MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3200223380 · doi:10.1161/jaha.119.015560

Efficacy and Safety of Ticagrelor Monotherapy by Clinical Presentation: Pre‐Specified Analysis of the GLOBAL LEADERS Trial

2021· article· en· W3200223380 on OpenAlexaff
Pascal Vranckx, Marco Valgimigli, Ayodele Odutayo, Patrick W. Serruys, Christian W. Hamm, Philippe Gabríel Steg, Dik Heg, Eugène P. Mc Fadden, Yoshinobu Onuma, Edouard Benit, Luc Janssens, Roberto Diletti, Maurizio Ferrario, Kurt Huber, Lorenz Räber, Stephan Windecker, Peter Jüni

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Heart Association · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTicagrelorAcute coronary syndromeAspirinClopidogrelInternal medicineMyocardial infarctionCoronary artery diseaseClinical endpointScadCardiologyRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy after coronary drug‐eluting stent placement in adults with stable coronary artery disease (SCAD) versus acute coronary syndromes (ACS) remains uncertain. Methods and Results This was a prespecified subgroup analysis of the GLOBAL LEADERS trial. Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to the experimental or reference strategy, stratified by ACS (experimental, n=3750; reference, n=3737) versus SCAD (experimental, n=4230; reference, n=4251). The experimental strategy was 75 to 100 mg aspirin daily plus 90 mg ticagrelor twice daily for 1 month, followed by 23 months of ticagrelor monotherapy. The reference strategy was 75 to 100 mg aspirin daily plus either 75 mg clopidogrel daily (for SCAD) or 90 mg ticagrelor twice daily (for ACS) for 12 months, followed by aspirin monotherapy for 12 months. The primary end point at 2 years was a composite of all‐cause mortality or non‐fatal centrally adjudicated new Q‐wave myocardial infarction. The key secondary safety end point was site‐reported Bleeding Academic Research Consortium grade 3 or 5 bleeding. The primary end point occurred in 147 (3.92%) versus 169 (4.52%) patients with ACS (rate ratio [RR], 0.86; 95% CI, 0.69–1.08; P =0.189), and in 157 (3.71%) versus 180 (4.23%) patients with SCAD (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.71–1.08; P =0.221) with experimental and reference strategy, respectively ( P ‐interaction=0.926). Bleeding Academic Research Consortium grade 3 or 5 bleeding occurred in 73 (1.95%) versus 100 (2.68%) patients with ACS (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.54–0.98; P =0.037), and in 90 (2.13%) versus 69 (1.62%) patients with SCAD (RR, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.97–1.81; P =0.081; P ‐interaction=0.007). Conclusions While there was no evidence for differences in efficacy between treatment strategies by subgroup, the experimental strategy appeared to reduce bleeding risk in patients with ACS but not in patients with SCAD. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01813435.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.330 · 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

Citations50
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Heart AssociationSame topicAntiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular DiseasesFrench-language works237,207