A Randomized Controlled Trial of Allopurinol in Patients With Peripheral Arterial Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) are limited by intermittent claudication in the distance they can walk. Allopurinol has been shown in coronary arterial disease to prolong exercise before angina occurs, likely by prevention of oxygen wastage in tissues and reduction of harmful oxidative stress. METHODS: In this study we evaluated whether allopurinol could prolong the time to development of leg pain in participants with PAD. In a double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial participants were randomized to receive either allopurinol 300 mg twice daily or placebo for 6 months. The primary outcome was change in exercise capacity on treadmill testing at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were 6-minute walking distance, Walking Impairment Questionnaire, SF-36 questionnaire, flow-mediated dilatation, and oxidized low-density lipoprotein. Outcome measures were repeated midstudy and at the end of study. The mean age of the 50 participants was 68.4 ± 1.2 years with 39 of 50 (78%) male. RESULTS: Five participants withdrew during the study (2 active, 3 placebo). There was a significant reduction in uric acid levels in those who received active treatment of 52.1% (P < 0.001), but no significant change in either the pain-free or the maximum walking distance. Other measures of exercise capacity, blood vessel function, and the participants' own assessment of their health and walking ability also did not change during the course of the study. CONCLUSIONS: Although allopurinol has been shown to be of benefit in a number of other diseases, in this study there was no evidence of any improvement after treatment in patients with PAD.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".