MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4291000476 · doi:10.1093/ehjcvp/pvac045

Potential effects of icosapent ethyl on cardiovascular outcomes in cigarette smokers: REDUCE-IT smoking

2022· article· en· W4291000476 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Miller, Deepak L. Bhatt, Philippe Gabríel Steg, Eliot A. Brinton, Terry A. Jacobson, Lixia Jiao, Jean‐Claude Tardif, Christie M. Ballantyne, Matthew J. Budoff, R. Preston Mason

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Pharmacotherapy · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFatty Acid Research and Health
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart Institute
FundersConcept MedicalAmarin PharmaSt. Jude MedicalFerringDaiichi Sankyo CompanyAmarin CorporationEdwards LifesciencesCSL BehringBayerBoehringer IngelheimAbbott Fund
KeywordsMedicineHazard ratioMyocardial infarctionClinical endpointInternal medicinePlaceboConfidence intervalEicosapentaenoic acidAdverse effectStroke (engine)CardiologyRandomized controlled trialPolyunsaturated fatty acidFatty acid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: Cigarette smoking is among the most well-established risk factors for adverse cardiovascular outcomes. We sought to determine whether icosapent ethyl (IPE), a highly purified form of eicosapentaenoic acid with antiatherothrombotic properties, may reduce the excessive risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) attributable to smoking. METHODS AND RESULTS: Reduction of Cardiovascular Events with Icosapent Ethyl Trial (REDUCE-IT) was a multinational, double-blind trial that randomized 8179 statin-treated patients with elevated triglycerides and CV risk to IPE or placebo, with a median follow-up period of 4.9 years. Icosapent ethyl reduced the primary composite endpoint [CV death, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), non-fatal stroke, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina] by 25% (P < 0.0001). In the current analyses, the effect of IPE was evaluated in REDUCE-IT using post hoc analyses based on smoking history. Groups were classified as current smokers (n = 1241), former smokers (n = 3672), and never smokers (n = 3264). Compared with placebo, IPE use in combined current and former smokers (n = 4913) was associated with significant reductions in time to the primary composite endpoint {hazard ratio: 0.77 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.68-0.87]; P < 0.0001} and in total events [rate ratio: 0.71 (95% CI: 0.61-0.82); P < 0.0001]. These benefits remained significant when subdivided into current and former smokers (P = 0.04, P = 0.005), with reductions in the key secondary composite endpoint (P < 0.0001) and in the individual components of CV death or non-fatal MI (P = 0.04, P = 0.01) and fatal or non-fatal MI (P = 0.009, P = 0.01), respectively. Benefits were consistent and significant in non-smokers as well. Overall, there were similar estimated rates of first occurrences of primary CVD endpoints in current smokers (23.8%) and former smokers (23.0%) assigned to IPE compared with never smokers on placebo (25.7%). CONCLUSION: In REDUCE-IT, IPE treatment was associated with a reduced risk of CV events in current and former smokers to levels observed in never smokers. While smoking cessation should always be recommended, these data raise the possibility that IPE treatment may attenuate CV hazards attributable to smoking.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.594
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations17
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal - Cardiovascular PharmacotherapySame topicFatty Acid Research and HealthFrench-language works237,207