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. 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). 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.

The purpose of the ALL-HEART study was to determine whether giving allopurinol to people with ischaemic heart disease (also commonly known as coronary heart disease) would reduce their risk of having a heart attack, stroke or of dying from cardiovascular disease. Allopurinol is a medication usually given to patients with gout to prevent acute gout flares. It is not currently used to treat ischaemic heart disease. We randomly allocated people aged over 60 years with ischaemic heart disease to take up to 600 mg of allopurinol daily (in addition to their usual care) or to continue with their usual care. We then monitored participants for several years and recorded any major health events such as heart attacks, strokes and deaths. We obtained most of the follow-up data from centrally held electronic hospital admissions and death records, making the study easier for participants and more cost-efficient. We asked participants in both groups to complete questionnaires to assess their quality of life during the study. We also collected data to determine whether there was any economic benefit to the NHS of using allopurinol in patients with ischaemic heart disease. There was no difference in the risk of heart attacks, strokes or death from cardiovascular disease between the participants given allopurinol and those in the group continuing their usual care. We also found no difference in the risks of other cardiovascular events, deaths from any cause or quality-of-life measurements between the allopurinol and usual care groups. The results of the ALL-HEART study suggest that we should not recommend that allopurinol be given to people with ischaemic heart disease to prevent further cardiovascular events or deaths.

Predictors of incomplete COVID-19 vaccine schedule among adults in Scotland: Two retrospective cohort analyses of the primary schedule and third dose.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination continues to be the key public health measure for preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes. Certain groups may be at higher risk of incomplete vaccine schedule, which may leave them vulnerable to COVID-19 hospitalisation and death. AIM: To identify the sociodemographic and clinical predictors for not receiving a scheduled COVID-19 vaccine after previously receiving one. METHODS: We conducted two retrospective cohort studies with ≥3.7 million adults aged ≥18 years in Scotland. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (aOR) of not receiving a second, and separately a third dose between December 2020 and May 2022. Independent variables included sociodemographic and clinical factors. RESULTS: Of 3,826,797 people in the study population who received one dose, 3,732,596 (97.5%) received two doses, and 3,263,153 (86.5%) received all doses available during the study period. The most strongly associated predictors for not receiving the second dose were: being aged 18-29 (reference: 50-59 years; aOR:4.26; 95% confidence interval (CI):4.14-4.37); hospitalisation due to a potential vaccine related adverse event of special interest (AESI) (reference: not having a potential AESI, aOR:3.78; 95%CI: 3.29-4.35); and living in the most deprived quintile (reference: least deprived quintile, aOR:3.24; 95%CI: 3.16-3.32). The most strongly associated predictors for not receiving the third dose were: being 18-29 (reference: 50-59 years aOR:4.44; 95%CI: 4.38-4.49), living in the most deprived quintile (reference: least deprived quintile aOR:2.56; 95%CI: 2.53-2.59), and Black, Caribbean, or African ethnicity (reference: White ethnicity aOR:2.38; 95%CI: 2.30-2.46). Pregnancy, previous vaccination with mRNA-1273, smoking history, individual and household severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) positivity, and having an unvaccinated adult in the household were also associated with incomplete vaccine schedule. CONCLUSION: We observed several risk factors that predict incomplete COVID-19 vaccination schedule. Vaccination programmes must take immediate action to ensure maximum uptake, particularly for populations vulnerable to severe COVID-19 outcomes.

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.

Earlier diagnosis of lung cancer in a randomised trial of an autoantibody blood test followed by imaging.

The EarlyCDT-Lung test is a high-specificity blood-based autoantibody biomarker that could contribute to predicting lung cancer risk. We report on the results of a phase IV biomarker evaluation of whether using the EarlyCDT-Lung test and any subsequent computed tomography (CT) scanning to identify those at high risk of lung cancer reduces the incidence of patients with stage III/IV/unspecified lung cancer at diagnosis compared with the standard clinical practice at the time the study began.The Early Diagnosis of Lung Cancer Scotland (ECLS) trial was a randomised controlled trial of 12 208 participants at risk of developing lung cancer in Scotland in the UK. The intervention arm received the EarlyCDT-Lung test and, if test-positive, low-dose CT scanning 6-monthly for up to 2 years. EarlyCDT-Lung test-negative and control arm participants received standard clinical care. Outcomes were assessed at 2 years post-randomisation using validated data on cancer occurrence, cancer staging, mortality and comorbidities.At 2 years, 127 lung cancers were detected in the study population (1.0%). In the intervention arm, 33 out of 56 (58.9%) lung cancers were diagnosed at stage III/IV compared with 52 out of 71 (73.2%) in the control arm. The hazard ratio for stage III/IV presentation was 0.64 (95% CI 0.41-0.99). There were nonsignificant differences in lung cancer and all-cause mortality after 2 years.ECLS compared EarlyCDT-Lung plus CT screening to standard clinical care (symptomatic presentation) and was not designed to assess the incremental contribution of the EarlyCDT-Lung test. The observation of a stage shift towards earlier-stage lung cancer diagnosis merits further investigations to evaluate whether the EarlyCDT-Lung test adds anything to the emerging standard of low-dose CT.

Reducing the time before consulting with symptoms of lung cancer: a randomised controlled trial in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Most individuals with lung cancer have symptoms for several months before presenting to their GP. Earlier consulting may improve survival. AIM: To evaluate whether a theory-based primary care intervention increased timely consulting of individuals with symptoms of lung cancer. DESIGN AND SETTING: Open randomised controlled trial comparing intervention with usual care in two general practices in north-east Scotland. METHOD: Smokers and ex-smokers aged ≥55 years were randomised to receive a behavioural intervention or usual care. The intervention comprised a single nurse consultation at participants' general practice and a self-help manual. The main outcomes were consultations within target times for individuals with new chest symptoms (≤3 days haemoptysis, ≤3 weeks other symptoms) in the year after the intervention commenced, and intentions about consulting with chest symptoms at 1 and 6 months. RESULTS: Two hundred and twelve participants were randomised and 206 completed the trial. The consultation rate for new chest symptoms in the intervention group was 1.19 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.92 to 1.53; P = 0.18) times higher than in the usual-care group and the proportion of consultations within the target time was 1.11 (95% CI = 0.41 to 3.03; P = 0.83) times higher. One month after the intervention commenced, the intervention group reported intending to consult with chest symptoms 31 days (95% CI = 7 to 54; P = 0.012) earlier than the usual care group, and at 6 months this was 25 days (95% CI = 1.5 to 48; P = 0.037) earlier. CONCLUSION: Behavioural intervention in primary care shortened the time individuals at high risk of lung disease intended to take before consulting with new chest symptoms (the secondary outcome of the study), but increases in consultation rates and the proportions of consultations within target times were not statistically significant.

Developing a complex intervention to reduce time to presentation with symptoms of lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the commonest cause of cancer in Scotland and is usually advanced at diagnosis. Median time between symptom onset and consultation is 14 weeks, so an intervention to prompt earlier presentation could support earlier diagnosis and enable curative treatment in more cases. AIM: To develop and optimise an intervention to reduce the time between onset and first consultation with symptoms that might indicate lung cancer. DESIGN AND SETTING: Iterative development of complex healthcare intervention according to the MRC Framework conducted in Northeast Scotland. METHOD: The study produced a complex intervention to promote early presentation of lung cancer symptoms. An expert multidisciplinary group developed the first draft of the intervention based on theory and existing evidence. This was refined following focus groups with health professionals and high-risk patients. RESULTS: First draft intervention components included: information communicated persuasively, demonstrations of early consultation and its benefits, behaviour change techniques, and involvement of spouses/partners. Focus groups identified patient engagement, achieving behavioural change, and conflict at the patient-general practice interface as challenges and measures were incorporated to tackle these. Final intervention delivery included a detailed self-help manual and extended consultation with a trained research nurse at which specific action plans were devised. CONCLUSION: The study has developed an intervention that appeals to patients and health professionals and has theoretical potential for benefit. Now it requires evaluation.

Targeted screening for peripheral arterial disease in general practice: a pilot study in a high risk group.

BACKGROUND: Screening of high-risk groups for peripheral arterial disease has been advocated because the condition underdiagnosed and secondary prevention can reduce cardiovascular event rates. AIM: To establish the feasibility of screening for peripheral arterial disease in people aged 60 years or over with hypertension, and to estimate the potential to improve secondary preventive treatment. DESIGN OF STUDY: Pilot study and cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Large general practice in north-east Scotland. METHOD: People aged 60 years or over with hypertension but no cardiovascular disease or diabetes were identified from computer records and invited to a screening clinic. Data were collected on ankle brachial pressure index (ABPI), preventive treatment, and risk factors. RESULTS: Of 705 potentially eligible patients, 443 (63%) agreed to participate. Sixty-four were excluded and 364 of 379 patients (96%) attended screening. Thirty patients had peripheral arterial disease (ABPI of 0.9 or less), of whom 24 (7%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 4 to 10%) were previously undiagnosed. Fifteen (50%) patients took antiplatelets, 13 (45%) had cholesterol <5 mmol/l, and 16 (53%) had blood pressure below 140/85 mmHg. Twenty-two (73%) patients were non-smokers, 14 (47%) had low-fat diets, two (7%) were physically active, and three (10%) ate recommended amounts of fruit and vegetables. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to screen for peripheral arterial disease in primary care, but its prevalence is lower than anticipated. There is room for improvement in secondary preventive treatment and lifestyle, so a structured programme could still have important benefits for survival.

Secondary prevention clinics for coronary heart disease: four year follow up of a randomised controlled trial in primary care.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of nurse led clinics in primary care on secondary prevention, total mortality, and coronary event rates after four years. DESIGN: Follow up of a randomised controlled trial by postal questionnaires and review of case notes and national datasets. SETTING: Stratified, random sample of 19 general practices in north east Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: 1343 patients (673 intervention and 670 control) under 80 years with a working diagnosis of coronary heart disease but without terminal illness or dementia and not housebound. INTERVENTION: Nurse led secondary prevention clinics promoted medical and lifestyle components of secondary prevention and offered regular follow up for one year. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Components of secondary prevention (aspirin, blood pressure management, lipid management, healthy diet, exercise, non-smoking), total mortality, and coronary events (non-fatal myocardial infarctions and coronary deaths). RESULTS: Mean follow up was at 4.7 years. Significant improvements were shown in the intervention group in all components of secondary prevention except smoking at one year, and these were sustained after four years except for exercise. The control group, most of whom attended clinics after the initial year, caught up before final follow up, and differences between groups were no longer significant. At 4.7 years, 100 patients in the intervention group and 128 in the control group had died: cumulative death rates were 14.5% and 18.9%, respectively (P=0.038). 100 coronary events occurred in the intervention group and 125 in the control group: cumulative event rates were 14.2% and 18.2%, respectively (P=0.052). Adjusting for age, sex, general practice, and baseline secondary prevention, proportional hazard ratios were 0.75 for all deaths (95% confidence intervals 0.58 to 0.98; P=0.036) and 0.76 for coronary events (0.58 to 1.00; P=0.049) CONCLUSIONS: Nurse led secondary prevention improved medical and lifestyle components of secondary prevention and this seemed to lead to significantly fewer total deaths and probably fewer coronary events. Secondary prevention clinics should be started sooner rather than later.

Striking the right balance in colorectal cancer care--a qualitative study of rural and urban patients.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is the second most common cause of cancer-related death in Scotland. For patients, the journey from diagnosis through treatment is complex and there are inequalities in survival rates. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to explore how patients with colorectal cancer perceive their care. METHODS: This was a qualitative study involving 95 patients and relatives of patients with colorectal cancer in the North, Northeast and Northern Isles, Scotland. Focus groups (32 participants) were conducted in hospital, and interviews (63 participants) in patients' own homes in order to explore their experiences of health services for cancer-what was good, what was bad and what was needed. Analysis was inductive, with exploration of similar and divergent perspectives within themes. RESULTS: Patients wanted rapid diagnosis, specialist treatment and good communication, but their experiences of and perspectives on these areas were often divergent. Delays in diagnosis could stem from late presentation by patients, but also from early presentation when the cancer could go undetected. GP continuity was desirable, but sometimes implicated in delays. Patients preferred their GPs to be advocates, not gatekeepers. The context, however, was one where some patients pursued their care tenaciously while others did not. For some, speed of progress through the system was everything, but others found this could be impersonal. Outlying patients had to balance transport difficulties with the benefits of distant specialist treatment. Some patients wanted full information to be provided directly, but others could not cope with this. CONCLUSIONS: From patients' perspectives, ideal cancer care cannot be achieved in a uniform way. For some of the key goals of cancer treatment to be met, including rapid access to specialist treatment for all and good communication of bad news and test results, a balance must be struck which tailors care to individuals.