MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166268102 · doi:10.1161/jaha.114.001505

Efficacy and Safety of Vorapaxar as Approved for Clinical Use in the United States

2015· article· en· W2166268102 on OpenAlexaff
Giulia Magnani, Marc P. Bonaca, Eugene Braunwald, Anthony J. Dalby, Keith A.A. Fox, Sabina A. Murphy, José Carlos Nicolau, Ton Oude Ophuis, Benjamin M. Scirica, Jindřich Špinar, Pierre Théroux, David A. Morrow

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Heart Association · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care medicineSafety profileAdverse effectInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Vorapaxar is a protease-activated receptor-1 antagonist approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the reduction of thrombotic cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with a history of myocardial infarction (MI) and peripheral artery disease (PAD), without a previous stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). METHODS AND RESULTS: We examined the efficacy and safety of vorapaxar in the intended use population, considering 20,170 patients randomized in the multinational, double-blinded, placebo-controlled TRA 2°P-TIMI 50 trial. Of these, 16,897 qualified with a history of MI in the prior 2 weeks to 1 year and 3273 with PAD. At baseline 97% of the patients were treated with aspirin, 71% with a thienopyridine, and 93% a statin. At 3 years, the endpoint of CV death, MI, or stroke was significantly reduced with vorapaxar compared with placebo (7.9% versus 9.5%, HR, 0.80; 95% CI 0.73 to 0.89; P<0.001). Vorapaxar also significantly reduced the composite of CV death, MI, stroke, and urgent coronary revascularization (10.1% versus 11.8%, HR, 0.83; 95% CI 0.76 to 0.90; P<0.001), as well as the rate of CV death or MI (P<0.001). The safety endpoint of GUSTO moderate or severe bleeding, was increased in the vorapaxar group (3.7 versus 2.4, HR, 1.55; 95% CI 1.30 to 1.86, P<0.001). Intracranial bleeding (ICH) was 0.6% versus 0.4%, P=0.10 with vorapaxar versus placebo, with fatal bleeding 0.2% versus 0.2%; P=0.70. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with prior MI or PAD who have not had a previous stroke or TIA, vorapaxar added to standard therapy is effective for long-term secondary prevention of thrombotic CV events, while increasing moderate or severe bleeding. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: clinicaltrials.gov Unique Identifier: NCT00526474.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations74
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Heart AssociationSame topicAntiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular DiseasesFrench-language works237,207