Esomeprazole for Prevention and Resolution of Upper Gastrointestinal Symptoms in Patients Treated With Low-dose Acetylsalicylic Acid for Cardiovascular Protection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although low-dose acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) is recommended for prevention of cardiovascular events in at-risk patients, its long-term use can be associated with the risk of peptic ulcer and upper gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms that may impact treatment compliance. This prespecified secondary analysis of the OBERON study (NCT00441727) determined the efficacy of esomeprazole for prevention/resolution of low-dose ASA-associated upper GI symptoms. A post hoc analysis of predictors of symptom prevention/resolution was also conducted. Helicobacter pylori-negative patients taking low-dose ASA (75-325 mg) for cardiovascular protection who had ≥1 upper GI risk factor were eligible. The patients were randomized to once-daily esomeprazole 40 mg, 20 mg, or placebo, for 26 weeks; 2303 patients (mean age 67.6 years; 36% aged >70 years) were evaluable for upper GI symptoms. The proportion of patients with dyspeptic or reflux symptoms (self-reported Reflux Disease Questionnaire) was significantly lower (P < 0.0001) in those treated with esomeprazole versus in those treated with placebo. Treatment with esomeprazole (P < 0.0001), age >70 years (P < 0.01), and the absence of upper GI symptoms at baseline (P < 0.0001) were all factors associated with prevention/resolution of upper GI symptoms. Together, these analyses demonstrate that esomeprazole is effective in preventing and resolving patient-reported upper GI symptoms in low-dose ASA users at increased GI risk.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".