Allopurinol treatment adversely impacts left ventricular mass regression in patients with well-controlled hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Previous studies have demonstrated that high-dose allopurinol is able to regress left ventricular (LV) mass in cohorts with established cardiovascular disease. The aim of this study was to assess whether treatment with high-dose allopurinol would regress LV mass in a cohort with essential hypertension, LV hypertrophy and well-controlled blood pressure but without established cardiovascular disease. METHODS: We conducted a mechanistic proof-of-concept randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial of allopurinol (600 mg/day) versus placebo on LV mass regression. Duration of treatment was 12 months. LV mass regression was assessed by Cardiac Magnetic Resonance. Secondary outcomes were changes in endothelial function (flow-mediated dilatation), arterial stiffness (pulse wave velocity) and biomarkers of oxidative stress. RESULTS: Seventy-two patients were randomized into the trial. Mean baseline urate was 362.2 ± 96.7 μmol/l. Despite good blood pressure control, LV mass regression was significantly reduced in the allopurinol cohort compared with placebo (LV mass -0.37 ± 6.08 versus -3.75 ± 3.89 g; P = 0.012). Oxidative stress markers (thiobarbituric acid reactive substances) were significantly higher in the allopurinol group versus placebo (0.26 ± 0.85 versus -0.34 ± 0.83 μmol/l; P = 0.007). Other markers of vascular function were not significantly different between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Treatment with high-dose allopurinol in normouricemic controlled hypertensive patients and LV hypertrophy is detrimental. It results in reduced LV mass regression and increased oxidative stress over a 12-month period. This may be because of an adverse impact on redox balance. Cohort selection for future cardiovascular trials with allopurinol is crucial.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".