MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133246142 · doi:10.1161/jaha.114.001032

Reduction in Overall Occurrences of Ischemic Events With Vorapaxar: Results From TRACER

2014· article· en· W2133246142 on OpenAlexaff
Harvey D. White, Zhen Huang, Pierluigi Tricoci, Frans Van de Werf, Lars Wallentin, Yuliya Lokhnygina, David J. Moliterno, Philip E. Aylward, Kenneth W. Mahaffey, Paul W. Armstrong

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Heart Association · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyReduction (mathematics)Internal medicineIschemic strokeTRACERIschemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials traditionally use time-to-first-event analysis embedded within the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death (CVD), myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke. However, many patients have >1 event, and this approach may not reflect overall experience. We addressed this by analyzing all cardiovascular events in TRACER. METHODS AND RESULTS: TRACER randomized 12 944 patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes to placebo or to protease-activated receptor 1 antagonist vorapaxar with a median follow-up of 502 days (interquartile range, 349 to 667). Analysis of vorapaxar's effect on recurrent CVD, MI, or stroke was prespecified using the Wei, Lin, and Weissfeld approach. Vorapaxar did not reduce the first occurrence of the primary endpoint of CVD, MI, stroke, revascularization, or rehospitalization for recurrent ischemia, but reduced the secondary composite endpoint of CVD, MI, or stroke (14.7% vorapaxar vs. 16.4% placebo; hazard ratio [HR], 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 0.98; P=0.02; number needed to treat [NNT], 81). Recurrent secondary events occurred in 2.7% of patients. Vorapaxar reduced overall occurrences of ischemic events, first and subsequent (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80 to 0.98; P=0.02; NNT, 51). Also, there was a trend indicating that vorapaxar reduced the expanded endpoint, including revascularization and rehospitalization for recurrent ischemia (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.01; P=0.09). Vorapaxar increased overall occurrences of moderate and severe Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries bleeding (HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.21 to 1.66; P<0.001) and Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction clinically significant bleeding (HR, 1.550; 95% CI, 1.403 to 1.713; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Vorapaxar reduced overall occurrences of ischemic events, but increased bleeding. These exploratory findings broaden our understanding of vorapaxar's potential and expand our understanding of the value of capturing recurrent events. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: ClinicalTrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00527943.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.175

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Heart AssociationSame topicAcute Myocardial Infarction ResearchFrench-language works237,207