Fixed dose combination therapies in primary cardiovascular disease prevention in different groups: an individual participant meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of fixed dose combination (FDC) medications on cardiovascular outcomes in different age groups in an individual participant meta-analysis of three primary prevention randomised trials. METHODS: Participants at intermediate risk (17.7% mean 10-year Framingham Cardiovascular Risk Score), randomised to FDC of two or more antihypertensives and a statin with or without aspirin, or to their respective control, were followed up for 5 years. Age groups were <60, 60-65 and ≥65 years. The primary outcome was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke or revascularisation. Cox proportional HRs and 95% CIs were computed within each age group. RESULTS: The primary outcome risk was reduced by 37% (3.3% in FDC vs 5.2% in control (HR 0.63; 95% CI 0.54 to 0.74)) in the total population of 18 162 participants with larger benefits in older groups (HR 0.58; 95% CI 0.42 to 0.78, 60 to 65 years) and (HR 0.57; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.70, ≥65 years), as were their numbers needed to treat to avoid one primary outcome: 53 and 33, respectively. The primary outcome risk was reduced in the two oldest groups with FDC with aspirin (n=8951) by 54% and 54%, and without aspirin (n=12 061) by 34% and 38%. Dizziness, the most frequent FDC adverse effects, was higher in participants aged <65 years. Aspirin was not associated with significant bleeding excess. CONCLUSIONS: In participants with intermediate cardiovascular risk, FDCs produce larger cardiovascular benefits in older individuals, which appear greater with aspirin. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: HOPE-3, NCT00468923; TIPS-3, NCT016464137; PolyIran, NCT01271985.
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 | 0.018 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.056 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".