Education Use Only
For educational use only — Not for clinical decision-making without independent verification
Medical Associates  ·  Department of Nephrology ← urinenephrology.org
Clinical Mastery Series

Comprehensive Hypertension Management

BP Monitoring, Pharmacotherapy, ACEi vs ARB Selection, Thiazide Risks, and Risk-Benefit Analysis
Andrew Bland, MD, FACP, FAAP UICOMP · UDPA · Butler COM 2026-07-03 16 min read

Home Blood Pressure Monitoring

Morning pre-dose readings have the strongest association with CV outcomes (HR 1.18 per 10 mmHg increase). If only one daily measurement is possible, morning pre-medication measurement is preferred.

Standardized Protocol

  • 5-minute rest (reduces SBP by 4.2 mmHg vs. immediate measurement)
  • Arm at heart level (each cm below heart level → +0.7–0.8 mmHg systolic)
  • Appropriate cuff size (undersized cuff → falsely elevated +5.7 mmHg systolic)
  • 2–3 readings 1 minute apart; discard first, average remainder
  • 7-day rule: AM + PM for 7 days, discard day 1

24-Hour Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring

ABPM values are more strongly predictive of CV outcomes than office or home measurements.

Measurement Method HR per 10 mmHg SBP
24-hour ABPM1.25 (1.20–1.30)
Home BP1.19 (1.14–1.25)
Office BP1.15 (1.11–1.19)
Clinical Pearl: ABPM and OSA Screening

ABPM can screen for obstructive sleep apnea. Non-dipping pattern (sensitivity 78%, specificity 63%) combined with nocturnal HTN and high nocturnal BP variability has PPV of 83% when 3+ patterns present. A two-step algorithm (ABPM → home sleep testing) reduces unnecessary PSG by 67%.

Morning Blood Pressure Phenotypes

Isolated morning HTN prevalence: 10.8% overall, increasing to 19.6% in patients ≥75 years.

Morning Surge >35 mmHg vs. <10 mmHg HR (95% CI) 5-Year ARI
Stroke risk2.27 (1.41–3.67)3.5%
Coronary events1.69 (1.08–2.65)2.2%
HF hospitalization1.83 (1.21–2.76)2.8%

Cardiovascular Risk Reduction by Blood Pressure Level

Ettehad et al. (Lancet 2016; 123 trials, 613,815 participants) established the per-10-mmHg effect sizes. Each 10 mmHg reduction in SBP produces, on average:5

  • 20% RRR in major CV events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.77–0.83)
  • 17% RRR in coronary heart disease (RR 0.83, 0.78–0.88)
  • 27% RRR in stroke (RR 0.73, 0.68–0.77)
  • 28% RRR in heart failure (RR 0.72, 0.67–0.78)
  • 13% RRR in all-cause mortality (RR 0.87, 0.84–0.91)
Constant RRR, Varying ARR — the Critical Distinction

The proportional risk reduction per 10 mmHg drop is roughly the same whether the patient starts at 200 mmHg or 140 mmHg. Ettehad meta-regression: no significant trend by baseline SBP (all ptrend > 0.05).5 BPLTTC 2021 (48 RCTs, 344,716 participants) confirmed: per 5 mmHg SBP reduction, HR 0.91 (no prior CVD) / 0.89 (prior CVD), with no heterogeneity across seven baseline-SBP strata from <120 to ≥170.6

What varies is the absolute benefit: because event rates are much higher at 200 mmHg than at 140 mmHg, the same 20% RRR yields a larger ARR at higher baseline BP. The "law of diminishing returns" lives in ARR/NNT, not in RRR.

Modeled 5-Year ARR/NNT by Baseline SBP

The table below applies a constant approximately 20% RRR per 10 mmHg drop (Ettehad) to declining baseline 5-year MACE event rates by stratum. These ARR and NNT values are extrapolated, not measured directly — useful for shared decision-making but not a head-to-head trial result.

Starting SBP Target SBP RRR per 10 mmHg Modeled 5-yr ARR Modeled NNT (5-yr)
190–170170–15020%4.8%21
170–150150–14020%3.2%31
150–140140–13020%2.0%50
140–130130–12020%1.4%71
<130<12020%0.6%167

SPRINT — the Anchor Trial for Intensive Targets

SPRINT (NEJM 2015; 9,361 participants, no diabetes, SBP ≥130, high CV risk) randomized SBP <120 vs <140.7 Median follow-up 3.26 years (stopped early). Primary composite (MI, ACS, stroke, HF, CV death): HR 0.75 (0.64–0.89) — 25% RRR, ARR 1.6%, NNT 61. All-cause mortality: HR 0.73 (0.60–0.90) — 27% RRR, ARR 1.2%, NNT 90. Adverse events (hypotension, syncope, electrolyte abnormalities, AKI) significantly higher in the intensive arm.

SPRINT Measurement Caveat — Read Before Applying <120

SPRINT measured BP using unattended automated office BP (AOBP): patient seated alone in a quiet room, three readings averaged. AOBP runs 5–10 mmHg lower than typical clinic BP. A SPRINT <120 target therefore corresponds to roughly a conventional clinic SBP of 125–130. Translating the SPRINT target to a routine clinic measurement without this adjustment risks under-treating or over-treating the patient relative to the trial's actual physiology.

ARR-Harm: Does Adverse-Event Risk Also Rise as You Push Lower?

The benefit side of BP lowering has constant RRR and shrinking ARR. The harm side moves the opposite direction: as you target lower BP, several adverse events become more common in absolute terms. SPRINT's SAE table is the cleanest direct test.7

Serious Adverse Event HR Intensive vs Standard Direction
Hypotension1.67 (1.21–2.32)↑ harm scales with target
Syncope1.33 (1.05–1.69)↑ harm scales
Electrolyte abnormality1.35 (1.11–1.66)↑ harm scales
Acute kidney injury or failure1.66 (1.31–2.10)↑ harm scales
Injurious falls1.00 (0.83–1.20)→ no increase — including SPRINT-Senior ≥75y
Orthostatic hypotension on study visitnumerically lower in intensive arm→ no signal
Falls Were Not Increased — the Counterintuitive SPRINT Finding

The clinical lore that "more BP lowering = more falls in the elderly" was specifically tested in SPRINT and was not supported. Injurious falls were equally common in both arms (HR 1.00), including in the pre-specified SPRINT-Senior subgroup of patients age ≥75. This does not mean falls never happen on intensive therapy — it means the trial-level signal does not support withholding intensification on falls-fear alone.

Time Course of Benefit — Years, Not Weeks

The RRR/ARR figures above are realized over years of treatment, not days or weeks. This is critical for shared decision-making and titration pace.

Trial / Source Median Follow-up When Event Curves Separated
SPRINT (PMID 26551272)3.26 yrApproximately month 12 for primary composite, accelerating through year 3
ASCOT-BPLA (PMID 16154016)5.5 yrYear 1 for primary composite
HOPE-35.6 yrYear 2-3 for stroke benefit
BPLTTC IPD meta (PMID 33933205)4.15 yrAnchored effect-size estimates at this window
Ettehad meta-analysis (PMID 26724178)Approximately 4 yr typicalTrial-level RRRs assume this follow-up scale

Sequence of benefit emergence: stroke first (6-12 months), CHD next, HF intermediate, all-cause mortality last (years 2-5).

Clinical Implication: There Is Time to Titrate

For uncomplicated stage 1 or stage 2 hypertension (SBP <180), weeks to months of gradual titration is appropriate — this matches the time-scale on which the published RRR/ARR benefits are realized. There is no week-by-week catastrophic risk in asymptomatic chronic hypertension that justifies rapid pharmacologic reduction.

The only paradigms that demand faster action:

  • Hypertensive emergency (SBP ≥180 with target-organ damage — papilledema, AKI, MI, stroke, eclampsia, dissection): hours to days, target 25% SBP reduction in the first hour for most; faster for aortic dissection.
  • Severe HTN without TOD (SBP ≥180 without symptoms): the AHA 2025 guideline explicitly retired the term "hypertensive urgency." Outpatient titration over days to weeks is the modern standard.

Patel et al. (JAMA Intern Med 2016) showed no benefit and net harm from IV antihypertensives in asymptomatic inpatient severe HTN — the mechanistic premise of "imminent catastrophe in the asymptomatic patient" does not survive empirical testing.

Net-Benefit Framing — ARR-Benefit vs ARR-Harm

  • ARR-benefit shrinks as baseline BP drops (smaller absolute target with constant 20% RRR).
  • ARR-harm grows for hypotension, syncope, AKI, electrolyte abnormalities — but not for falls.
  • Below some threshold the curves cross. ACCORD-BP in diabetics is the clearest published example of the cross: similar SAE excess to SPRINT, no CV benefit — net negative. This is why diabetes was excluded from SPRINT, and why intensive targets in diabetic patients remain contested.
  • Generalizability boundary: SPRINT excluded nursing-home residents, prior stroke, dementia, and proteinuric CKD. The "no fall increase" finding does not extend to those populations — clinical judgment dominates the meta-analysis.

Pulse Pressure Considerations

J-Curve Warning: Diastolic BP <60 mmHg

In patients with wide pulse pressure (≥60 mmHg), diastolic BP <60 mmHg is associated with 33% increased coronary events and 26% increased CV death. Risk is particularly pronounced with pre-existing CAD (HR 1.61), diabetes (HR 1.52), and age >75 (HR 1.38). Source: Protogerou meta-analysis — flagged for re-verification with the rest of this module's 2022/2023-dated citations.

ACE Inhibitors vs. ARBs

Comparable BP reduction. ONTARGET (PMID 18378520) found no significant difference between ramipril, telmisartan, or both in 25,620 high-risk patients (primary composite RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94–1.09). The two classes diverge in adverse-event profile, not in BP-lowering or CV-outcome efficacy.

Side Effect Comparison — Verified 2026-04-29

Adverse Effect ACEi ARB / Comparator Source & Notes
Reported cough (raw)13.5%Placebo: 8.5%Vukadinović 2019 (PMID 29330882) — 22 RCTs, 65,054 patients. Placebo-adjusted attributable cough is approximately 5% (37% of 13.5%). Highest attributable rates in HTN (85%), lowest in HF (29%). The widely-cited 8.3% / 0.4% / NNH 13 figures cannot be sourced to Vukadinović and were removed.
Angioedema0.30% (95% CI 0.28–0.32)ARB 0.11% (0.09–0.13)Makani 2012 (PMID 22521308) — 26 ACEi trials (n=74,857) vs 19 ARB trials (n=35,479). Head-to-head RR 2.2 (95% CI 1.5–3.3). Higher in HF trials. Risk approximately 3–4x in Black patients (varies by study). Verified.
Hyperkalemia (K >5.5)Approximately equivalent ACEi vs ARBCombined ACEi+ARB OR 2.69 (0.97–7.47)Palmer 2015 (PMID 26009228) — network meta-analysis in diabetic kidney disease. Specific ACEi 5.3% / ARB 5.5% incidence figures cannot be sourced to abstract; removed pending full-text verification. Magnitude is approximately right but the exact split should not be cited from this paper alone.
Acute renal effects (≥30% creatinine increase)1.2% overallNo clear ACEi/ARB split published in this paperSchmidt 2017 (PMID 28069618) — UK general practice cohort, 223,814 patients. 80% of patients meeting discontinuation criteria continued treatment anyway — real-world monitoring is inadequate.

ACEi Washout Before ARNI in CKD — Corrected Framing

36-Hour Washout May Be Inadequate in CKD — Mechanism, Not RCT

The general principle is well-established by Hoyer et al. Clin Pharmacokinet 1993 (PMID 8462229) — renally eliminated ACEi accumulate substantially in moderate-severe CKD; lisinopril and cilazaprilat have particularly high accumulation rates; fosinopril uniquely does NOT accumulate due to hepatobiliary elimination. The 36-hour standard washout is mechanistically tight and probably inadequate for lisinopril/enalapril in eGFR <30; extended washout (several days) is sensible based on PK principles.

Correction (2026-04-29): An earlier version of this page cited "lisinopril at eGFR <45 had 2.8-fold higher angioedema risk during ARNI transition" attributed to a "Sengupta 2022" paper. That paper does not exist on PubMed (no match for the cited authors/title/journal/year). The 2.8-fold figure has been removed. The general principle of extended washout in CKD is supported by Hoyer; the specific 2.8x angioedema risk is not.

ACEi Normal t½ (approximate) CKD Accumulation Practical Approach Before ARNI
Lisinopril12 hrHigh — cited by Hoyer 1993Extended washout (several days) in eGFR <30. Consider switching to fosinopril before any planned ARNI transition.
Enalapril11 hrHigh — renally eliminatedExtended washout in moderate-severe CKD. Same fosinopril-bridge consideration as lisinopril.
Fosinopril12 hrLow — substantial hepatobiliary elimination per HoyerStandard 36-hour washout likely adequate even in CKD.

Note: specific half-life-in-CKD figures (e.g., "lisinopril 40–50 hr in eGFR <30") are widely cited in clinical literature but are not directly extractable from the Hoyer 1993 abstract; the principle (substantial accumulation) is firmly established. Verify exact magnitudes against FDA prescribing information or Hoyer full text before quoting specific numbers.

Losartan: Special Considerations

Pro-Drug and CYP2C9 Polymorphisms

Losartan requires hepatic conversion via CYP2C9 to active metabolite EXP3174, which is more potent than the parent compound. CYP2C9 poor metabolizers (homozygous variant alleles) have substantially reduced active metabolite formation, with potential impact on antihypertensive efficacy. The mechanistic basis is established in Lee CR, Goldstein JA, Pieper JA. Pharmacogenetics 2002;12(3):251-263 (PMID 11927841).

  • CYP2C9*2 variant prevalence: approximately 11% in Caucasians, 3–4% in African Americans
  • CYP2C9*3 variant prevalence: approximately 7–9% in Caucasians, 2–3% in African Americans
  • The earlier-cited specific BP-reduction figures (6.3 mmHg in variant alleles vs 10.5 mmHg wild-type) and the specific "70–90% reduction in active metabolite" magnitude were tied to a specific clinical study citation that was wrongly dated; the underlying principle (CYP2C9 polymorphisms reduce losartan efficacy) is supported but the exact magnitudes should be verified against full-text Lee 2002 or other primary sources before external quotation.

Uricosuric Properties — Corrected 2026-04-29

Clinical Pearl: Losartan and Gout

Losartan is unique among ARBs and ACEi in having clinically significant uricosuric properties via URAT1 inhibition. Hamada T et al. Am J Hypertens 2008 (PMID 18670416) demonstrated the URAT1-mediated mechanism in 41 patients (32 hypertensive + 9 with idiopathic renal hypouricemia) — losartan lowered serum urate; candesartan did not.

Choi HK et al. BMJ 2012;344:d8190 (PMID 22240117) — UK case-control study of 24,768 incident gout cases — reported the actual clinical effect: losartan RR 0.81 (95% CI 0.70–0.94) for incident gout, i.e., approximately 19% RRR. Effect strengthens with longer use: RR 0.71 at ≥2 years. ARR and NNT depend on baseline gout incidence and were not published as population-level figures in Choi 2012.

Correction: An earlier version of this pearl claimed "25–30% relative reduction in gout incidence (ARR 1.2% over 5 years)." The actual Choi 2012 RRR is 19%, not 25–30%; the ARR and NNT figures were derived estimates, not primary findings. The "0.6–1.1 mg/dL serum urate reduction" widely cited from Hamada 2008 is consistent with the qualitative mechanism but the specific magnitude is not directly extractable from the abstract — full-text verification recommended.

Comparative context from Choi 2012: diuretics RR 2.36 (over 2x gout risk), beta-blockers RR 1.48, ACEi RR 1.24, non-losartan ARBs RR 1.29 — losartan stands alone among RAAS blockers in actually lowering gout risk.

Extended Half-Life Agents for 24-Hour Coverage

Agent Half-Life Key Advantage CKD Impact
Amlodipine35–50 hrHighest T:P ratio (85–90%). Effective at 48–72 hr post-dose.No change (90% hepatic)
Telmisartan~24 hrLongest ARB t½. T:P 77% at 24 hr, 65% at 36 hr.Minimal (>97% hepatic)
Chlorthalidone40–60 hr24-hr SBP effect 45% greater than HCTZ.Reduced efficacy below eGFR 30
Olmesartan12–18 hrHighest AT1 binding affinity. Insurmountable binding. T:P ~70%.Minimal (60% hepatobiliary)

Thiazide-Induced Hyponatremia: Risks and Mitigation

Thiazide-induced hyponatremia (TIH) is one of the most clinically significant adverse effects of this drug class. Across observational cohorts the prevalence of any hyponatremia (Na <135) in thiazide users ranges from 4–30% depending on threshold and population studied; clinically significant hyponatremia (Na <130) is less common but meaningful, particularly in elderly patients. Severe hyponatremia (Na <125) carries appreciable mortality, especially with rapid onset or rapid overcorrection — Sonnenblick's case-series review of 129 reported cases identified 12 deaths directly related to hyponatremia.14

Risk Factors — What the Primary Source Actually Says

The canonical case-control study is Chow KM et al., QJM 2003 (PMID 14631057) — 223 hospitalized cases of symptomatic TIH vs 216 thiazide-using controls. Multivariable logistic regression identified only three independent predictors:

Risk Factor (Chow 2003) Effect
Each 10-year increment in ageHR 2.14 (1.59–2.88)
Each 5 kg increment in body weightOR 0.77 (0.68–0.87) — lower body weight = higher risk
Each SD (0.84 mmol/L) increase in serum potassiumOR 0.37 (0.27–0.50) — hypokalemia = higher risk
Important: Chow 2003 Did NOT Find Female Sex as a Predictor

An earlier version of this page listed female sex (OR 2.7), SSRI use (OR 2.8), NSAID use (OR 1.8), and baseline Na <140 (OR 2.1) as Chow-derived risk factors. That table was fabricated. Chow's actual paper explicitly states that gender, duration of thiazide use, concomitant therapy with loop diuretics/ACE inhibitors/NSAIDs, and renal function were not significant predictors after multivariable adjustment. Female sex and SSRI/NSAID concomitancy are plausibly TIH risk factors based on broader clinical literature (Liamis et al. J Geriatr Cardiol 2016, PMID 27168745; Filippone et al. AJKD 2020, PMID 31606239) but they are not from Chow's data.

The Fluid Intake Paradox — Mechanism, Not RCT

The advice to "push fluids" on thiazides is mechanistically wrong: thiazides impair urinary dilution by inhibiting the distal Na-Cl cotransporter while preserving the medullary concentration gradient, so excess water intake worsens hyponatremia rather than helping.15 The principle of avoiding excess fluid intake on thiazides is supported by:

  • Mechanism (Filippone 2020 catalogues impaired free-water excretion + osmotic inactivation as core pathophysiology)
  • Single-dose rechallenge data (Friedman et al. Ann Intern Med 1989, PMID 2491733) demonstrating polydipsia/weight gain after thiazide drives serum sodium decline
  • Case-series observation (Sonnenblick Chest 1993, PMID 8432162) identifying excess water intake in the majority of severe TIH cases
  • Management guideline (Filippone 2020 lists oral fluid restriction as a cornerstone of TIH management)

What we cannot honestly claim: An earlier version of this page cited an "RCT showing fluid restriction <1.5 L/day vs ad libitum produced 62% lower hyponatremia (5.2% vs 13.7%, ARR 8.5%)." That trial does not exist — PubMed search returns no such RCT. The principle of fluid moderation on thiazides is correct; the specific RCT-derived ARR is not.

Benefit vs Harm — Honest Framing

The benefit-risk equation for thiazides is favorable in most patients but inverts in specific populations. Honest framing:

  • Benefit = BP reduction × baseline CV risk. Thiazides produce 8–10 mm Hg SBP reduction in adherent users. Applying the verified Ettehad 2016 per-10-mmHg RRRs (20% MACE, 27% stroke, 28% HF, 13% mortality) to a typical hypertensive's baseline event rate yields modeled 5-year ARR of 1–3% across these outcomes — useful but extrapolated.
  • Harm = Hyponatremia × Chow-verified risk factors (age, low body weight, hypokalemia) plus broader-literature risk factors (female sex, SSRI/NSAID concomitancy, comorbid HF/liver/malignancy).
  • Net assessment varies by population. Favorable in younger patients without risk factors. Often unfavorable in elderly women with multiple risk factors — consider non-thiazide first-line (DHP CCB, ACEi, ARB) in that subgroup. Closer monitoring (sodium at baseline, 1–2 weeks, then routinely) is reasonable when thiazide is chosen in higher-risk patients.

What we will not display: An earlier version of this page included specific NNT/NNH ratios (NNT 77 to prevent one death; NNH 18–22 for clinically significant hyponatremia; "1:4 unfavorable ratio in elderly women"). Those specific numbers were derived from source data we have shown to be fabricated and have been removed pending verified primary-source numbers.

Key References

  1. Unger T, Borghi C, Charchar F, et al. 2020 ISH global hypertension practice guidelines. J Hypertens. 2020;38(6):982-1004.
  2. Stergiou GS, Palatini P, Parati G, et al. 2021 ESH practice guidelines for office and out-of-office BP measurement. J Hypertens. 2021;39(7):1293-1302.
  3. Whelton PK, Carey RM, Aronow WS, et al. 2020 Update of the 2017 ACC/AHA Guideline for HTN. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;75(23):2996-3009.
  4. Kario K, Thijs L, Staessen JA. Morning surge in blood pressure and cardiovascular risk. Hypertension. 2022;80(1):232-246.
  5. Ettehad D, Emdin CA, Kiran A, et al. Blood pressure lowering for prevention of cardiovascular disease and death: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2016;387(10022):957-967. [PubMed]
  6. Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration (Rahimi K, et al.). Pharmacological blood pressure lowering for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease across different levels of blood pressure: an individual participant-level data meta-analysis. Lancet. 2021;397(10285):1625-1636. [PubMed]
  7. SPRINT Research Group. A randomized trial of intensive versus standard blood-pressure control. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(22):2103-2116. [PubMed]
  8. SPRINT Research Group. Final report of a trial of intensive versus standard blood-pressure control. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(20):1921-1930. [PubMed]
  9. ONTARGET Investigators. Telmisartan, ramipril, or both in high-risk vascular patients. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(15):1547-1559. [PubMed]
  10. Vukadinović D, Vukadinović AN, Lavall D, Laufs U, Wagenpfeil S, Böhm M. Rate of Cough During Treatment With Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trials. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2019;105(3):652-660. [PubMed] PMID corrected 2026-04-29 from wrong PMID 30395340.
  11. Makani H, Messerli FH, Romero J, et al. Meta-analysis of randomized trials of angioedema as an adverse event of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors. Am J Cardiol. 2012;110(3):383-391. [PubMed] Added 2026-04-29 as primary source for ACEi/ARB angioedema rates.
  12. Hoyer J, Schulte KL, Lenz T. Clinical pharmacokinetics of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors in renal failure. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1993;24(3):230-254. [PubMed] Added 2026-04-29 as canonical source for ACEi PK in CKD; replaces fabricated "Kugler 2021" reference.
  13. Hamada T, Ichida K, Hosoyamada M, et al. Uricosuric action of losartan via the inhibition of urate transporter 1 (URAT1) in hypertensive patients. Am J Hypertens. 2008;21(10):1157-1162. [PubMed] Date corrected 2026-04-29 from "2019".
  14. Choi HK, Soriano LC, Zhang Y, García Rodríguez LA. Antihypertensive drugs and risk of incident gout among patients with hypertension: population based case-control study. BMJ. 2012;344:d8190. [PubMed] Date corrected 2026-04-29 from "2021"; gout-RRR figure corrected from "25-30%" to actual 19% (RR 0.81).
  15. Chow KM, Szeto CC, Wong TY, et al. Risk factors for thiazide-induced hyponatraemia. QJM. 2003;96(12):911-917. [PubMed] Date corrected 2026-04-29 from "2022".
  16. Sonnenblick M, Friedlander Y, Rosin AJ. Diuretic-induced severe hyponatremia. Review and analysis of 129 reported patients. Chest. 1993;103(2):601-606. [PubMed] Replacement 2026-04-29 for unverifiable "Sonnenblick BMC Geriatr 2021".
  17. Filippone EJ, Ruzieh M, Foy A. Thiazide-Associated Hyponatremia: Clinical Manifestations and Pathophysiology. Am J Kidney Dis. 2020;75(2):256-264. [PubMed]
  18. Friedman E, Shadel M, Halkin H, Farfel Z. Thiazide-induced hyponatremia: reproducibility by single dose rechallenge and an analysis of pathogenesis. Ann Intern Med. 1989;110(1):24-30. [PubMed] Date corrected 2026-04-29 from "2022".
  19. Liamis G, Filippatos TD, Elisaf MS. Thiazide-associated hyponatremia in the elderly: what the clinician needs to know. J Geriatr Cardiol. 2016;13(2):175-182. [PubMed] Added 2026-04-29 as canonical TIH-in-elderly review.
  20. Williams B, et al. PATHWAY-2: spironolactone for resistant HTN. Lancet. 2015;386(10008):2059-2068. [PubMed]
  21. Williams B, Mancia G, Spiering W, et al. 2018 ESC/ESH Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension. Eur Heart J. 2018;39(33):3021-3104. [PubMed] Date/volume/pages corrected 2026-04-29 from "2022;43(41):3420-3490".

Also on this topic

The same subject at other levels of depth.