Does Extended Use of Clopidogrel-Based Dual Anti-Platelet Therapy Increase the Risk of Gastrointestinal Bleeding?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clopidogrel-based dual anti-platelet therapy (CDAPT) has shown significant benefits in the management of coronary artery disease (CAD), up to 1-year duration. Gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is one of the limiting factors for prolonged use of CDAPT. METHODS: We identified all patients taking CDAPT from our ambulatory clinics. Demographic, clinical, laboratory and pharmacological data were abstracted. American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines were used to determine the duration of CDAPT therapy. The study population was divided into two groups based on the duration of therapy. Individuals who received CDAPT more than 12 months were deemed as extended use. RESULTS: A total of 351 patients with CAD were taking CDAPT. Majority of patients (276/351, 79%) were taking CDAPT beyond 1 year. There were no differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups. There was no significant difference in the incidence of GIB between the two groups. However, in subgroup analysis, there was a significant difference in the incidence of GIB in men. Men who were taking CDAPT beyond 12 months had almost three times higher incidence of GIB compared to those who were taking less than 12 months (25% vs. 8%, P = 0.04). The excess GIB in men prevailed despite adjusting for non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) use. CONCLUSIONS: We found that a majority of patients were taking CDAPT beyond the recommended duration. We observed that men taking CDAPT for an extended duration had a three times higher incidence of GIB. It would be reasonable for physicians to be aware of the higher risk of GIB in men and carefully assess the risks and benefits of extended use of CDAPT.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".