Effect of Addition of Clopidogrel to Aspirin on Mortality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In the Secondary Prevention of Small Subcortical Strokes (SPS3) trial, addition of clopidogrel to aspirin was associated with an unexpected increase in mortality in patients with lacunar strokes. We assessed the effect of the addition of clopidogrel to aspirin on mortality in a meta-analysis of published randomized trials. METHODS: Randomized trials in which clopidogrel was added to aspirin in subjects with vascular disease or vascular risk factors were identified. Trials were restricted to those with a mean follow-up of ≥14 days in which both the combination of aspirin and clopidogrel was tested and mortality was reported. RESULTS: Twelve trials included 90 934 participants (mean age, 63 years; 70% men; median follow-up, 1 year) with 6849 observed deaths. There was no significant increase in mortality with the combination therapy either in 4 short-term (14 days-3 months; OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87-0.99) or in 7 long-term (>3 months; hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.91-1.04) trials after 1 long-term trial (the SPS3 trial) was excluded because of heterogeneity. Addition of clopidogrel was associated with an increase in fatal hemorrhage (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.97-1.90) and a reduction in myocardial infarction (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.74-0.91). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of clopidogrel to aspirin has no overall effect on mortality. The SPS3 trial results are outliers, possibly because of a lower prevalence of coronary artery ischemia. Addition of clopidogrel to aspirin increases fatal bleeding and reduces myocardial infarction. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http//www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00059306.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".