Impact of white blood cell count on clinical outcomes in patients treated with aspirin-free ticagrelor monotherapy after percutaneous coronary intervention: insights from the GLOBAL LEADERS trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor monotherapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) stratified according to the baseline white blood cell (WBC) count. METHODS AND RESULTS: This is a post hoc analysis of the GLOBAL LEADERS trial, a multi-centre, open-label, randomized all-comer trial in patients undergoing PCI, comparing the experimental strategy (23-month ticagrelor monotherapy following 1-month dual anti-platelet therapy [DAPT]) with the reference strategy (12-month aspirin monotherapy following 12-month DAPT). Patients were stratified into two WBC groups, either < or ≥median WBC count of 7.8 × 109 cells/L (lower or higher WBC group, respectively). The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality or new Q-wave myocardial infarction at 2 years. Of 14 576 patients included in the present study, 7212 patients (49.5%) were classified as the lower WBC group, who had a significantly lower risk of both ischaemic and bleeding outcomes at 2 years. At 2 years, the experimental strategy was associated with a significant lower incidence of the primary endpoint compared with the reference strategy in the lower WBC group [2.8% vs. 4.2%; hazard ratio (HR): 0.67; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.52-0.86] but not in the higher WBC group (4.8% vs. 4.7%; HR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.82-1.25; Pinteraction=0.013). There were no significant differences in the risks of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5 bleeding between two anti-platelet strategies regardless of the WBC groups. CONCLUSION: Increased WBC counts, which may reflect degree of inflammation, at the time of index procedure may attenuate the anti-ischaemic benefits of ticagrelor monotherapy observed in patients with lower WBC counts.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".