Effect of prior clopidogrel use on outcomes in medically managed acute coronary syndrome patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We investigated whether prior clopidogrel influenced long-term ischaemic and bleeding risks and modified the randomised treatment effect of clopidogrel versus prasugrel among medically managed patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) treated with dual antiplatelet therapy. METHODS: Medically managed patients with ACS in the Targeted Platelet Inhibition to Clarify the Optimal Strategy to Medically Manage Acute Coronary Syndromes (TRILOGY ACS) trial were randomised to clopidogrel versus prasugrel (plus aspirin), stratified by prior clopidogrel use. From the analysis population (n=8927), we compared two groups: 'clopidogrel in-hospital (n=6513)' (clopidogrel started ≤72 h of presentation for index ACS event) and 'prior-clopidogrel (n=2414)' (on clopidogrel ≥5 days before index hospitalisation). Treatment-related differences in ischaemic (all-cause death, cardiovascular (CV) death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke and the composite of CV death/MI/stroke) and bleeding outcomes (severe/life-threatening or moderate bleeding events based on Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO) criteria) through 30 months were analysed between patients in the two groups. RESULTS: Compared with 'clopidogrel in-hospital,' 'prior clopidogrel' patients were younger (median 64 years vs 66 years, p<0.001), more likely to have prior CV events/revascularisation, and had a higher frequency of CV death, MI or stroke through 30 months (20.8% vs 18.2%, p=0.002), with no difference in bleeding events (2.3% vs 3.4%, p=0.50). Randomised treatment effect (prasugrel vs clopidogrel) was similar for ischaemic and bleeding outcomes in both groups (all pinteraction>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving clopidogrel before admission for ACS and subsequently treated only medically are at higher risk for CV events versus those not previously receiving clopidogrel. More potent antiplatelet inhibition with prasugrel versus clopidogrel did not significantly reduce this risk. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00699998.
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 | 0.000 | 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".