| Literature DB >> 27110924 |
Gang Deng1, Zhandong Qiu1, Dayong Li1, Yu Fang1, Suming Zhang1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Several studies have tested the effects of allopurinol on arterial stiffness, but the results have been inconclusive. We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis to investigate the impacts of allopurinol treatment on arterial stiffness, as measured by pulse wave velocity (PWV) and augmentation index (AIx). MATERIAL AND METHODS Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of allopurinol on arterial stiffness were identified through searching PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library for Central Register of Clinical Trials, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure up to December 2015. The primary endpoints were the change of PWV and AIx after allopurinol treatment. The weighted mean difference (WMD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) of each study were pooled for meta-analysis. RESULTS A total of 11 RCTs met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final meta-analysis. Eight RCTs with 1,111 patients were pooled for PWV; eight RCTs with 397 patients were pooled for PWV. Allopurinol administration did not significantly change PWV (WMD=-0.19 m/s, 95% CI: -0.49 to 0.12, Z=1.21, p=0.23), but significantly reduced AIx (SMD=-0.34, 95% CI: -0.54 to -0.14, Z=3.35, p=0.0008). CONCLUSIONS Although our meta-analysis showed some favorable effects of allopurinol treatment on improving AIx, its impact on arterial stiffness must be tested in more large-scale RCTs.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27110924 PMCID: PMC4847559 DOI: 10.12659/msm.898370
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Med Sci Monit ISSN: 1234-1010
Figure 1Flow chart of the study. PWV – pulse wave velocity; AIx – augmentation index.
Characteristics of the included randomized controlled trials.
| Study | Design | Duration | Allopurinol dose (mg/d) | Inclusion criteria | Exclusion criteria | Jadad score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Szwejkowski 2013 [ | Parallel | 9 m | 600 | T2DM, LVH and office BP <150/90 mm Hg | Gout, GFR <60 ml/min, EF <45% | 4 |
| Dawson 2009a [ | Parallel | 3 m | 300 | aged over 18 years with subcortical stroke | >70% ECAS, known CAD, Scr >250 mmol/L | 4 |
| Dawson 2009b [ | Cross-over | 2 w | 300 | male, age >40 years, T2DM < 5 year and A1C <9.0% | CAD, severe ECAS, receiving insulin | 3 |
| Higgins 2014 [ | Parallel | 12 m | 300 | aged over 18 years with ischaemic stroke or TIA | >70% ECAS, GFR <50 mL/min | 4 |
| Kao 2011 [ | Parallel | 9 m | 300 | LVH and CKD stage 3 | Active gout; EF <45%; severe hepatic disease | 3 |
| Rekhraj 2013 [ | Parallel | 9 m | 600 | CAD, LVH and office BP <150/90 mm Hg | Active gout, GFR<60 ml/min, HF | 4 |
| Khan 2008 [ | Parallel | 8 w | 300 | stroke survivors with high serum urate | No | 3 |
| Rajendra 2011 [ | Cross-over | 8 w | 300/600 | CAD and preserved left ventricular systolic function | Unstable angina, HF, CKD stage 4 or worse, SBP >160 mm Hg and DBP >100 mm Hg | 4 |
| Wang 2012 [ | Parallel | 3 m | 300 | Hyperuricemia, or gout | Active gout, CAD, carcinoma, acute infection, liver or renal dysfunction | 2 |
| Mao 2015 [ | Parallel | 3 m | 300 | Hyperuricemia | No | 3 |
| Wang 2015 [ | Parallel | 3 m | 300 | Atherosclerosis and hyperuricemia | Active gout, blood disease, carcinoma, acute infection, liver or renal dysfunction | 3 |
ECAS – extracranial carotid artery stenosis; CAD – coronary artery disease; Scr – serum creatinine; T2DM – type 2 diabetes mellitus; TIA – transient ischemic attack; GFR – glomerular filtration rate; LVH – left ventricular hypertrophy; CKD – chronic kidney disease; EF – ejection fraction; HF – heart failure; SBP – systolic blood pressure; DBP – diastolic blood pressure.
Baseline characteristics of the patients of the included studies.
| Study | No. of patients (men,%) | Age (years) | Baseline UA (mmol/L) | Baseline PWV (m/s) | Baseline AIx (%) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Allo | Placebo | Allo | Placebo | Allo | Placebo | Allo | Placebo | Allo | Placebo | |
| Szwejkowski 2013 [ | 29 (89.7) | 30 (70) | 63.17 (8.64) | 66.03 (8.86) | 0.55 (0.15) | 0.54 (0.10) | 7.2 (1.2) | 6.9 (1.0) | 11.76 (9.40) | 10.47 (10.78) |
| Dawson 2009a [ | 20 (NR) | 25 (NR) | 59.4 (9.3) | 57.3 (11.5) | 0.35 (0.1) | 0.33 (0.09) | 7.6 (1.6) | 8.1 (1.6) | 24.4 (12.3) | 22.4 (11.5) |
| Dawson 2009b [ | 10 (100) | 53.1 (10.8) | NR | 9 (7.6–9.6) | 23.5 (18.5–29.5) | |||||
| Higgins 2014 [ | 40 (60) | 40 (55) | 66.9 (8.72) | 68.8 (10.25) | 0.32 (0.09) | 0.30 (0.08) | NR | 28.4 (8.1) | 29.3 (7.9) | |
| Kao 2011 [ | 27 (59) | 26 (46) | 70.6 (6.9) | 73.7 (5.3) | 0.44 (0.09) | 0.42 (0.08) | 7.7 (1.3) | 8.2 (1.2) | 18.5 (10.2) | 17.2 (6.3) |
| Rekhraj 2013 [ | 31 (83.9) | 29 (96.6) | 65 (6.7) | 64 (7.2) | 0.59 (0.09) | 0.56 (0.14) | 7.6 (6.9–8.7) | 8.5 (7.4–9) | 20 (7) | 19.5 (9) |
| Khan 2008 [ | 14 (78.6) | 14 (78.6) | 68.2 (5.4) | 68.7 (10.3) | NR | NR | 21.47 (9.69) | 19.65 (8.42) | ||
| Rajendra 2011 [ | 80 (80) | 80 (80) | 65.5 (7.73) | 65.5 (7.73) | NR | NR | 27.3 (5.0) | 27.8 (5.9) | ||
| Wang 2012 [ | 29 (79.3) | 30 (66.7) | 47.52 (9.31) | 45.00 (9.70) | 0.49 (0.08) | 0.46 (0.08) | 15.2 (1.4) | 14.8 (1.6) | NR | |
| Mao 2015 [ | 366 (NR) | 366 (NR) | NR | 0.49 (0.09) | 0.49 (0.11) | 15.1 (NR) | 15.2 (NR) | NR | ||
| Wang 2015 [ | 43 (28) | 42 (26) | 47.6 (9.3) | 48.8 (8.4) | 0.38 (0.08) | 0.38 (0.08) | 15.3 (1.4) | 15.3 (1.4) | NR | |
Values are presented as mean (SD) unless indicated.
Median (interquartile range).
UA – uric acid; PWV – pulse wave velocity; AIx – augmentation index; Allo – allopurinol; NR – not reported.
Figure 2Risk of bias assessment. “+” indicates “low risk”, “?” indicates “unclear risk”, “−” indicates “high risk”.
Figure 3Forest plot illustrating allopurinol effect on pulse wave velocity. SD – standard deviation; IV – inverse variance; CI – confidence interval.
Figure 4Forest plot illustrating allopurinol effect on augmentation index. SD – standard deviation; IV – inverse variance; CI – confidence interval.
The results of subgroup analyses for pulse wave velocity.
| Subgroup | No. of patients (allopurinol/placebo) | No. of studies | WMD | 95% CI | I2 (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Doses | |||||||
| ≤300 mg | 492/496 | 6 | −0.24 | −0.59 to 0.10 | 98 | 0.16 | 0.34 |
| >300 mg | 60/59 | 2 | 0.05 | −0.44 to 0.54 | 0 | 0.84 | |
| Duration of follow-up | |||||||
| ≤3 m | 465/470 | 5 | −0.19 | −0.56 to 0.19 | 98 | 0.33 | 0.99 |
| >3 m | 87/85 | 3 | −0.19 | −0.63 to 0.25 | 16 | 0.40 | |
WMD – weighed mean difference; CI – confidence interval; psub – p value for subgroup differences.
The results of subgroup analyses for augmentation index.
| Subgroup | No. of patients (allopurinol/placebo) | No. of studies | WMD | 95% CI | I2 (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Doses | |||||||
| ≤300 mg | 100/100 | 5 | −0.37 | −0.66 to −0.09 | 37 | 0.01 | 0.76 |
| >300 mg | 99/98 | 3 | −0.31 | −0.59 to −0.03 | 19 | 0.03 | |
| Duration of follow-up | |||||||
| ≤3 m | 82/87 | 4 | −0.28 | −0.58 to 0.03 | 37 | 0.08 | 0.58 |
| >3 m | 117/111 | 4 | −0.39 | −0.65 to −0.13 | 22 | 0.004 | |
SMD – standard mean difference; CI – confidence interval; psub – p value for subgroup differences.
Figure 5Sensitivity analysis results of the studies assessing allopurinol effect on pulse wave velocity (A) and augmentation index (B) by omitting each study in turn. CI – confidence interval.