Concomitant Gastrointestinal Bleeding Prophylaxis With Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Usage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is a critical condition that requires effective management, particularly in patients undergoing dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and clopidogrel. This literature review examines the comparative efficacy and safety of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) in preventing GIB among these patients. PPIs have traditionally been the cornerstone for GIB prophylaxis due to their superior acid-suppressive properties and ability to promote ulcer healing. However, concerns about PPIs potentially inhibiting clopidogrel's antiplatelet activity via cytochrome P450 2C19 interactions have led to increased interest in H2RAs as an alternative. Emerging research highlights the contexts where H2RAs may be preferred, including in patients with specific cardiovascular or renal comorbidities. Recent findings also explore the role of potassium-competitive acid blockers (PCABs) as a promising alternative to PPIs. Despite conflicting data, this review underscores the need for personalized treatment strategies based on efficacy, safety, and patient-specific factors to optimize GIB prophylaxis in DAPT patients. Further large-scale studies are recommended to address gaps in the literature and refine clinical guidelines.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".