Implications of variability in definition and reporting of major bleeding in randomized trials of oral P2Y12 inhibitors for acute coronary syndromes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Various definitions of major bleeding have been used to evaluate safety in randomized controlled trials of antiplatelet therapy. We compared the definitions and rates of major bleeding in phase III randomized controlled trials of oral P2Y(12) inhibitors in the management of patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). METHODS AND RESULTS: Electronic searches identified six phase III randomized controlled oral P2Y(12) inhibitor trials published between 2001 and 2010 involving 119 020 patients with ACS. The trials compared clopidogrel standard-dose (300-mg loading dose, 75-mg daily thereafter) vs. placebo (CURE, CLARITY-TIMI 28, COMMIT), clopidogrel standard-dose vs. prasugrel (TRITON-TIMI 38) or ticagrelor (PLATO) and clopidogrel standard-dose vs. clopidogrel double-dose (600-mg loading dose, 150-mg daily for 6-days, 75-mg daily thereafter) (CURRENT-OASIS 7). Using the trial definition, major bleeding rates in patients treated with standard-dose clopidogrel ranged from 0.6% in COMMIT to 11.2% in PLATO. The contrast in bleeding rates of standard-dose clopidogrel among the trials was attenuated when using the thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) definition for major bleeding (range 1.1-7.7%) and bleeding rates in all the trials were less than 2% when comparing 30 day rates of non-coronary artery bypass graft surgery-related TIMI major bleeding (range 0.3-1.9%). CONCLUSION: Differences in major bleeding rates between trials of P2Y(12) inhibitors in patients with ACS are minimized after standardization of bleeding definitions, timing of reporting of bleeding outcomes, and procedure rates. Interpretation of the risk of bleeding associated with different P2Y(12) inhibitors would be facilitated by a consistent approach to the definition and reporting of bleeding.
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 | 0.837 | 0.934 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".