Effect of high-dose oral multivitamins and minerals in participants not treated with statins in the randomized Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy (TACT)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: In a prespecified subgroup analysis of participants not on statin therapy at baseline in the TACT, a high-dose complex oral multivitamins and multimineral regimen was found to have a large unexpected benefit compared with placebo. The regimen tested was substantially different from any vitamin regimen tested in prior clinical trials. OBJECTIVE: To explore these results, we performed detailed additional analyses of participants not on statins at enrollment in TACT. DESIGN: TACT was a factorial trial testing chelation treatments and a 28-component high-dose oral multivitamins and multiminerals regimen versus placebo in post-myocardial infarction (MI) patients 50 years or older. PARTICIPANTS: There were 460 (27%) of 1,708 TACT participants not taking statins at baseline, 224 (49%) were in the active vitamin group and 236 (51%) were in the placebo group. SETTING: Patients were enrolled at 134 sites around the United States and Canada. INTERVENTION: Daily high-dose oral multivitamins and multiminerals (6 tablets, active or placebo). MAIN OUTCOME: The primary end point of TACT was time to the first occurrence of any component of the composite end point: all-cause mortality, MI, stroke, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for angina. RESULTS: The primary end point occurred in 137 nonstatin participants (30%), of which 51 (23%) of 224 were in the active group and 86 (36%) of 236 were taking placebo (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-0.87; P=.006). Results in the key TACT secondary end point, a combination of cardiovascular mortality, stroke, or recurrent MI, was consistent in favoring the active vitamin group (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.75; P=.002). Multiple end point analyses were consistent with these results. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: High-dose oral multivitamin and multimineral supplementation seem to decrease combined cardiac events in a stable, post-MI population not taking statin therapy at baseline. These unexpected findings are being retested in the ongoing TACT2.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".