Antiplatelet therapy and the effects of B vitamins in patients with previous stroke or transient ischaemic attack: a post-hoc subanalysis of VITATOPS, a randomised, placebo-controlled trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have suggested that any benefits of folic acid-based therapy to lower serum homocysteine in prevention of cardiovascular events might be offset by concomitant use of antiplatelet therapy. We aimed to establish whether there is an interaction between antiplatelet therapy and the effects of folic acid-based homocysteine-lowering therapy on major vascular events in patients with stroke or transient ischaemic attack enrolled in the vitamins to prevent stroke (VITATOPS) trial. METHODS: In the VITATOPS trial, 8164 patients with recent stroke or transient ischaemic attack were randomly allocated to double-blind treatment with one tablet daily of placebo or B vitamins (2 mg folic acid, 25 mg vitamin B(6), and 500 μg vitamin B(12)) and followed up for a median 3·4 years (IQR 2·0-5·5) for the primary composite outcome of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death from vascular causes. In our post-hoc analysis of the interaction between antiplatelet therapy and the effects of treatment with B vitamins on the primary outcome, we used Cox proportional hazards regression before and after adjusting for imbalances in baseline prognostic factors in participants who were and were not taking antiplatelet drugs at baseline and in participants assigned to receive B vitamins or placebo. We also assessed the interaction in different subgroups of patients and different secondary outcomes. The VITATOPS trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00097669, and Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN74743444. FINDINGS: At baseline, 6609 patients were taking antiplatelet therapy and 1463 were not. Patients not receiving antiplatelet therapy were more likely to be younger, east Asian, and disabled, to have a haemorrhagic stroke or cardioembolic ischaemic stroke, and to have a history of hypertension or atrial fibrillation. They were less likely to be smokers and to have a history of peripheral artery disease, hypercholesterolaemia, diabetes, ischaemic heart disease, and a revascularisation procedure. Of the participants taking antiplatelet drugs at baseline, B vitamins had no significant effect on the primary outcome (488 patients in the B-vitamins group [15%] vs 519 in the placebo group [16%]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·94, 95% CI 0·83-1·07). By contrast, of the participants not taking antiplatelet drugs at baseline, B vitamins had a significant effect on the primary outcome (123 in the B-vitamins group [17%] vs 153 in the placebo group [21%]; HR 0·76, 0·60-0·96). The interaction between antiplatelet therapy and the effect of B vitamins on the primary outcome was significant after adjusting for imbalance in the baseline variables (adjusted p for interaction=0·0204). INTERPRETATION: Our findings support the hypothesis that antiplatelet therapy modifies the potential benefits of lowering homocysteine with B-vitamin supplementation in the secondary prevention of major vascular events. If validated, B vitamins might have a role in the prevention of ischaemic events in high-risk individuals with an allergy, intolerance, or lack of indication for antiplatelet therapy. FUNDING: Australia National Health and Medical Research Council, UK Medical Research Council, Singapore Biomedical Research Council, and Singapore National Medical Research Council.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».