MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Icosapent Ethyl diminishes CVD risk in smokers: REDUCE-IT smoking

2022· article· en· W4306254407 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Miller, Deepak L. Bhatt, Philipe G Steg, Eliot A. Brinton, Terry A. Jacobson, Lixia Jiao, J.‐C. Tardif, C M B Ballantyne, M B Budoff, R P M Mason

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicConsumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHazard ratioMyocardial infarctionStroke (engine)Internal medicineClinical endpointSmoking cessationPlaceboSudden cardiac deathPost-hoc analysisCardiologyRandomized controlled trialConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background/Introduction Cigarette smoking is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular (CV) events with effective treatment currently limited to smoking cessation. REDUCE-IT, a multinational, double-blind trial, randomised 8179 statin-treated patients with controlled low density lipoprotein cholesterol, elevated triglycerides, and CV risk, to icosapent ethyl (IPE) 4 grams/day or placebo, with a median of 4.9 years of follow-up. IPE reduced the primary composite (CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction [MI], nonfatal stroke, coronary revascularisation, or hospitalisation for unstable angina) and key secondary composite (CV death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke) endpoints 25% and 26%, respectively (each P<0.0001), and individual components including stroke (28%), MI (31%), cardiac arrest (48%), and sudden cardiac death (31%) (all P≤0.01). Purpose To evaluate the effects of IPE on the risk of CV events and safety measures in patients by history of smoking. Methods The effect of IPE on first and total primary and key secondary endpoints was evaluated in the REDUCE-IT study using post hoc analyses based upon smoking history. Groups were classified as never smokers (n=3264), former smokers (n=3672), and current smokers (n=1241). Results 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% 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) (Figure 1). These benefits remained significant when subdivided into current and former smokers and were associated with reductions in the key secondary composite endpoint (P=0.04, P=0.005), and the individual components of CV death or nonfatal MI (P=0.04, P=0.01) and fatal or nonfatal MI (P=0.009, P=0.01, respectively). Never smokers also had a significant benefit from IPE for both the primary and key secondary endpoints. Overall, there were similar estimated rates of first occurrences of CV death, MI, stroke, coronary revascularisation, or hospitalisation for unstable angina in current smokers (23.8%) and former smokers (23.0%) assigned to IPE compared with never smokers on placebo (25.7%) (Figure 2). Conclusions In the REDUCE-IT study, IPE treatment significantly reduced the 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 markedly attenuate the CV hazards attributable to smoking. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicConsumer Attitudes and Food LabelingFrench-language works237,207