MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract 9964: Vorapaxar, a Platelet Thrombin-Receptor Antagonist, in Medically Managed Patients with Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome: Results from the TRACER Trial

2012· article· en· W91109828 on OpenAlexaff
Claes Held, Pierluigi Tricoci, Zhen Huang, Frans Van de Werf, Harvey D. White, Paul W. Armstrong, Giuseppe Ambrosio, Philip E. Aylward, David J. Moliterno, Lars Wallentin, Edmond Chen, Aycan Fahri Erkan, Lixin Jiang, John Strony, Robert A. Harrington, Kenneth W. Mahaffey

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAcute coronary syndromeInternal medicineCardiologyPlateletPlatelet activationAntagonistThrombinPlatelet aggregation inhibitorReceptorAnesthesiaMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: This is a prespecified post-randomization subgroup analysis to evaluate efficacy and safety outcomes of vorapaxar in the TRACER trial in patients that were medically managed without revascularization procedures during index hospitalization. Methods: Vorapaxar, a novel platelet-protease-activated receptor-1 antagonist, was randomized with placebo in 12,944 patients with NSTE ACS. We explored the effect of vorapaxar vs placebo among medically managed patients at discharge (n=4194; 32.4 %) vs those undergoing revascularization (n=8750; 67.6%) from discharge to end of follow-up, with adjustments for baseline differences. Events rates are provided as 2-yr Kaplan-Meier estimates. Results: The medically managed patients were more likely to be older and female and have prior MI, prior CABG, and decreased renal function. The 2-yr event rate of the primary outcome (CV death, MI, stroke, recurrent ischemia with rehospitalization, or urgent coronary revascularization) was 16.9% with vorapaxar and 17.3% with placebo (HR 0.95; 95% CI 0.81-1.14), with no interaction between study drug and management strategy (p=0.63). The rate of the key secondary endpoint (CV death, MI, and stroke) was 13.9% with vorapaxar and 15.1% with placebo (HR 0.88; 95% CI 0.73-1.07), with no interaction (p=0.86). Lower MI rates were observed in medically managed patients treated with vorapaxar (9.3% vs 11.1% [HR 0.79; 95% CI 0.63-0.99). Vorapaxar significantly increased GUSTO moderate or severe bleeding in medically managed patients (HR 1.52; 95% CI 1.04-2.22) and in patients undergoing revascularization (HR 1.32; 95% CI 0.99-1.76). In the medical group, intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) occurred in 18 patients with vorapaxar and in 1 patient with placebo, whereas ICH occurred in 17 vorapaxar patients and 9 placebo patients treated with revascularization, with no significant interaction (p=0.056). Conclusion: In patients with NSTE ACS treated medically, the efficacy of vorapaxar was consistent with the main findings of the TRACER trial. Bleeding hazard with vorapaxar tended to be higher in medically treated patients, possibly due to patient selection factors.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designRandomized 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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicAntiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular DiseasesFrench-language works237,207