MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414384297 · doi:10.1093/eurjpc/zwaf602

Benefit of icosapent ethyl across types and sizes of myocardial infarction in REDUCE-IT

2025· article· en· W4414384297 on OpenAlexaff
Chen Gurevitz, Deepak L. Bhatt, Robert P. Giugliano, Philippe Gabríel Steg, Michael Miller, Eliot A. Brinton, Terry A. Jacobson, Steven Ketchum, Armando Lira Pineda, Ralph T. Doyle, Gioacchino Giugliano, R. Preston Mason, Jean‐Claude Tardif, Fabrice M A C Martens, Christie M. Ballantyne, Matthew J Budoff, C. Michael Gibson

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Preventive Cardiology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFatty Acid Research and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMontreal Heart Institute
FundersAmarin Corporation
KeywordsMyocardial infarctionMyocardial infarction diagnosisMEDLINEMyocardial reperfusionThrombolysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: We studied the efficacy and safety of icosapent ethyl (IPE) 4g daily in reducing the risk of myocardial infarction (MI) across different MI subtypes and sizes, among REDUCE-IT high-risk patients with hypertriglyceridemia. METHODS: REDUCE-IT was a phase 3b, double-blind multicenter trial. Patients with established CVD or diabetes who were treated with statins and had moderate hypertriglyceridemia were randomized to receive IPE 4g daily or placebo. The current analysis focused on MI subtypes (fatal MI, nonfatal MI, ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI), non-STEMI (NSTEMI)), as well as MI size (measured by multiples of troponin upper limit of normal) and MI-related complications. Safety outcomes included treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs), bleeding, atrial fibrillation, and flutter. RESULTS: At 5.7 years follow-up, MI incidence was lower with IPE compared with placebo (8.6% vs 12.0%), hazard ratio (HR) 0.69 (95% CI 0.58-0.81, P<0.0001). STEMI incidence was lower with IPE (2.7% vs 3.9%, HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.44-0.81, P=0.0008), as was NSTEMI incidence (5.9% vs 7.8%, HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.60-0.89, P=0.001). Fatal and nonfatal MIs were reduced with IPE (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.30-1.01, P=0.05 and HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.59-0.82, P<0.0001, respectively). Stratification by size revealed IPE reduced most MIs, but the protective effect was higher for larger MIs (P<0.0001). Further analyses showed benefits in MI-related outcomes, including reductions in spontaneous MI and MI-related complications. Among patients who developed MI, safety outcomes showed no significant increase in serious bleeding, atrial fibrillation or flutter, or adverse events with IPE. CONCLUSION: IPE significantly reduced MI across most subtypes and sizes in statin-treated patients with elevated triglycerides at increased cardiovascular risk. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01492361.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.682
Threshold uncertainty score0.329

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Preventive CardiologySame topicFatty Acid Research and HealthFrench-language works237,207