Trial reportArquivos brasileiros de cardiologia2024
Allopurinol versus Trimetazidine for the Treatment of Angina: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Trial report in Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Myocardial Perfusion and Angina Improvement Following Allopurinol Therapy in a Patient With Coronary Artery Fistula.JACC. Case reports · 2025Article
- Allopurinol versus Trimetazidine as Antianginal: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecently, it was demonstrated that allopurinol, a xanthine oxidase inhibitor, has cardiovascular and anti-ischaemic properties and may be a metabolic antianginal agent option.Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the antianginal effect of allopurinol as a third drug for patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD).
methodsThis was a randomized clinical trial between 2018 and 2020 including patients with CAD who maintained angina despite initial optimization with beta-blockers and calcium channel blockers. The individuals were randomized 1:1 to 300 mg of allopurinol twice daily or 35 mg of trimetazidine twice daily. The main outcome was the difference in the angina frequency domain of the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ-AF). A probability (p) value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsA hundred and eight patients were included in the randomization phase, with 54 (50%) in the allopurinol group and 54 (50%) in the trimetazidine group. Six (5.6%) individuals, 3 from each group, were lost to follow-up for the primary outcome. In the allopurinol and trimetazidine groups, the median SAQ-AF scores were 50 (30.0 to 70.0) and 50 (21.3 to 78.3), respectively. In both groups, the SAQ-AF score improved, but the median of the difference compared to baseline was lower in the allopurinol group (10 [0 to 30] versus 20 [10 to 40]; p < 0.001), as was the mean of the difference in the total SAQ score (12.8 ± 17.8 versus 21.2 ± 15.9; p = 0.014).
conclusionBoth allopurinol and trimetazidine improved the control of angina symptoms; however, trimetazidine presented a greater gain compared to baseline. Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials - Registration Number RBR-5kh98y.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.