Long-term cardiovascular safety of febuxostat compared with allopurinol in patients with gout (FAST): a multicentre, prospective, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Febuxostat and allopurinol are urate-lowering therapies used to treat patients with gout. Following concerns about the cardiovascular safety of febuxostat, the European Medicines Agency recommended a post-licensing study assessing the cardiovascular safety of febuxostat compared with allopurinol. METHODS: We did a prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint, non-inferiority trial of febuxostat versus allopurinol in patients with gout in the UK, Denmark, and Sweden. Eligible patients were 60 years or older, already receiving allopurinol, and had at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor. Those who had myocardial infarction or stroke in the previous 6 months or who had severe congestive heart failure or severe renal impairment were excluded. After a lead-in phase in which allopurinol dose was optimised towards achieving a serum urate concentration of less than 0·357 mmol/L (<6 mg/dL), patients were randomly assigned (1:1, with stratification according to previous cardiovascular events) to continue allopurinol (at the optimised dose) or start febuxostat at 80 mg/day, increasing to 120 mg/day if necessary to achieve the target serum urate concentration. The primary outcome was a composite of hospitalisation for non-fatal myocardial infarction or biomarker-positive acute coronary syndrome; non-fatal stroke; or cardiovascular death. The hazard ratio (HR) for febuxostat versus allopurinol in a Cox proportional hazards model (adjusted for the stratification variable and country) was assessed for non-inferiority (HR limit 1·3) in an on-treatment analysis. This study is registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT 2011-001883-23) and ISRCTN (ISRCTN72443728) and is now closed. FINDINGS: From Dec 20, 2011, to Jan 26, 2018, 6128 patients (mean age 71·0 years [SD 6·4], 5225 [85·3%] men, 903 [14·7%] women, 2046 [33·4%] with previous cardiovascular disease) were enrolled and randomly allocated to receive allopurinol (n=3065) or febuxostat (n=3063). By the study end date (Dec 31, 2019), 189 (6·2%) patients in the febuxostat group and 169 (5·5%) in the allopurinol group withdrew from all follow-up. Median follow-up time was 1467 days (IQR 1029-2052) and median on-treatment follow-up was 1324 days (IQR 870-1919). For incidence of the primary endpoint, on-treatment, febuxostat (172 patients [1·72 events per 100 patient-years]) was non-inferior to allopurinol (241 patients [2·05 events per 100 patient-years]; adjusted HR 0·85 [95% CI 0·70-1·03], p<0·0001). In the febuxostat group, 222 (7·2%) of 3063 patients died and 1720 (57·3%) of 3001 in the safety analysis set had at least one serious adverse event (with 23 events in 19 [0·6%] patients related to treatment). In the allopurinol group, 263 (8·6%) of 3065 patients died and 1812 (59·4%) of 3050 had one or more serious adverse events (with five events in five [0·2%] patients related to treatment). Randomised therapy was discontinued in 973 (32·4%) patients in the febuxostat group and 503 (16·5%) patients in the allopurinol group. INTERPRETATION: Febuxostat is non-inferior to allopurinol therapy with respect to the primary cardiovascular endpoint, and its long-term use is not associated with an increased risk of death or serious adverse events compared with allopurinol. FUNDING: Menarini, Ipsen, and Teijin Pharma Ltd.

Randomized trial of switching from prescribed non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to prescribed celecoxib: the Standard care vs. Celecoxib Outcome Trial (SCOT).

BACKGROUND: Selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors and conventional non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (nsNSAIDs) have been associated with adverse cardiovascular (CV) effects. We compared the CV safety of switching to celecoxib vs. continuing nsNSAID therapy in a European setting. METHOD: Patients aged 60 years and over with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis, free from established CV disease and taking chronic prescribed nsNSAIDs, were randomized to switch to celecoxib or to continue their previous nsNSAID. The primary endpoint was hospitalization for non-fatal myocardial infarction or other biomarker positive acute coronary syndrome, non-fatal stroke or CV death analysed using a Cox model with a pre-specified non-inferiority limit of 1.4 for the hazard ratio (HR). RESULTS: In total, 7297 participants were randomized. During a median 3-year follow-up, fewer subjects than expected developed an on-treatment (OT) primary CV event and the rate was similar for celecoxib, 0.95 per 100 patient-years, and nsNSAIDs, 0.86 per 100 patient-years (HR = 1.12, 95% confidence interval, 0.81-1.55; P = 0.50). Comparable intention-to-treat (ITT) rates were 1.14 per 100 patient-years with celecoxib and 1.10 per 100 patient-years with nsNSAIDs (HR = 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-1.33; P = 0.75). Pre-specified non-inferiority was achieved in the ITT analysis. The upper bound of the 95% confidence limit for the absolute increase in OT risk associated with celecoxib treatment was two primary events per 1000 patient-years exposure. There were only 15 adjudicated secondary upper gastrointestinal complication endpoints (0.078/100 patient-years on celecoxib vs. 0.053 on nsNSAIDs OT, 0.078 vs. 0.053 ITT). More gastrointestinal serious adverse reactions and haematological adverse reactions were reported on nsNSAIDs than celecoxib, but more patients withdrew from celecoxib than nsNSAIDs (50.9% patients vs. 30.2%; P < 0.0001). INTERPRETATION: In subjects 60 years and over, free from CV disease and taking prescribed chronic nsNSAIDs, CV events were infrequent and similar on celecoxib and nsNSAIDs. There was no advantage of a strategy of switching prescribed nsNSAIDs to prescribed celecoxib. This study excluded an increased risk of the primary endpoint of more than two events per 1000 patient-years associated with switching to prescribed celecoxib. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00447759; Unique identifier: NCT00447759.

Methods of a large prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded end-point study comparing morning versus evening dosing in hypertensive patients: the Treatment In Morning versus Evening (TIME) study.

INTRODUCTION: Nocturnal blood pressure (BP) appears to be a better predictor of cardiovascular outcome than daytime BP. The BP lowering effects of most antihypertensive therapies are often greater in the first 12 h compared to the next 12 h. The Treatment In Morning versus Evening (TIME) study aims to establish whether evening dosing is more cardioprotective than morning dosing. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The TIME study uses the prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded end-point (PROBE) design. TIME recruits participants by advertising in the community, from primary and secondary care, and from databases of consented patients in the UK. Participants must be aged over 18 years, prescribed at least one antihypertensive drug taken once a day, and have a valid email address. After the participants have self-enrolled and consented on the secure TIME website (http://www.timestudy.co.uk) they are randomised to take their antihypertensive medication in the morning or the evening. Participant follow-ups are conducted after 1 month and then every 3 months by automated email. The trial is expected to run for 5 years, randomising 10,269 participants, with average participant follow-up being 4 years. The primary end point is hospitalisation for the composite end point of non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), non-fatal stroke (cerebrovascular accident; CVA) or any vascular death determined by record-linkage. Secondary end points are: each component of the primary end point, hospitalisation for non-fatal stroke, hospitalisation for non-fatal MI, cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, hospitalisation or death from congestive heart failure. The primary outcome will be a comparison of time to first event comparing morning versus evening dosing using an intention-to-treat analysis. The sample size is calculated for a two-sided test to detect 20% superiority at 80% power. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: TIME has ethical approval in the UK, and results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: UKCRN17071; Pre-results.

Protocol of the Febuxostat versus Allopurinol Streamlined Trial (FAST): a large prospective, randomised, open, blinded endpoint study comparing the cardiovascular safety of allopurinol and febuxostat in the management of symptomatic hyperuricaemia.

INTRODUCTION: Gout affects 2.5% of the UK's adult population and is now the most common type of inflammatory arthritis. The long-term management of gout requires reduction of serum urate levels and this is most often achieved with use of xanthine oxidase inhibitors, such as allopurinol. Febuxostat is the first new xanthine oxidase inhibitor since allopurinol and was licensed for use in 2008. The European Medicines Agency requested a postlicensing cardiovascular safety study of febuxostat versus allopurinol, which has been named the Febuxostat versus Allopurinol Streamlined trial (FAST). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: FAST is a cardiovascular safety study using the prospective, randomised, open, blinded endpoint design. FAST is recruiting in the UK and Denmark. Recruited patients are aged over 60 years, prescribed allopurinol for symptomatic hyperuricaemia and have at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor. After an allopurinol lead-in phase where the dose of allopurinol is optimised to achieve European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) urate targets (serum urate <357 µmol/L), patients are randomised to either continue optimal dose allopurinol or to use febuxostat. Patients are followed-up for an average of 3 years. The primary endpoint is first occurrence of the Anti-Platelet Trialists' Collaboration (APTC) cardiovascular endpoint of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke or cardiovascular death. Secondary endpoints are all cause mortality and hospitalisations for heart failure, unstable, new or worsening angina, coronary or cerebral revascularisation, transient ischaemic attack, non-fatal cardiac arrest, venous and peripheral arterial vascular thrombotic event and arrhythmia with no evidence of ischaemia. The primary analysis is a non-inferiority analysis with a non-inferiority upper limit for the HR for the primary outcome of 1.3. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: FAST (ISRCTN72443728) has ethical approval in the UK and Denmark, and results will be published in a peer reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: FAST is registered in the EU Clinical Trials Register (EUDRACT No: 2011-001883-23) and International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register (ISRCTN No: ISRCTN72443728).

Promoting public awareness of randomised clinical trials using the media: the 'Get Randomised' campaign.

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT THIS SUBJECT * Recruitment is key to the success of clinical trials. * Many clinical trials fail to achieve adequate recruitment. * Public understanding and engagement in clinical research could be improved. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS * 'Get Randomised' is the first campaign of its kind in the UK. * It is possible to improve public awareness of clinical research using the media. * Further work is needed to determine whether improved public awareness leads to increased participation in clinical research in the future. AIM To increase public awareness and understanding of clinical research in Scotland. METHODS A generic media campaign to raise public awareness of clinical research was launched in 2008. The 'Get Randomised' campaign was a Scotland-wide initiative led by the University of Dundee in collaboration with other Scottish universities. Television, radio and newspaper advertising showed leading clinical researchers, general practitioners and patients informing the public about the importance of randomised clinical trials (RCTs). 'Get Randomised' was the central message and interested individuals were directed to the http://www.getrandomised.org website for more information. To assess the impact of the campaign, cross-sectional surveys were conducted in representative samples of 1040 adults in Scotland prior to campaign launch and again 6 months later. RESULTS There was an improvement in public awareness of clinical trials following the campaign; 56.7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 51.8, 61.6] of the sample recalled seeing or hearing advertising about RCTs following the campaign compared with 14.8% (10.8, 18.9) prior to the campaign launch (difference = 41.4%; 95% CI for difference 35.6, 48.3; P < 0.01). Of those who recalled the advertising, 49% felt that the main message was that people should take part more in medical research. However, on whether they would personally take part in a clinical trial if asked, there was little difference in response following the campaign ['yes' 31.3% (28.4, 34.1) prior; 30.4% (27.6, 33.2) following; difference =-0.9%; 95% CI for difference -4.8, 3.1%; P= 0.92]. CONCLUSIONS It is possible to raise public awareness of clinical research using the media, but further efforts may be required to influence individuals' decisions to take part in clinical research.