Use of thienopyridine prior to presentation with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome and association with safety and efficacy of vorapaxar: insights from the TRACER trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vorapaxar is effective in the prevention of secondary atherothrombotic events, although the efficacy/safety balance appears less favorable in the treatment of patients with non-ST-segment elevation (NSTE) acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We hypothesized that patients with NSTE ACS already receiving thienopyridine prior to the ACS event may show differential efficacy/safety effects with vorapaxar vs. placebo added to their standard care. We studied 12,944 patients from the Thrombin Receptor Antagonist for Clinical Event Reduction in Acute Coronary Syndrome (TRACER) trial with respect to thienopyridine use before admission for the index NSTE ACS event. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, rehospitalization for ischemia, and urgent revascularization. The key secondary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Safety endpoints were bleeding complications. Only 1513 patients (11.7%) were receiving thienopyridine before admission for the index NSTE ACS event. In these patients, Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO) moderate/severe bleeding occurred in 5.7% treated with vorapaxar and 5.3% treated with a placebo (hazards ratio (HR) 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70–1.71); in thienopyridine-naïve patients, the rates were 5.7% and 4.1%, respectively (HR 1.32, 95% CI 1.11–1.57; Pint=0.45). GUSTO severe bleeding in the prior thienopyridine group occurred in 0.5% of patients treated with vorapaxar and 1.3% of patients treated with placebo (HR 0.34, 95% CI 0.09–1.30); in thienopyridine-naïve patients, the rates were 2.0% and 1.0%, respectively (HR 1.89, 95% CI 1.36–2.62; Pint=0.01). No interaction was observed between vorapaxar efficacy and prior thienopyridine use on the primary (adjusted Pint=0.53) or key secondary endpoints (Pint=0.61). TRACER was largely conducted in thienopyridine-naïve patients with unknown tolerance to multiple antiplatelet treatments. Patients receiving thienopyridine before the index event may have had an attenuated increase in bleeding when adding vorapaxar, whereas concomitantly adding vorapaxar and thienopyridine in naïve patients may have uncovered a latent susceptibility to 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".