Ticagrelor With or Without Aspirin in Chinese Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A TWILIGHT China Substudy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The risk/benefit tradeoff of dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention may vary in East Asian patients as compared with their non-East Asian counterparts. Methods: The double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized TWILIGHT trial (Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients After Coronary Intervention) enrolled patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention. After 3 months of treatment with ticagrelor plus aspirin, event-free and adherent patients remained on ticagrelor and were randomly assigned to receive aspirin or placebo for 1 year. The primary end point was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding; the key secondary end point was the first occurrence of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. Results: Of 9006 enrolled and 7119 randomized patients in TWILIGHT, 1169 patients (13.0%) were enrolled at 27 Chinese sites in this prespecified substudy, of whom 1028 (14.4%) patients were randomized after 3 months. The incidence of the primary end point was 6.2% in the ticagrelor+aspirin group versus 3.5% in the ticagrelor+placebo group between randomization and 1 year (hazard ratio, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.31–0.99]; P =0.048). The key secondary end point occurred in 3.4% of patients in the ticagrelor+aspirin group versus 2.4% in the ticagrelor+placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.33–1.46]; P =0.34). There was no interaction between the region of randomization (China versus the rest of the world) and randomized treatment assignment in terms of the primary or key secondary end points. Conclusions: Ticagrelor monotherapy significantly reduced clinically relevant bleeding without increasing ischemic events as compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin in Chinese patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT02270242.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".