Ticagrelor monotherapy beyond 1 month versus standard dual antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting coronary stenting: a pre-specified per-protocol analysis of the GLOBAL LEADERS trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background In the GLOBAL LEADERS trial, the intention-to-treat (ITT) effect of ticagrelor monotherapy after 1 month of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) was not superior to that of 12-month DAPT followed by aspirin alone in the prevention of 2-year all-cause mortality or new Q-wave myocardial infarction (MI) after coronary stenting. Intention-to-treat analyses can be affected by incomplete protocol adherence. We present a pre-specified per-protocol analysis. Purpose To determine whether 1 month of ticagrelor plus aspirin followed by 23 months of ticagrelor monotherapy is superior to 12 months of DAPT followed by aspirin alone in the per-protocol population of the GLOBAL LEADERS (NCT01813435). Methods The GLOBAL LEADERS compared two antiplatelet strategies after drug-eluting stenting for stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes. Per-protocol population consisted of randomized patients fulfilling enrollment criteria and receiving protocol-mandated treatment. Adherence to the allocated antiplatelet therapy was evaluated at discharge, 30 days, and 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months, with non-adherence reasons categorized following a hierarchical approach. A protocol-deviation was defined in the case of high perceived bleeding/thrombotic risk, a medical decision without evident clinical reason, patients unwilling to take study drugs, prescription error, logistical issues, unclear reasons. Baseline characteristics, including (but not limited to) age, sex, diabetes, prior PCI, were used to construct time-varying inverse probabilities for not deviation from the protocol to reconstruct a study population with no protocol-deviations. Protocol deviators were artificially censored at the time at which they deviated. The primary endpoint was the composite of 2-year all-cause mortality or non-fatal new Q-wave MI. We used a weighted pooled logistic regression to estimate the per-protocol rate ratio (RR) of experimental vs. control treatment for the primary endpoint. Results Of the 15,968 randomized patients, 805 out of 7,980 (10.1%) in experimental group and 537 out of 7,988 (6.7%) in control group were classified as protocol deviators and artificially censored by month 12, not contributing events in the second year. The events for the adherence-adjusted analysis were 279 in experimental group and 325 in control group (25 and 24 less than in ITT analysis, respectively). The estimated adherence-adjusted RR was 0.87 (95% CI: 0.74–1.02; p=0.09), comparable to the ITT RR (0.87; 95% CI: 0.75–1.01; p=0.07). Conclusion At per-protocol analysis, ticagrelor monotherapy after 1 month of DAPT was not superior to conventional treatment, in line with the previously reported ITT effect. Similar per-protocol and ITT effects can be accounted for similar per-protocol and ITT populations, as a substantial proportion of patients were non-adherent due to clinically grounded reasons (anticipated in the protocol) and, accordingly, not considered as protocol deviators. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Other. Main funding source(s): GLOBAL LEADERS was sponsored by the European Clinical Research Institute, which received funding from Biosensors International, AstraZeneca, and the Medicines Company.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,063 | 0,066 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,007 | 0,014 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».