World journal of cardiology · 2026
Comparative efficacy and safety of chlorthalidone vs hydrochlorothiazide in hypertension management: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kumari Usha, Kaka Manaswini, Abbas Fakhar, Rai Amar, Kumari Sanjana, Wazir Hakim Ullah, Surani Salim
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Hypertension is among the leading causes of cardiovascular diseases, including myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and heart failure. The thiazide diuretics of chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide are commonly prescribed in the control of blood pressure. Although they are effective, there has been debate regarding their relative efficacy and safety, particularly with respect to cardiovascular events.
AIM: To determine the relative efficacy and safety of hydrochlorothiazide vs chlorthalidone in the treatment of primary hypertension treatment in adults, isolation of their effects on systolic and diastolic blood pressure, MI, stroke, heart failure, and hypokalemia.
METHODS: PubMed and Google Scholar databases were searched for comparative studies of hydrochlorothiazide vs chlorthalidone in patients with hypertension. The inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and clinical studies in the English language from 2005 to 2025. Eleven studies were ultimately included for meta-analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using a random-effects model, and heterogeneity was tested by I 2 statistics.
RESULTS: Chlorthalidone was associated with greater reductions in systolic blood pressure [mean difference: 5.18 mmHg, 95% confidence interval (CI): 4.28-6.08] and diastolic blood pressure (2.91 mmHg, 95%CI: 1.96-3.87) compared to hydrochlorothiazide. Interestingly, chlorthalidone also demonstrated superior nocturnal blood pressure control (P = 0.0002). In terms of cardiovascular outcomes, chlorthalidone showed a potential significant (P = 0.052) reduction in the risk of MI (relative risk: 1.30, 95%CI: 1.00-1.70); however, there were no differences in stroke or all-cause mortality between the two medications. A safety analysis revealed a significantly lower risk of hypokalemia associated with hydrochlorothiazide (relative risk: 0.52, 95%CI: 0.38-0.72). Both medications had similar safety profiles regarding heart failure and rates of hospitalization.
CONCLUSION: The present meta-analysis suggests that chlorthalidone is more effective than hydrochlorothiazide in reducing both systolic and diastolic blood pressure, particularly at night. Although both drugs share comparable cardiovascular event safety profiles, chlorthalidone carries a higher risk of inducing hypokalemia. These findings emphasize the need for individualized treatment strategies in the management of hypertension based on the varying efficacy and safety profiles of chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide.
AIM: To determine the relative efficacy and safety of hydrochlorothiazide vs chlorthalidone in the treatment of primary hypertension treatment in adults, isolation of their effects on systolic and diastolic blood pressure, MI, stroke, heart failure, and hypokalemia.
METHODS: PubMed and Google Scholar databases were searched for comparative studies of hydrochlorothiazide vs chlorthalidone in patients with hypertension. The inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and clinical studies in the English language from 2005 to 2025. Eleven studies were ultimately included for meta-analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using a random-effects model, and heterogeneity was tested by I 2 statistics.
RESULTS: Chlorthalidone was associated with greater reductions in systolic blood pressure [mean difference: 5.18 mmHg, 95% confidence interval (CI): 4.28-6.08] and diastolic blood pressure (2.91 mmHg, 95%CI: 1.96-3.87) compared to hydrochlorothiazide. Interestingly, chlorthalidone also demonstrated superior nocturnal blood pressure control (P = 0.0002). In terms of cardiovascular outcomes, chlorthalidone showed a potential significant (P = 0.052) reduction in the risk of MI (relative risk: 1.30, 95%CI: 1.00-1.70); however, there were no differences in stroke or all-cause mortality between the two medications. A safety analysis revealed a significantly lower risk of hypokalemia associated with hydrochlorothiazide (relative risk: 0.52, 95%CI: 0.38-0.72). Both medications had similar safety profiles regarding heart failure and rates of hospitalization.
CONCLUSION: The present meta-analysis suggests that chlorthalidone is more effective than hydrochlorothiazide in reducing both systolic and diastolic blood pressure, particularly at night. Although both drugs share comparable cardiovascular event safety profiles, chlorthalidone carries a higher risk of inducing hypokalemia. These findings emphasize the need for individualized treatment strategies in the management of hypertension based on the varying efficacy and safety profiles of chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide.