Allopurinol and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischaemic heart disease:the ALL-HEART RCT and economic evaluation

Background: Allopurinol is a xanthine oxidase inhibitor that lowers serum uric acid and is used to prevent acute gout flares in patients with gout. Observational and small interventional studies have suggested beneficial cardiovascular effects of allopurinol. Objective: To determine whether allopurinol improves major cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischaemic heart disease. Design: Prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded endpoint multicentre clinical trial. Setting: Four hundred and twenty-four UK primary care practices. Participants: Aged 60 years and over with ischaemic heart disease but no gout. Interventions: Participants were randomised (1: 1) using a central web-based randomisation system to receive allopurinol up to 600 mg daily that was added to usual care or to continue usual care. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the composite of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke or cardiovascular death. Secondary outcomes were non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, hospitalisation for heart failure, hospitalisation for acute coronary syndrome, coronary revascularisation, hospitalisation for acute coronary syndrome or coronary revascularisation, all cardiovascular hospitalisations, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. The hazard ratio (allopurinol vs. usual care) in a Cox proportional hazards model was assessed for superiority in a modified intention-to-treat analysis. Results: From 7 February 2014 to 2 October 2017, 5937 participants were enrolled and randomised to the allopurinol arm (n = 2979) or the usual care arm (n = 2958). A total of 5721 randomised participants (2853 allopurinol; 2868 usual care) were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis population (mean age 72.0 years; 75.5% male). There was no difference between the allopurinol and usual care arms in the primary endpoint, 314 (11.0%) participants in the allopurinol arm (2.47 events per 100 patient-years) and 325 (11.3%) in the usual care arm (2.37 events per 100 patient-years), hazard ratio 1.04 (95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.21); p = 0.65. Two hundred and eighty-eight (10.1%) participants in the allopurinol arm and 303 (10.6%) participants in the usual care arm died, hazard ratio 1.02 (95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.20); p = 0.77. The pre-specified health economic analysis plan was to perform a ‘within trial’ cost-utility analysis if there was no statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint, so NHS costs and quality-adjusted life-years were estimated over a 5-year period. The difference in costs between treatment arms was +£115 higher for allopurinol (95% confidence interval £17 to £210) with no difference in quality-adjusted life-years (95% confidence interval −0.061 to +0.060). We conclude that there is no evidence that allopurinol used in line with the study protocol is cost-effective. Limitations: The results may not be generalisable to younger populations, other ethnic groups or patients with more acute ischaemic heart disease. One thousand six hundred and thirty-seven participants (57.4%) in the allopurinol arm withdrew from randomised treatment, but an on-treatment analysis gave similar results to the main analysis. Conclusions: The ALL-HEART study showed that treatment with allopurinol 600 mg daily did not improve cardiovascular outcomes compared to usual care in patients with ischaemic heart disease. We conclude that allopurinol should not be recommended for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with ischaemic heart disease but no gout.</p

Allopurinol and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischaemic heart disease : the ALL-HEART RCT and economic evaluation

Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 11/36/41) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 18. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.Peer reviewe

Allopurinol versus usual care in UK patients with ischaemic heart disease (ALL-HEART): a multicentre, prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint trial

BACKGROUND: Allopurinol is a urate-lowering therapy used to treat patients with gout. Previous studies have shown that allopurinol has positive effects on several cardiovascular parameters. The ALL-HEART study aimed to determine whether allopurinol therapy improves major cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischaemic heart disease. METHODS: ALL-HEART was a multicentre, prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint trial done in 18 regional centres in England and Scotland, with patients recruited from 424 primary care practices. Eligible patients were aged 60 years or older, with ischaemic heart disease but no history of gout. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), using a central web-based randomisation system accessed via a web-based application or an interactive voice response system, to receive oral allopurinol up-titrated to a dose of 600 mg daily (300 mg daily in participants with moderate renal impairment at baseline) or to continue usual care. The primary outcome was the composite cardiovascular endpoint of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or cardiovascular death. The hazard ratio (allopurinol vs usual care) in a Cox proportional hazards model was assessed for superiority in a modified intention-to-treat analysis (excluding randomly assigned patients later found to have met one of the exclusion criteria). The safety analysis population included all patients in the modified intention-to-treat usual care group and those who took at least one dose of randomised medication in the allopurinol group. This study is registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register, EudraCT 2013-003559-39, and ISRCTN, ISRCTN32017426. FINDINGS: Between Feb 7, 2014, and Oct 2, 2017, 5937 participants were enrolled and then randomly assigned to receive allopurinol or usual care. After exclusion of 216 patients after randomisation, 5721 participants (mean age 72·0 years [SD 6·8], 4321 [75·5%] males, and 5676 [99·2%] white) were included in the modified intention-to-treat population, with 2853 in the allopurinol group and 2868 in the usual care group. Mean follow-up time in the study was 4·8 years (1·5). There was no evidence of a difference between the randomised treatment groups in the rates of the primary endpoint. 314 (11·0%) participants in the allopurinol group (2·47 events per 100 patient-years) and 325 (11·3%) in the usual care group (2·37 events per 100 patient-years) had a primary endpoint (hazard ratio [HR] 1·04 [95% CI 0·89-1·21], p=0·65). 288 (10·1%) participants in the allopurinol group and 303 (10·6%) participants in the usual care group died from any cause (HR 1·02 [95% CI 0·87-1·20], p=0·77). INTERPRETATION: In this large, randomised clinical trial in patients aged 60 years or older with ischaemic heart disease but no history of gout, there was no difference in the primary outcome of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or cardiovascular death between participants randomised to allopurinol therapy and those randomised to usual care. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research

Allopurinol and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischaemic heart disease: the ALL-HEART RCT and economic evaluation

Background: Allopurinol is a xanthine oxidase inhibitor that lowers serum uric acid and is used to prevent acute gout flares in patients with gout. Observational and small interventional studies have suggested beneficial cardiovascular effects of allopurinol. Objective: To determine whether allopurinol improves major cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischaemic heart disease. Design: Prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded endpoint multicentre clinical trial. Setting: Four hundred and twenty-four UK primary care practices. Participants: Aged 60 years and over with ischaemic heart disease but no gout. Interventions: Participants were randomised (1 : 1) using a central web-based randomisation system to receive allopurinol up to 600 mg daily that was added to usual care or to continue usual care. Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was the composite of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke or cardiovascular death. Secondary outcomes were non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, hospitalisation for heart failure, hospitalisation for acute coronary syndrome, coronary revascularisation, hospitalisation for acute coronary syndrome or coronary revascularisation, all cardiovascular hospitalisations, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. The hazard ratio (allopurinol vs. usual care) in a Cox proportional hazards model was assessed for superiority in a modified intention-to-treat analysis. Results: From 7 February 2014 to 2 October 2017, 5937 participants were enrolled and randomised to the allopurinol arm ( = 2979) or the usual care arm ( = 2958). A total of 5721 randomised participants (2853 allopurinol; 2868 usual care) were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis population (mean age 72.0 years; 75.5% male). There was no difference between the allopurinol and usual care arms in the primary endpoint, 314 (11.0%) participants in the allopurinol arm (2.47 events per 100 patient-years) and 325 (11.3%) in the usual care arm (2.37 events per 100 patient-years), hazard ratio 1.04 (95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.21); = 0.65. Two hundred and eighty-eight (10.1%) participants in the allopurinol arm and 303 (10.6%) participants in the usual care arm died, hazard ratio 1.02 (95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.20); = 0.77. The pre-specified health economic analysis plan was to perform a 'within trial' cost-utility analysis if there was no statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint, so NHS costs and quality-adjusted life-years were estimated over a 5-year period. The difference in costs between treatment arms was +£115 higher for allopurinol (95% confidence interval £17 to £210) with no difference in quality-adjusted life-years (95% confidence interval -0.061 to +0.060). We conclude that there is no evidence that allopurinol used in line with the study protocol is cost-effective. Limitations: The results may not be generalisable to younger populations, other ethnic groups or patients with more acute ischaemic heart disease. One thousand six hundred and thirty-seven participants (57.4%) in the allopurinol arm withdrew from randomised treatment, but an on-treatment analysis gave similar results to the main analysis. Conclusions: The ALL-HEART study showed that treatment with allopurinol 600 mg daily did not improve cardiovascular outcomes compared to usual care in patients with ischaemic heart disease. We conclude that allopurinol should not be recommended for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with ischaemic heart disease but no gout. Future Work: The effects of allopurinol on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischaemic heart disease and co-existing hyperuricaemia or clinical gout could be explored in future studies. Trial Registration: This trial is registered as EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT 2013-003559-39) and ISRCTN (ISRCTN 32017426)

Allopurinol versus usual care in UK patients with ischaemic heart disease (ALL-HEART): a multicentre, prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint trial.

Allopurinol is a urate-lowering therapy used to treat patients with gout. Previous studies have shown that allopurinol has positive effects on several cardiovascular parameters. The ALL-HEART study aimed to determine whether allopurinol therapy improves major cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischaemic heart disease. ALL-HEART was a multicentre, prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint trial done in 18 regional centres in England and Scotland, with patients recruited from 424 primary care practices. Eligible patients were aged 60 years or older, with ischaemic heart disease but no history of gout. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), using a central web-based randomisation system accessed via a web-based application or an interactive voice response system, to receive oral allopurinol up-titrated to a dose of 600 mg daily (300 mg daily in participants with moderate renal impairment at baseline) or to continue usual care. The primary outcome was the composite cardiovascular endpoint of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or cardiovascular death. The hazard ratio (allopurinol vs usual care) in a Cox proportional hazards model was assessed for superiority in a modified intention-to-treat analysis (excluding randomly assigned patients later found to have met one of the exclusion criteria). The safety analysis population included all patients in the modified intention-to-treat usual care group and those who took at least one dose of randomised medication in the allopurinol group. This study is registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register, EudraCT 2013-003559-39, and ISRCTN, ISRCTN32017426. Between Feb 7, 2014, and Oct 2, 2017, 5937 participants were enrolled and then randomly assigned to receive allopurinol or usual care. After exclusion of 216 patients after randomisation, 5721 participants (mean age 72·0 years [SD 6·8], 4321 [75·5%] males, and 5676 [99·2%] white) were included in the modified intention-to-treat population, with 2853 in the allopurinol group and 2868 in the usual care group. Mean follow-up time in the study was 4·8 years (1·5). There was no evidence of a difference between the randomised treatment groups in the rates of the primary endpoint. 314 (11·0%) participants in the allopurinol group (2·47 events per 100 patient-years) and 325 (11·3%) in the usual care group (2·37 events per 100 patient-years) had a primary endpoint (hazard ratio [HR] 1·04 [95% CI 0·89-1·21], p=0·65). 288 (10·1%) participants in the allopurinol group and 303 (10·6%) participants in the usual care group died from any cause (HR 1·02 [95% CI 0·87-1·20], p=0·77). In this large, randomised clinical trial in patients aged 60 years or older with ischaemic heart disease but no history of gout, there was no difference in the primary outcome of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or cardiovascular death between participants randomised to allopurinol therapy and those randomised to usual care. UK National Institute for Health and Care Research. [Abstract copyright: Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Allopurinol versus usual care in UK patients with ischaemic heart disease (ALL-HEART) : a multicentre, prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint trial

Funding Information: ISM reports research grants from Menarini, EMA, Sanofi, Health Data Research UK, the British Heart Foundation, and Innovative Medicines Initiative; institutional consultancy income from AstraZeneca outside the submitted work; and personal income from AstraZeneca and Amgen outside the submitted work. TMM reports grants from Menarini/Ipsen/Teijin and Merck Sharp & Dohme outside the submitted work, and personal income for consultancy from Novartis and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work, and is a trustee of the Scottish Heart Arterial Risk Prevention Society. AGB reports personal income from Novartis, Mylan, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Daiichi-Sankyo, Boehringer, Pfizer, Galderma, Zambon, and Novo-Nordisk outside the submitted work. ADS and the University of Dundee hold a European patent for the use of xanthine oxidase inhibitors in treating chest pain in angina pectoris. AW declares personal income for consultancy from AbbVie, Akcea, Albireo, Alexion, Allergan, Amarin, Apsara, Arena, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Autolus, Bayer, Biocryst, Biogen, Biomarin, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Calico, Celgene, Chiesi, Daiichi Sankyo, Diurnal, Elsai, Eli Lilly, Ferring, Galapagos, Gedeon Richter, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, GW Pharma, Idorsia, Incyte, Intercept, Ionis, Ipsen, Janssen, Jazz, Jcyte, Kite Gilead, LEK, Leo Pharma, Les Laboratoires Servier, Lundbeck, Merck (Merck Sharp & Dohme), Merck-Serono, Mitenyi, Mundibiopharma, Mustang Bio, Mylan, Myovant, Norgine, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Orchard, Paion, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, PTC, RegenXBio, Rhythm, Sanofi, Santen, Sarepta, SeaGen, Shionogi, Sigmatec, SOBI, Takeda, Tanaya, UCB, and Vertex outside the submitted work. JST declares research funding from the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) and NHS England outside the submitted work and membership of a UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline committee on management of atrial fibrillation. All other authors declare no competing interests. Funding Information: This study was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme (HTA 11/36/41 to ISM, IF, CJH, LW, ADS, AGB, AJA, AW, JST, and TMM). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the UK Department of Health and Social Care. The study was supported by the Scottish Primary Care Research Network, Support for Science Scotland (Grampian, Highlands, Tayside, Fife, Forth Valley, Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Lothian, Ayrshire and Arran, Dumfries and Galloway, and Lanarkshire), and the NIHR Local Clinical Research Networks (East Midlands, West Midlands, Eastern, North Thames, Yorkshire and Humber, North East and North Cumbria, North West Coast, Kent, Surrey and Sussex, and South West Peninsula), which assisted with recruitment and other study activities. We thank Public Health Scotland and NHS Digital for providing data linkage. We thank all the participants, physicians, nurses, and other staff who participated in the ALL-HEART study. Funding Information: This study was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme (HTA 11/36/41 to ISM, IF, CJH, LW, ADS, AGB, AJA, AW, JST, and TMM). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the UK Department of Health and Social Care. The study was supported by the Scottish Primary Care Research Network, Support for Science Scotland (Grampian, Highlands, Tayside, Fife, Forth Valley, Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Lothian, Ayrshire and Arran, Dumfries and Galloway, and Lanarkshire), and the NIHR Local Clinical Research Networks (East Midlands, West Midlands, Eastern, North Thames, Yorkshire and Humber, North East and North Cumbria, North West Coast, Kent, Surrey and Sussex, and South West Peninsula), which assisted with recruitment and other study activities. We thank Public Health Scotland and NHS Digital for providing data linkage. We thank all the participants, physicians, nurses, and other staff who participated in the ALL-HEART study. Publisher Copyright: © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 licensePeer reviewedPublisher PD

Allopurinol versus usual care in UK patients with ischaemic heart disease (ALL-HEART): a multicentre, prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint trial

BACKGROUND: Allopurinol is a urate-lowering therapy used to treat patients with gout. Previous studies have shown that allopurinol has positive effects on several cardiovascular parameters. The ALL-HEART study aimed to determine whether allopurinol therapy improves major cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischaemic heart disease. METHODS: ALL-HEART was a multicentre, prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint trial done in 18 regional centres in England and Scotland, with patients recruited from 424 primary care practices. Eligible patients were aged 60 years or older, with ischaemic heart disease but no history of gout. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), using a central web-based randomisation system accessed via a web-based application or an interactive voice response system, to receive oral allopurinol up-titrated to a dose of 600 mg daily (300 mg daily in participants with moderate renal impairment at baseline) or to continue usual care. The primary outcome was the composite cardiovascular endpoint of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or cardiovascular death. The hazard ratio (allopurinol vs usual care) in a Cox proportional hazards model was assessed for superiority in a modified intention-to-treat analysis (excluding randomly assigned patients later found to have met one of the exclusion criteria). The safety analysis population included all patients in the modified intention-to-treat usual care group and those who took at least one dose of randomised medication in the allopurinol group. This study is registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register, EudraCT 2013-003559-39, and ISRCTN, ISRCTN32017426. FINDINGS: Between Feb 7, 2014, and Oct 2, 2017, 5937 participants were enrolled and then randomly assigned to receive allopurinol or usual care. After exclusion of 216 patients after randomisation, 5721 participants (mean age 72·0 years [SD 6·8], 4321 [75·5%] males, and 5676 [99·2%] white) were included in the modified intention-to-treat population, with 2853 in the allopurinol group and 2868 in the usual care group. Mean follow-up time in the study was 4·8 years (1·5). There was no evidence of a difference between the randomised treatment groups in the rates of the primary endpoint. 314 (11·0%) participants in the allopurinol group (2·47 events per 100 patient-years) and 325 (11·3%) in the usual care group (2·37 events per 100 patient-years) had a primary endpoint (hazard ratio [HR] 1·04 [95% CI 0·89–1·21], p=0·65). 288 (10·1%) participants in the allopurinol group and 303 (10·6%) participants in the usual care group died from any cause (HR 1·02 [95% CI 0·87–1·20], p=0·77). INTERPRETATION: In this large, randomised clinical trial in patients aged 60 years or older with ischaemic heart disease but no history of gout, there was no difference in the primary outcome of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or cardiovascular death between participants randomised to allopurinol therapy and those randomised to usual care. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research

Evaluating the Effects of SARS-CoV-2 Spike Mutation D614G on Transmissibility and Pathogenicity.

Global dispersal and increasing frequency of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein variant D614G are suggestive of a selective advantage but may also be due to a random founder effect. We investigate the hypothesis for positive selection of spike D614G in the United Kingdom using more than 25,000 whole genome SARS-CoV-2 sequences. Despite the availability of a large dataset, well represented by both spike 614 variants, not all approaches showed a conclusive signal of positive selection. Population genetic analysis indicates that 614G increases in frequency relative to 614D in a manner consistent with a selective advantage. We do not find any indication that patients infected with the spike 614G variant have higher COVID-19 mortality or clinical severity, but 614G is associated with higher viral load and younger age of patients. Significant differences in growth and size of 614G phylogenetic clusters indicate a need for continued study of this variant

Evaluating the Effects of SARS-CoV-2 Spike Mutation D614G on Transmissibility and Pathogenicity

Global dispersal and increasing frequency of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein variant D614G are suggestive of a selective advantage but may also be due to a random founder effect. We investigate the hypothesis for positive selection of spike D614G in the United Kingdom using more than 25,000 whole genome SARS-CoV-2 sequences. Despite the availability of a large dataset, well represented by both spike 614 variants, not all approaches showed a conclusive signal of positive selection. Population genetic analysis indicates that 614G increases in frequency relative to 614D in a manner consistent with a selective advantage. We do not find any indication that patients infected with the spike 614G variant have higher COVID-19 mortality or clinical severity, but 614G is associated with higher viral load and younger age of patients. Significant differences in growth and size of 614G phylogenetic clusters indicate a need for continued study of this variant

Dopamine agonists in animal models of Parkinson's disease:A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Parkinson's disease (PD) can be a severely disabling condition in spite of therapies currently available. Systematic review and meta-analysis can provide an overview of a field of research and identify potential sources of bias and limits to efficacy. In this study we use these tools to describe the reported efficacy of dopamine agonists in animal models of PD.Methods: Publications were identified by electronic searching of three online databases. Data were extracted for neurobehavioural outcome, for study design and for the reporting of measures to avoid bias. Standardised mean difference meta-analysis was used to provide summary estimates of efficacy, with the effects of study quality and study design explored using stratified meta-analysis.Results: 253 publications reported the use of a dopamine agonist in an animal model of PD; of these 121 reported data suitable for inclusion in meta-analysis. 47 interventions were tested in 601 experiments using 4181 animals. Overall, neurobehavioural outcome was improved by 1.08 standard deviations (SD; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.97-1.19). Reporting of measures to reduce bias was low and publications which reported the blinded assessment of outcome had significantly smaller effect sizes (0.85, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.07) than those which did not (1.18, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.31, p &lt; 0.005).Conclusions: While dopamine agonists do appear to have efficacy in animal models of PD the low prevalence of reporting of measures to avoid bias is of concern. Systematic review of individual interventions may be helpful in the design of future preclinical and clinical trials.</p