MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413981169 · doi:10.1136/heartjnl-2025-326218

Benefit–risk of colchicine and spironolactone in acute myocardial infarction: a prespecified generalised pairwise comparisons analysis of the CLEAR trial

2025· article· en· W4413981169 on OpenAlexafffund
Marc-André d’Entremont, Sanjit S. Jolly, Faisal Alharthi, Binita Shah, David Austin, Quilong Yi, Robert F. Storey, Matthias Bossard, Jan H. Cornel, Jeroen Jaspers Focks, Sasko Kedev, Valon Asani, Goran Stanković, Michael Tsang, Nicholas Valettas, Jessica Tyrwhitt, Shun Fu Lee, Rajibul Mian, Johanne Silvain, Farzin Beygui, Andrew Czarnecki, Payam Dehghani, Warren J. Cantor, Shahar Lavi, James Spratt, Emilie P. Belley‐Côté, John W. Eikelboom

Bibliographic record

VenueHeart · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreSouthlake Regional Health CenterGenome PrairieHealth Sciences CentreCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of OttawaHamilton Health SciencesPopulation Health Research Institute
FundersInstitute of Circulatory and Respiratory HealthCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchBoston Scientific CorporationPopulation Health Research Institute
KeywordsMedicineSpironolactoneMyocardial infarctionInternal medicinePlaceboStroke (engine)Relative riskCardiologyHeart failureConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Composite outcomes in cardiovascular trials often group events of unequal clinical importance, and conventional analyses may obscure treatment trade-offs. Generalised pairwise comparisons (GPC), expressed as a win ratio (WR), allow for hierarchical ranking of events and incorporation of recurrent outcomes, providing a potentially more intuitive assessment of benefit-risk. METHODS: In a prespecified exploratory analysis of the 2×2 factorial, randomised CLEAR (Colchicine and Spironolactone in Patients with Myocardial Infarction) trial (7062 patients within 72 hours of acute myocardial infarction (MI) and percutaneous coronary intervention), we applied both time-to-first and recurrent-event GPC to reassess low-dose colchicine (0.5 mg daily) and spironolactone (25 mg daily) versus placebo. For the colchicine comparison, the hierarchical benefit-risk outcome included all-cause death, stroke, recurrent MI, unplanned ischaemia-driven revascularisation, serious infection or diarrhoea. For the spironolactone comparison, the outcome included all-cause death, stroke, MI, new or worsening heart failure, significant ventricular arrhythmia, hyperkalaemia or gynaecomastia/gynaecodynia. GPC results were compared with Cox, logistic and Andersen-Gill models. RESULTS: For colchicine, the time-to-first event GPC showed a 12% lower proportional win rate compared with placebo (WR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.98; win difference -2.10%, 95% CI -3.84 to -0.37), driven largely by excess diarrhoea. For spironolactone, patients experienced a 14% lower win rate (WR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.99; win difference -1.46%, 95% CI -2.84% to -0.08%), largely attributable to gynaecomastia and hyperkalaemia. Conventional statistical approaches yielded concordant results. Across both interventions, higher-order efficacy outcomes (death, MI, stroke, heart failure) showed no benefit. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with post-MI, both low-dose colchicine and spironolactone demonstrated disadvantageous benefit-risk profiles, reinforcing that neither agent should be used routinely. This prespecified application of GPC provided results consistent with traditional methods but offered a clinically intuitive framework for interpreting composite outcomes.

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)0.101
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.141
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.533

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1010.141
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.017
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHeartSame topicAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesFrench-language works237,207