Diabetogenic effect of antihypertensive treatment: primum nil nocere

Rainer Düsing1 and Hendrik Lehnert2

1Universitätsklinikum Bonn, Medizinische Universitäts-Poliklinik and 2Zentrum für Innere Medizin, Klinik für Endokrinologie und Stoffwechselkrankheiten, Magdeburg, Germany

Correspondence and offprint requests to: Professor Dr Rainer Düsing, Universitätsklinikum Bonn, Medizinische Universitäts-Poliklinik, Wilhelmstrasse 35–37, D-53111 Bonn, Germany. Email: duesing{at}uni-bonn.de

Keywords: ACE inhibitors; antihypertensive therapy; AT1-antagonists; ß-blockers; Ca-channel blockers; diuretics; new-onset diabetes



   Introduction
 Top
 Introduction
 Evidence from randomized...
 Clinical significance
 References
 
Hypertension and diabetes mellitus have been shown to exhibit a complex and multifactorial interrelationship. As part of this, the incidence of diabetes is enhanced in hypertensive patients and this finding is only in part explained by the higher percentage of overweight and obese patients in both populations [13]. Moreover, evidence suggests that the rate of new-onset diabetes mellitus in hypertensive patients may also depend on the choice of antihypertensive treatment [415]. Among the more modern trials comparing antihypertensive treatment strategies, the Captopril Prevention Project (CAPPP) observed a statistically higher rate of new-onset diabetes in patients randomized to treatment with conventional therapy (diuretics and ß-blockers) as compared with those receiving the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor captopril [16]. The present review analyses more studies that reported differences in the incidence of new-onset diabetes mellitus when comparing antihypertensive treatment strategies, and attempts to define the magnitude and possible clinical significance of the observed differences.



   Evidence from randomized controlled trials
 Top
 Introduction
 Evidence from randomized...
 Clinical significance
 References
 
Since the CAPPP trial, several studies have described differences in the rate of new-onset diabetes mellitus in hypertensive patients treated with various antihypertensive strategies. Table 1 summarizes results from five prospective, randomized hypertension trials (CAPPP [16], INSIGHT [17], LIFE [18], ALLHAT [19] and INVEST [20]) in which different treatment strategies were compared on various morbidity and mortality end points and from one study investigating an ACE inhibitor vs placebo in patients with high cardiovascular risk (HOPE) [21]. In all hypertension studies analysed, there was a significant difference in the incidence of new-onset diabetes between patients treated with ß-blockers or diuretics as compared with more modern antihypertensive agents. Interestingly, in the HOPE trial, ACE inhibition—when compared with placebo—was associated with significantly less new-onset diabetes in a population at high cardiovascular risk, in which ß-blockers and diuretics were used at a rate of ~40 and 15%, respectively [21]. Table 2 gives the calculated ‘numbers needed to treat’ (NNT) [22] for new-onset diabetes mellitus in the cited trials. Data are also corrected for the respective observation periods and expressed as NNT/year.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 1. Numbers of patients in the different studies and of patients developing new-onset diabetes mellitus mellitus in five hypertension trials comparing different antihypertensive treatment strategies and in one placebo-controlled study performed in patients with high cardiovascular risk (HOPE)

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 2. Numbers needed to treat (NNT) for new-onset diabetes mellitus in five hypertension trials comparing different antihypertensive treatment strategies and in one placebo-controlled study performed in patients with high cardiovascular risk (HOPE)

 
Two studies have provided information about the time course of the manifestation of new-onset diabetes mellitus in treated hypertensive patients. In the LIFE study, an apparently linear increase in the incidence of diabetes over the 5 year period of the study could be observed in the patients randomized to either atenolol or losartan-based antihypertensive treatment. Accordingly, the difference in the incidence of diabetes in the two groups of patients increased in a linear fashion over time. Since antihypertensive therapy in most patients is a life-long process, it therefore appears legitimate also to estimate the respective NNT for extended treatment periods. Therefore, in Table 2, NNT were also estimated for a treatment period of 30 years. Notably, the number needed to harm with respect to new-onset diabetes in the five cited hypertension studies ranged between 4 and 25. In contrast, in the ALLHAT trial, patients manifesting fasting glucose values of >=125 mg/dl increased markedly over the first 2 years of chlortalidone without a further increase at 4 years. However, no information is available on the use of anti-diabetic agents from that ‘large and simple trial’, and it therefore seems likely that the time dependence of new-onset diabetes in ALLHAT is obscured by concomitant anti-diabetic therapy. Therefore, in Tables 1 and 2, data are given taking into account the incidence values at both 2 and at 4 years.

Looking at the differences in the NNT values between the studies analysed and excluding the 4 year data of the ALLHAT study, CAPPP stands out as the study with the highest NNT. In this context, it is interesting to note that in this study captopril, 50 mg/day, could be given o.d or b.i.d., and that 48% of the patients randomized to captopril took the medication o.d. Also, calcium channel blockers were an optional add-on therapy in CAPPP. Thus insufficient dosing of captopril and also add-on therapy may have diluted the difference in new-onset diabetes in CAPPP. Interestingly, the low NNT calculated for ALLHAT on the basis of the (probably more reliable) 2 year data should be seen against the background that the average body mass index (BMI) in that study (29.8 kg/m2) was higher than in CAPPP (27.9 kg/m2) or LIFE (28.0 kg/m2). It is, therefore, tempting to speculate that the risk of new-onset diabetes during antihypertensive treatment may also be a function of the underlying risk.



   Clinical significance
 Top
 Introduction
 Evidence from randomized...
 Clinical significance
 References
 
The clinical significance of the adverse effects of a diuretic- and ß-blocker-based antihypertensive therapy on metabolic parameters remains a matter of controversy. In ALLHAT, the cited figures have been played down, arguing that "these metabolic differences did not translate into more cardiovascular events or into higher all-cause mortality in the chlortalidone group compared with the other 2 groups" [19]. This argument applies to a number of studies with respectable effects of so-called ‘conventional therapy’ on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality end points. However, studies of up to 5 years duration may be insufficient to detect these end points since translation of new-onset diabetes into morbidity and mortality may simply take more time. It is interesting, therefore, to note the results from a prospective population-based cohort study from Uppsala, Sweden. The results from this long-term study observing patients over almost two decades suggest that the increase in blood glucose observed during antihypertensive treatment with diuretics and ß-blockers represents a significant, independent risk factor for myocardial infarction [23].

In summary, antihypertensive treatment has a major influence on the rate of new-onset diabetes, with a markedly higher incidence in patients on ß-blockers and diuretics. This finding represents a clinically important limitation for the use of these agents, at least when used without concomitant administration of one of the more modern antihypertensive agents. Primum nil nocere.

Conflict of interest statement. None declared.



   References
 Top
 Introduction
 Evidence from randomized...
 Clinical significance
 References
 

  1. Gress TW, Nieto J, Shahar E, Wofford MR, Brancati FL. Hypertension and antihypertensive therapy as risk factors for type 2 diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 2000; 342: 905–912[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Mykkanen L, Kuusisto J, Pyrola K, Laakso M, Haffner SM. Increased risk of non-insulin dependent diabetes in elderly hypertensive subjects. J Hypertens 1994; 12: 1425–1432[ISI][Medline]
  3. Pollare T, Lithell H, Selinus IC, Berne C. Insulin resistance is a characteristic feature of primary hypertension independent of obesity. Metabolism 1990; 39: 167–174[ISI][Medline]
  4. Shapiro AP, Bendek TG, Small JL. Effect of thiazides on carbohydrate metabolism in patients with primary hypertension. N Engl J Med 1961; 265: 1028–1033[ISI]
  5. Wolff FW, Parmely WW, White K, Okun R. Drug-induced diabetes: diabetogenic effect of long-term administration of benzothiadiazines. J Am Med Assoc 1963; 185: 568–574[ISI]
  6. Beckenridge A, Welborn TA, Dollery CT, Fraser R. Glucose tolerance in hypertensive patients on long-term diuretic therapy. Lancet 1967; 1: 61–64[ISI][Medline]
  7. Kohner EM. Effect of diuretic therapy on glucose tolerance in hypertensive patients. Lancet 1971; 1: 986–990[CrossRef][Medline]
  8. Medical Research Council Working Party on Mild to Moderate Hypertension Adverse reactions to bendrofluazide and propranolol for the treatment of mild hypertension. Lancet 1981; 2: 539–543[Medline]
  9. Helgeland A, Leren P, Foss OP, Hjermann I, Holme I, Lund-Larsen PG. Serum glucose levels during long-term observation of treated and untreated men with mild hypertension: the Oslo study. Am J Med 1984; 76: 802–805[ISI][Medline]
  10. Bentsson C, Blohme G, Lapidus L et al. Do antihypertensive drugs precipitate diabetes? Br Med J 1984; 289: 1495–1497[ISI][Medline]
  11. Veterans Administration Cooperative Study on Antihypertensive Agents. Propranolol or hydrochlorothiazide alone for the initial treatment of hypertension. IV. Effect on plasma glucose and glucose tolerance. Hypertension 1985; 7: 1008–1016[Abstract]
  12. Skarfors ET, Lithell HO, Selinus I, Aberg H. Do antihypertensive drugs precipitate diabetes in predisposed men. Br Med J 1989; 298: 1147–1152[ISI][Medline]
  13. Fletcher AE. Adverse treatment effects in the trial of the European Working Party on High Blood Pressure in the Elderly. Am J Med 1991; 90: 42–44
  14. Gurwitz JH, Bohn RL, Glynn RJ, Monane M, Mogun H, Avorn J. Antihypertensive drug therapy and the initiation of treatment for diabetes mellitus. Ann Intern Med 1993; 118: 273–278[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Samuelsson O, Hedner T, Berglund G, Persson B, Andersson OK, Wilhelmsen L. Diabetes mellitus in treated hypertension: incidence, predictive factors and the impact of non-selective ß-blockers and thiazide diuretics during 15 years treatment of middle-aged hypertensive men in the Primary Prevention Trial Goteborg, Sweden. J Hum Hypertens 1994; 8: 257–263[ISI][Medline]
  16. Hansson L, Lindholm LH, Niskanen L et al. for the Captopril Prevention Project (CAPPP) study group. Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition compared with conventional therapy on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertension: the Captopril Prevention Project (CAPPP) randomised trial. Lancet 1999; 353: 611–616[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  17. Brown MJ, Palmer CR, Castaigne A et al. Morbidity and mortality in patients randomised to double-blind treatment with a long-acting calcium channel blocker or diuretic in the International Niifedipine GITS Study: Intervention as a Goal in Hypertension Treatment (INSIGHT). Lancet 2000; 356: 366–372[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  18. Dahlöf B, Devereux RB, Kjeldsen SE et al. for the LIFE study group. Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in the Losartan Intervention for Endpoint Reduction in Hypertension Study (LIFE): a randomised trial against atenolol. Lancet 2002; 359: 995–1003[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  19. The ALLHAT Officers and Coordinators for the ALLHAT Collaborative Research Group. Major outcomes in high-risk hypertensive patients randomized to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or calcium channel blocker vs. diuretic. The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering to Prevent Heart Attack Trial. J Am Med Assoc 2002; 288: 2981–2997[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  20. Pepine CJ, Handberg-Thurmond E, Marks RG et al. Rationale and design of the International Verapamil SR/Trandolapril Study (INVEST): an Internet-based randomized trial in coronary artery disease patients with hypertension. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998; 32: 1228–1237[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  21. The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation Study Investigators. Effects of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, ramipril, on cardiovascular events in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med 2000; 342: 145–153[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Laupacis A, Sackett DL, Roberts RS. An assessment of clinically useful measures of the consequences of treatment. N Engl J Med 1988; 318: 1728–1733[ISI][Medline]
  23. Dunder K, Bind L, Zethelius B, Berglund L, Lithell H. Increase in blood glucose concentration during antihypertensive treatment as a predictor of myocardial infarction: population based cohort study. Br Med J 2003; 326: 681–685[Abstract/Free Full Text]




This Article
Extract
FREE Full Text (PDF)
Alert me when this article is cited
Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Email this article to a friend
Similar articles in this journal
Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Similar articles in PubMed
Alert me to new issues of the journal
Add to My Personal Archive
Download to citation manager
Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (5)
Disclaimer
Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Articles by Düsing, R.
Articles by Lehnert, H.
PubMed
PubMed Citation
Articles by Düsing, R.
Articles by Lehnert, H.