The Safety of Proton Pump Inhibitors and Clopidogrel in Patients After Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: evidence suggests that some proton pump inhibitors can attenuate the antiplatelet effect of clopidogrel. The significance of this potential drug interaction in patients with cerebrovascular disease is unknown. METHODS: we conducted a nested case-control study of all Ontario residents aged ≥ 66 years newly treated with clopidogrel after a stroke between April 1, 2002, and September 30, 2008. In the primary analysis, case patients were those readmitted for stroke, and a secondary analysis examined all-cause mortality. For each case, up to 4 event-free control subjects were matched on age, gender, and outcome type (stroke or transient ischemic attack). Exposure to proton pump inhibitors was categorized as current (within 60 days), previous (61 to 180 days), or remote (181 to 365 days). RESULTS: among 2765 patients entering the cohort, we identified 118 cases readmitted for stroke and 472 control subjects. After multivariable adjustment, current use of proton pump inhibitors was not associated with a significantly increased risk of recurrent stroke (adjusted odds ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.82) or death (adjusted odds ratio, 1.84; 95% CI, 0.88 to 3.89). CONCLUSIONS: as a class, proton pump inhibitors are not associated with an increased risk of recurrent stroke or death among older patients treated with clopidogrel after stroke.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".