and insulinaemic response to one reference product and three test products at the Functional Food Centre, Oxford Brooks University, UK. Participants; 37 adults aged 19-59 years with a BMI ≥ 20kg/m2 and ≤ 30kg/m2. The objective was to determine the effect of three doses of mulberry-extract (Reducose) versus placebo on blood glucose and insulin responses when co-administered with 50g maltodextrin in normoglycaemic healthy adults. We also report the gastrointestinal tolerability of the mulberry extract.ResultsThirty-seven participants completed the study: The difference in the positive Incremental Area Under the Curve (pIAUC) (glucose (mmol / L x h)) for half, normal and double dose ME compared with placebo was -6.1% (-18.2%, 5.9%; p = 0.316), -14.0% (-26.0%, -2.0%; p = 0.022) and -22.0% (-33.9%, -10.0%; p<0.001) respectively. The difference in the pIAUC (insulin (mIU / L x h)) for half, normal and double dose ME compared with placebo was -9.7% (-25.8%, 6.3%; p = 0.234), -23.8% (-39.9%, -7.8%; p = 0.004) and -24.7% (-40.8%, -8.6%; p = 0.003) respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between any of the 4 groups in the odds of experiencing one or more gastrointestinal symptoms (nausea, abdominal cramping, distension or flatulence).ConclusionsMulberry leaf extract significantly reduces total blood glucose rise after ingestion of maltodextrin over 120 minutes. The pattern of effect demonstrates a classical dose response curve with significant effects over placebo. Importantly, total insulin rises were also significantly suppressed over the same time-period. There were no statistically significant differences between any of the treatment groups (including placebo) in the odds of experiencing one or more gastrointestinal symptoms. Mulberry extract may have multiple modes of action and further studies are necessary to evaluate ME as a potential target for the prevention of type 2 diabetes and the regulation of dysglycaemia.

Project description:BackgroundAntiretroviral therapy reduces the risk of tuberculosis, but tuberculosis is more common in people with HIV than in people without HIV. We aimed to assess the effect of isoniazid preventive therapy on the risk of tuberculosis in people infected with HIV-1 concurrently receiving antiretroviral therapy.MethodsFor this pragmatic randomised double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in Khayelitsha, South Africa, we randomly assigned (1:1) patients to receive either isoniazid preventive therapy or a placebo for 12 months (could be completed during 15 months). Randomisation was done with random number generator software. Participants, physicians, and pharmacy staff were masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was time to development of incident tuberculosis (definite, probable, or possible). We excluded tuberculosis at screening by sputum culture. We did a modified intention-to-treat analysis and excluded all patients randomly assigned to groups who withdrew before receiving study drug or whose baseline sputum culture results suggested prevalent tuberculosis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00463086.Findings1329 participants were randomly assigned to receive isoniazid preventive therapy (n=662) or placebo (n=667) between Jan 31, 2008, and Sept 31, 2011, and contributed 3227 person-years of follow-up to the analysis. We recorded 95 incident cases of tuberculosis; 37 were in the isoniazid preventive therapy group (2·3 per 100 person-years, 95% CI 1·6-3·1), and 58 in the placebo group (3·6 per 100 person-years, 2·8-4·7; hazard ratio [HR] 0·63, 95% CI 0·41-0·94). Study drug was discontinued because of grade 3 or 4 raised alanine transaminase concentrations in 19 of 662 individuals in the isoniazid preventive therapy group and ten of the 667 individuals in the placebo group (risk ratio 1·9, 95% CI 0·90-4·09). We noted no evidence that the effect of isoniazid preventive therapy was restricted to patients who were positive on tuberculin skin test or interferon gamma release assay (adjusted HR for patients with negative tests 0·43 [0·21-0·86] and 0·43 [0·20-0·96]; for positive tests 0·86 [0·37-2·00] and 0·55 [0·26-1·24], respectively).InterpretationWithout a more predictive test or a multivariate algorithm that predicts benefit, isoniazid preventive therapy should be recommended to all patients receiving antiretroviral therapy in moderate or high incidence areas irrespective of tuberculin skin test or interferon gamma release assay status.FundingDepartment of Health of South Africa, the Wellcome Trust, Médecins Sans Frontières, European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership, Foundation for Innovation and New Diagnostics, the European Union, and Hasso Plattner (Institute of Infectious Diseases and Molecular Medicine, University of Cape Town).

Project description:BackgroundPatented crystalline glucosamine sulfate (pCGS) and diacerein monotherapy have been recommended for treatment of mild to moderate osteoarthritis (OA), but evidence of efficacy for combined treatments is lacking. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes (i.e., pain and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC] score) at 6 months as well as the safety profile of treatment with combined pCGS and diacerein versus pCGS alone.MethodsA double-blind, parallel randomized controlled superiority trial was conducted between August 2013 and August 2014 at Ramathibodi Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand. A total of 148 patients (74 patients in each group) was randomly allocated to receive pCGS plus diacerein or pCGS plus placebo daily. Adult patients with OA were eligible if they had a Kellgren-Lawrence grade of 2-3. The primary outcomes were visual analogue scale score (VAS) for pain and WOMAC subscores measured at 24 weeks after receiving treatment, using the intention-to-treat principle (nonresponder imputation).ResultsAmong the 148 patients in the study, mean age and body mass index were 60 years and 28.1 kg/m2, respectively. Mean VAS and minimal joint space width at baseline were 5.1 and 2.5 mm, respectively. The mean VAS values measured at 24 weeks were 2.97 and 2.88 in the pCGS plus diacerein and pCGS plus placebo groups, respectively. The estimated mean difference was 0.09 (95 % CI -0.75 to 0.94), which was not statistically significant (P = 0.710). In addition, the mean WOMAC total, pain, function, and stiffness scores for both groups were not significantly different, with corresponding means of 48.59, 12.02, 32.74, and 3.85 for the pCGS plus diacerein group and 48.69, 11.76, 32.47, and 4.16 for the pCGS plus placebo group. The risk of diarrhea and dyspepsia was very similar between the two groups, with risk ratios of 1.03 (95 % CI 0.56-1.89) and 0.91 (95 % CI 0.43-1.92), respectively.ConclusionsThis study did not demonstrate that coadministration of diacerein with pCGS improves pain and WOMAC score compared with pCGS monotherapy in patients with mild to moderate OA of the knee.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01906801 . Registered on 20 July 2013.

Project description:AIM/HYPOTHESIS:Low-grade inflammation may contribute to obesity-related insulin resistance and has been associated with increased risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus. The present study evaluated whether treatment with salsalate, a traditional anti-inflammatory medication, would improve insulin action in obese non-diabetic individuals. METHODS:The study was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel trial conducted at the inpatient clinical research unit of the NIDKK (Phoenix, AZ, USA). Participants were 54 adults (18 to 45 years of age) with BMI >or= 30 kg/m(2). The intervention was salsalate (3 g/day, n = 28) or identical placebo (n = 26) for 7 days. The allocation was kept concealed by giving the investigator only a number corresponding to a vial of placebo or salsalate sequentially randomised in blocks by sex. Main outcomes were changes in insulin action assessed as rate of glucose disposal (R (d)) by euglycaemic-hyperinsulinaemic clamp (insulin infusion rate 40 mU m(-2) min(-1)) and glucose tolerance by 75 g OGTT. RESULTS:The study was completed by 47 participants, of which 40 were analysed (salsalate n = 22, placebo n = 18). Salsalate treatment resulted in decreased fasting plasma glucose concentration (mean [SD]; 4.83 [0.28] vs 5.11 [0.33] mmol/l, p = 0.001) and glucose AUC during the OGTT (p = 0.01), and in increased R (d) (20 [8] vs 18 [6] micromol [kg estimated metabolic body size](-1) min(-1), p = 0.002), while there was no significant change in these variables with placebo (p > 0.3 for all). The effect of salsalate on R (d) disappeared (p = 0.9) after normalising to increased insulin concentrations (701 [285] vs 535 [201] pmol/l, p < 0.0001) measured during the clamp. No side effects of salsalate were observed during the study. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION:The glucose-lowering potential of salicylates appears to be due to effects on insulin concentration rather than improved insulin action. Salicylate-based compounds may be useful for the treatment and prevention of type 2 diabetes.