Aspirin Dosing for Secondary Prevention of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease in Patients Treated With P2Y12 Inhibitors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The ADAPTABLE (Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-Centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-Term Effectiveness) was a large, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial that found no difference between high- versus low-dose aspirin for secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Whether concomitant P2Y12 inhibitor therapy modifies the effect of aspirin dose on clinical events remains unclear. Methods and Results Participants in ADAPTABLE were stratified according to baseline use of clopidogrel or prasugrel (P2Y12 group). The primary effectiveness end point was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; and the primary safety end point was major bleeding requiring blood transfusions. We used multivariable Cox regression to compare the relative effectiveness and safety of aspirin dose within P2Y12 and non-P2Y12 groups. Of 13 815 (91.6%) participants with available data, 3051 (22.1%) were receiving clopidogrel (2849 [93.4%]) or prasugrel (203 [6.7%]) at baseline. P2Y12 inhibitor use was associated with higher risk of the primary effectiveness end point (10.86% versus 6.31%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.40 [95% CI, 1.22-1.62]) but was not associated with bleeding (0.95% versus 0.53%; adjusted HR, 1.42 [95% CI, 0.91-2.22]). We found no interaction in the relative effectiveness and safety of high- versus low-dose aspirin by P2Y12 inhibitor use. Overall, dose switching or discontinuation was more common in the high-dose compared with low-dose aspirin group, but the pattern was not modified by P2Y12 inhibitor use. Conclusions In this prespecified analysis of ADAPTABLE, we found that the relative effectiveness and safety of high- versus low-dose aspirin was not modified by baseline P2Y12 inhibitor use. Registration https://www.clinical.trials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02697916.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".