The role of clopidogrel in the management of ischemic heart disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Placebo-controlled randomized trials have demonstrated the efficacy of clopidogrel in combination with aspirin across a broad range of clinical presentations. Recent trials have addressed several remaining issues regarding clopidogrel therapy. RECENT FINDINGS: Three randomized trials examined the role of platelet function testing (PFT) in clopidogrel-treated patients. The results do not support the use of PFT to adjust clopidogrel dose after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), particularly in patients with stable angina or ischemia, in whom event rates are low irrespective of on-treatment reactivity. Doses greater than clopidogrel 150 mg daily are required to sufficiently overcome high reactivity in CYP2C19 loss-of-function (LOF) allele carriers. Clopidogrel response variability also influences the time to platelet recovery after drug discontinuation, and a proof-of-principle study supports the concept of using PFT for surgical timing. Unlike its efficacy in the setting of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and PCI, prasugrel was not superior to clopidogrel in medically treated patients recovering from ACS. SUMMARY: Current data do not support routine PFT to guide antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing nonurgent PCI. The role of PFT to optimize therapy in ACS patients remains unaddressed, and further study is needed to confirm its promise in guiding surgical timing in patients who have discontinued therapy. Clopidogrel remains an important therapeutic option for patients presenting after an ACS who did not undergo initial revascularization.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".