All comparisons are rivaroxaban 2.5mg vs. rivaroxaban 5mg vs. placebo (2.5mg vs. placebo | 5mg vs. placebo).
Composite of CV mortality, MI, or stroke (efficacy) 9.1% vs. 8.8% vs. 10.7% (HR 0.84; P=0.02 | HR 0.85; P=0.03)
TIMI major bleeding not associated with CABG (safety) 1.8% vs. 2.4% vs. 0.6% (HR 3.46; P<0.001 | HR 4.47; P<0.001)
Composite of all-cause mortality, MI or stroke 9.3% vs. 9.1% vs. 11.0% (HR 0.83; P=0.02 | HR 0.84; P=0.02)
CV mortality 2.7% vs. 4.0% vs. 4.1% (HR 0.66; P=0.002 | HR 0.94; P=0.63)
All-cause mortality 2.9% vs. 4.4% vs. 4.5% (HR 0.68; P=0.002 | HR 0.95; P=0.66)
MI 6.1% vs. 4.9% vs. 6.6% (HR 0.90; P=0.27 | HR 0.79; P=0.02)
Any stroke 1.4% vs. 1.7% vs. 1.2% (HR 1.13; P=0.56 | HR 1.34; P=0.15)
Ischemic stroke 1.4% vs. 1.7% vs. 1.2% (HR 0.89; P=0.64 | HR 1.05; P=0.84)
Stent thrombosis 2.2% vs. 2.3% vs. 2.9% (HR 0.65; P=0.02 | HR 0.73; P=0.08)
"Good" follow-up  Complete: 85% vs. 84% vs. 85% Death: 3% vs. 4% vs. 4% Total: 88% vs. 87% vs. 89%
"Bad" follow-up  Consent withdrawn: 9% vs. 9% vs. 8% Lost: 0.2% vs. 0.3% vs. 0.3% Other: 3% vs. 4% vs. 3% Total: 11% vs. 12% vs. 13%
TIMI minor bleeding 0.9% vs. 1.6% vs. 0.5% (HR 1.62; P=0.09 | HR 2.52; P<0.001)
TIMI bleeding requiring medical attention 12.9% vs. 16.2% vs. 7.5% (HR 1.79; P<0.001 | HR 2.39; P<0.001)
ICH 0.4% vs. 0.7% vs. 0.2% (HR 2.83; P=0.04 | HR 3.74; P=0.005)
Fatal bleeding 0.1% vs. 0.4% vs. 0.2% (HR 0.67; P=0.45 | HR 1.72; P=0.20)
Reduction in primary efficacy outcome with rivaroxaban was consistent among subgroups except for patients with history of stroke or TIA.
Can you give an example of ATLAS that is provided by JC?
<|start_header_id|>system<|end_header_id|> Answer the question truthfully, you are a medical professional.<|eot_id|><|start_header_id|>user<|end_header_id|> This is the question: Can you give an example of ATLAS that is provided by JC?<|eot_id|><|start_header_id|>assistant<|end_header_id|> All comparisons are rivaroxaban 2.5mg vs. rivaroxaban 5mg vs. placebo (2.5mg vs. placebo | 5mg vs. placebo).
Composite of CV mortality, MI, or stroke (efficacy) 9.1% vs. 8.8% vs. 10.7% (HR 0.84; P=0.02 | HR 0.85; P=0.03)
TIMI major bleeding not associated with CABG (safety) 1.8% vs. 2.4% vs. 0.6% (HR 3.46; P<0.001 | HR 4.47; P<0.001)
Composite of all-cause mortality, MI or stroke 9.3% vs. 9.1% vs. 11.0% (HR 0.83; P=0.02 | HR 0.84; P=0.02)
CV mortality 2.7% vs. 4.0% vs. 4.1% (HR 0.66; P=0.002 | HR 0.94; P=0.63)
All-cause mortality 2.9% vs. 4.4% vs. 4.5% (HR 0.68; P=0.002 | HR 0.95; P=0.66)
MI 6.1% vs. 4.9% vs. 6.6% (HR 0.90; P=0.27 | HR 0.79; P=0.02)
Any stroke 1.4% vs. 1.7% vs. 1.2% (HR 1.13; P=0.56 | HR 1.34; P=0.15)
Ischemic stroke 1.4% vs. 1.7% vs. 1.2% (HR 0.89; P=0.64 | HR 1.05; P=0.84)
Stent thrombosis 2.2% vs. 2.3% vs. 2.9% (HR 0.65; P=0.02 | HR 0.73; P=0.08)
"Good" follow-up  Complete: 85% vs. 84% vs. 85% Death: 3% vs. 4% vs. 4% Total: 88% vs. 87% vs. 89%
"Bad" follow-up  Consent withdrawn: 9% vs. 9% vs. 8% Lost: 0.2% vs. 0.3% vs. 0.3% Other: 3% vs. 4% vs. 3% Total: 11% vs. 12% vs. 13%
TIMI minor bleeding 0.9% vs. 1.6% vs. 0.5% (HR 1.62; P=0.09 | HR 2.52; P<0.001)
TIMI bleeding requiring medical attention 12.9% vs. 16.2% vs. 7.5% (HR 1.79; P<0.001 | HR 2.39; P<0.001)
ICH 0.4% vs. 0.7% vs. 0.2% (HR 2.83; P=0.04 | HR 3.74; P=0.005)
Fatal bleeding 0.1% vs. 0.4% vs. 0.2% (HR 0.67; P=0.45 | HR 1.72; P=0.20)
Reduction in primary efficacy outcome with rivaroxaban was consistent among subgroups except for patients with history of stroke or TIA.<|eot_id|>