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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.350

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
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 head0.054
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 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

Citations74
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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