Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Differential effects of antihypertensive drugs on new-onset diabetes?

  • Published:
Current Hypertension Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Since the late 1950s, new-onset diabetes has been a recognized adverse effect of some antihypertensive drugs. Although diagnostic criteria for diabetes mellitus have changed greatly since then, epidemiologic and physiologic studies suggest that there are differences in glucose tolerance and incident diabetes across antihypertensive drug classes. Data about incident diabetes are now available from 16 long-term, randomized, clinical trials of antihypertensive drugs. From traditional meta-analyses, the rank-ordering of the drug classes is: β-blocker thiazide diuretic > placebo ~ calcium antagonist > angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor ~ angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB). Earlier studies indicated that most individuals who developed incident diabetes were "prediabetic" before beginning antihypertensive therapy, and ipso facto had increased cardiovascular risk compared with individuals with normal glucose tolerance. An earlier diagnosis of diabetes mellitus generally has little impact (over 5 years) on cardiovascular risk. The clinical importance of differential effects of antihypertensive drugs on incident diabetes is, therefore, much less clear.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References and Recommended Reading

  1. National High Blood Pressure Education Program Coordinating Committee: Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. Hypertension 2003, 42:1206–1252.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. American Diabetes Association: Position Statement. Diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care 2005, 28(Suppl 1):S37-S42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 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 Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). JAMA 2002, 288:2981–2997. Head-to-head comparison of different initial antihypertensive drugs in a multi-center, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Elliott WJ: Glucose and cholesterol elevations during thiazide therapy: intention-to-treat vs. actual on-therapy experience. Am J Med 1995, 99:261–269.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Dahlöf B, Devereux RB, Kjeldsen SE, et al.: Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension study (LIFE): a randomised trial against atenolol. The LIFE Study Group. Lancet 2002, 359:995–1003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Julius S, Kjeldsen SE, Webert M, et al.: Outcomes in hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk treated with regimens based on valsartan or amlodipine: The VALUE randomized trial. Lancet 2004, 363:2022–2031.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Padwal R, Laupacis A: Antihypertensive therapy and incidence of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2004, 27:247–255. A systematic review of the available literature through 2003, which points out the many challenges in studying the phenomenon. The authors concluded that there are few definitive data on this important question, and most of the epidemiologic and physiologic studies are interesting, but hardly definitive.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Luna B, Feinglos MN: Drug-induced hyperglycemia. JAMA 2001, 286:1945–1948. A useful summary of the state of knowledge about drugs of all types that may be involved in worsening glucose tolerance. The authors indicate that β-blockers, maybe diuretics, and certainly protease inhibitors (for HIV/AIDS) and some of the newer atypical antipsychotics have been associated with this problem.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Wilkins R: New drugs for the treatment of hypertension. Ann Intern Med 1959, 50:1–12.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Goldner MG, Zarowitz H, Akgun S: Hyperglycemia and glycosuria due to thiazide derivatives administered in diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 1960, 262:403–405.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Gurwitz JH, Bohn RL, Glynn RJ, et al.: Antihypertensive drug therapy and the initiation of treatment for diabetes mellitus. Ann Intern Med 1992, 118:273–278.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bengtsson C, Blohme G, Lapidus L, et al.: Do antihypertensive drugs precipitate diabetes? BMJ 1984, 289:1495–1497.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Skarfors ET, Selinus KI, Lithell HO: Risk factors for developing non-insulin dependent diabetes: a 10-year follow-up of men in Uppsala. BMJ 1991, 303:755–760.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Mykkanen L, Kuusisto J, Pyorala K, et al.: Increased risk of noninsulin-dependent diabetes mellitus in elderly hypertensive subjects. J Hypertension 1994, 12:1425–1432.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Samuelsson O, Hedner T, Berglund G, et al.: Diabetes mellitus in treated hypertension: incidence, predictive factors and the impact of non-selective beta-blockers and thiazide diuretics during 15 years treatment of middle-aged hypertensive men in the Primary Prevention Trial in Goteborg, Sweden. J Hum Hypertension 1994, 8:257–263.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Rajala U, Qiao Q, Laakso M, et al.: Antihypertensive drugs as predictors of type 2 diabetes among subjects with impaired glucose tolerance. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2000, 50:231–239.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Gress TW, Nieto FJ, Shahar E, et al.: Hypertension and antihypertensive therapy as risk factors for type 2 diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 2000, 342:905–912. In the population-based Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study of 3804 young adults in four US towns, only those treated with a β-blocker for hypertension had a significant 1.28-fold increased risk for incident diabetes; other antihypertensive drugs did not achieve statistical significance.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Pollare T, Lithell H, Morlin C, et al.: Metabolic effects of diltiazem and atenolol: results from a randomized, doubleblind study with parallel groups. J Hypertension 1989, 7:551–559.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Pollare T, Lithell H, Berne C: A comparison of the effects of hydrochlorothiazide and captopril on glucose and lipid metabolism in patients with hypertension. N Engl J Med 1989, 321:868–873.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Huupponen R, Lehtonen A, Vahatalo M: Effect of doxazosin on insulin sensitivity in hypertensive non-insulin dependent diabetic patients. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1992, 43:365–368.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Lindholm LH, Persson M, Alaupovic P, et al.: Metabolic outcome during 1 year in newly detected hypertensives: Results of the Antihypertensive Treatment and Lipid Profile in a North of Sweden Efficacy evaluation (ALPINE Study). J Hypertension 2003, 21:1563–1574. This is, so far, the only clinical trial that had incident diabetes as the primary end point. Only nine people developed diabetes during the 1-year follow-up period, but they were split 8:1, which was statistically significant. The possible role of the second-step drug in each treatment arm could therefore not be explored statistically because of the small numbers of incident cases.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Pfeffer MA, Swedberg K, Granger CB, et al.: Effects of candesartan on mortality and morbidity in patients with chronic heart failure: The CHARM-Overall programme. The CHARM Investigators and Committees. Lancet 2003, 362:759–766.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Lithell H, Hansson L, Skoog I, et al.: The study on cognition and prognosis in the elderly (SCOPE): principal results of a randomized double-blind intervention trial. J Hypertension 2003, 21:875–886.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WMC, Muir Gray JA, et al.: Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t (editorial). BMJ 1996, 312:71–72.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Fletcher A, Amery A, Birkenhager W, et al.: Risks and benefits in the trial of the European Working Party on High Blood Pressure in the Elderly. J Hypertension 1991, 9:225–230.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Wilhelmsen L, Berglund G, Elmfeldt D, et al.: Beta-blockers versus diuretics in hypertensive men: main result from the HAPPHY trial. J Hypertension 1987, 5:560–572.

    Google Scholar 

  27. 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 Nifedipine GITS study: Intervention as a Goal in Hypertension Treatment (INSIGHT). Lancet 2000, 356:366–372.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. The SHEP Cooperative Study Group: Prevention of stroke by antihypertensive drug treatment in older persons with isolated systolic hypertension. JAMA 1991, 265:3255–3264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Medical Research Council Working Party: MRC Trial of treatment of mild hypertension: Principal results. Br Med J (Clin Res) 1985, 291:97–104.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Medical Research Council Working Party: Medical Research Council Trial of treatment of hypertension in older adults: principal results. BMJ 1992, 304:405–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hansson L, Lindholm LH, Niskanen L, et al.: 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Pepine CJ, Handberg EM, Cooper-DeHoff RM, et al.: A calcium antagonist vs. a non-calcium antagonist hypertension treatment strategy for patients with coronary artery disease: The International Verapamil-Trandolapril Study (INVEST): a randomized controlled trial. The INVEST Investigators. JAMA 2003, 290:2805–2816.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Hansson L, Hedner T, Lund-Johansen P, et al.: Randomised trial of effects of calcium antagonists compared with diuretics and _-blockers on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertension: The Nordic Diltiazem (NORDIL) Study. The Nordic Diltiazem Study Group. Lancet 2000, 356:359–365.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Hansson L, Lindholm LH, Ekbom T, et al.: Randomised trial of old and new antihypertensive drugs in elderly patients: cardiovascular mortality and morbidity. The Swedish Trial in Old Patients with Hypertension-2 study. Lancet 1999, 354:1751–1756.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. HOPE Study Investigators: Effects of ramipril on cardiovascular and microvascular outcomes in people with diabetes mellitus: The HOPE study and MICRO-HOPE substudy. Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE) Study Investigators. Lancet 2000, 355:253–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. The PEACE Trial Investigators: Angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibition in stable coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2004, 351:2058–2068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Vermes E, Ducharme A, Bourassa MG, et al.: Enalapril reduces the incidence of diabetes in patients with chronic heart failure: Insight from the Studies of Left Ventricular Dysfunction (SOLVD). Studies of Left Ventricular Dysfunction. Circulation 2003, 107:1291–1296.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Svensson P, de Faire U, Sleight P, et al.: Comparative effects of ramipril on ambulatory and office blood pressures: a HOPE Substudy. Hypertension 2001, 38:E28-E32.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Coutinho M, Gerstein HC, Wang Y, et al.: The relationship between glucose and incident cardiovascular events: a metaregression analysis of published data from 20 studies of 95,783 individuals followed for 12.4 years. Diabetes Care 1999, 22:233–240.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Henry P, Thomas F, Benetos A, et al.: Impaired fasting glucose, blood pressure, and cardiovascular disease mortality. Hypertension 2002, 40:458–463.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Elliott WJ: ALLHAT: the largest and most important clinical trial in hypertension ever done in the U.S.A. (editorial). Am J Hypertension 1996, 9:409–411.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Messerli FH, Weber MA: ALLHAT—All hit or all miss? Key questions still remain (editorial). Am J Cardiol 2003, 92:280–281.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Qiao Q, Jousilahti P, Eriksson J, et al.: Predictive properties of impaired glucose tolerance for cardiovascular risk are not explained by the development of overt diabetes during follow-up. Diabetes Care 2003, 26:2910–2914.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Eberly LE, Cohen JD, Prineas R, et al.: Impact of incident diabetes and incident nonfatal cardiovascular disease on 18-year mortality: The Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial experience. Diabetes Care 2003, 26:848–854.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Verdecchia P, Reboldi G, Angeli F, et al.: Adverse prognostic significance of new diabetes in treated hypertensive subjects. Hypertension 2004, 43:963–969.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. American Diabetes Association: Hypertension management in adults with diabetes. Diabetes Care 2004, 27(Suppl1):S65-S67.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Grundy SM, Cleeman JI, Merz NB, et al.: Implications of recent clinical trials for the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III Guidelines. Circulation 2004, 110:227–239.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Colhoun H, Betteridge DJ, Durrington PN, et al.: Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease with atorvastatin in type 2 diabetes in the Collaborative Atorvastatin Diabetes Study (CARDS): Multicentre randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2004, 364:685–696.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. American Diabetes Association and the National Institute of Diabetes, Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health: Prevention or delay of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2004, 27(Suppl1):S47-S54.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Lumley T: Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med 2002, 21:2313–2324.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Preventive Medicine, RUSH Medical College of RUSH University at RUSH University Medical Center, 1700 West Van Buren, Suite 470, 60612, Chicago, IL, USA

    William J. Elliott MD, PhD

Authors
  1. William J. Elliott MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Elliott, W.J. Differential effects of antihypertensive drugs on new-onset diabetes?. Current Science Inc 7, 249–256 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11906-005-0021-4

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11906-005-0021-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation