MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2981606301 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehz746.0984

P6388Effects of Interleukin-1 blockade with anakinra in patients with ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction on recurrent ischemic events: results from the VCUART3 study

2019· article· en· W2981606301 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Benjamín Van Tassell, Michael J. Lipinski, Darryn Appleton, Cory R. Trankle, Dinesh Kadariya, Nayef Abouzaki, Justin M. Canada, Salvatore Carbone, Leo F. Buckley, Raquel Melchior, Caroline Venzon Thomas, James P. Garnett, Laura Puckett, Michael C. Kontos, Antonio Abbate

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMyocardial infarctionInterquartile rangeHazard ratioInternal medicineAnakinraCardiologyPercutaneous coronary interventionCanadian Cardiovascular SocietyAspirinPlaceboAnginaCoronary artery diseaseUnstable anginaRevascularizationConfidence intervalDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is associated with an intense acute inflammatory response and an increased risk of recurrent ischemic events. Prior studies of IL-1 blockade have shown conflicting results regarding the risk of future events. Methods We enrolled patients with STEMI within 12 hours of presentation at 3 sites in the United States of America. After revascularization, patients were randomly assigned to receive anakinra 100 mg twice daily, anakinra 100 mg once daily (standard dose) alternated with placebo once daily every 12 hours, or placebo every 12 hours for 14 days in 1:1:1 ratio. Prespecified exploratory endpoints for recurrent ischemic events, adjudicated by an independent committee, evaluated the composite risk of subsequent acute myocardial infarction (AMI, World Health Organization classification Type 1), unstable angina, or urgent revascularization. Data are expressed as median and interquartile range or number and percentage. Cox regression analysis was used to generate unadjusted hazard ratios and confidence intervals. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01950299) Results Of 311 patients screened, 99 subjects (81% males, 58% Caucasians, 55 [49–62] years of age) were randomly assigned to anakinra twice daily (N=31), anakinra once daily (N=33) or placebo (N=35). The cohort included patients with hypertension (57%), tobacco use (55%), diabetes mellitus (30%), and prior diagnosis of coronary artery disease (21%) without statistically significant imbalances in the demographic characteristics between groups (all P>0.05). Discharge medications for the index STEMI admission, in addition to the study medication, included aspirin (100%), statins (100%), P2Y12 inhibitors (100%), beta-blockers (90%), and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (84%), without statistically significant imbalances between the 3 groups. Over the 1-year follow-up, recurrent ischemic events occurred in 5/35 (14.3%) patients treated with placebo and 6/64 (9.1%) patients treated with anakinra (hazard ratio = 0.68 [0.20–2.24], P=0.53). No differences were observed between high- and low-dose anakinra treatment groups. Conclusions A two week treatment with IL-1 receptor antagonist, anakinra, did not significantly decrease or increase recurrent ischemic events over the course of a 1-year follow-up in patients with STEMI. Acknowledgement/Funding Funded by NHLBI 1R34HL121402; Drug supply by Swedish Orphan Biovitrum

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research→French-language works237,207→