Yi-Sin Wong1, Ching-Fang Tsai2, Yueh-Han Hsu2, Cheung-Ter Ong3. 1. Department of Family Medicine, Ditmanson Medical Foundation Chiayi Christian Hospital, Chiayi City, Taiwan. 2. Department of Medical Research, Ditmanson Medical Foundation Chiayi Christian Hospital, Chiayi City, Taiwan. 3. Department of Neurology, Ditmanson Medical Foundation Chiayi Christian Hospital, Chiayi City, Taiwan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In real-world practice settings, there is insufficient evidence on the efficacy of antiplatelet drugs, including clopidogrel, aspirin, and ticlopidine, in stroke prevention. PURPOSE: To compare the efficacies between aspirin and clopidogrel and aspirin and ticlopidine in stroke prevention. METHODS: This population-based case-cohort study utilized the data obtained from a randomized sample of one million subjects in the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. Patients who were hospitalized owing to the primary diagnosis of ischemic stroke from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2010 and treated with aspirin, ticlopidine, or clopidogrel were included in the study. Propensity score matching with a 1:4 ratio was performed to compare aspirin with ticlopidine and clopidogrel. The criteria for inclusion were the use of one of the three antiplatelet drugs for more than 14 days within the first month after the stroke and then continued use of the antiplatelet drugs until the study endpoint of recurrent stroke. RESULTS: During the 3-year follow-up period, the recurrent stroke rates were 1.62% (42/2585), 1.48% (3/203), and 2.55% (8/314) in the aspirin, ticlopidine, and clopidogrel groups, respectively. Compared with the patients treated with aspirin, those treated with clopidogrel and ticlopidine showed competing risk-adjusted hazard ratios of recurrent stroke of 2.27 (1.02-5.07) and 0.62 (0.08-4.86), respectively. CONCLUSION: Compared with the patients treated with aspirin, those treated with clopidogrel were at a higher risk of recurrent stroke. For stroke prevention, aspirin was superior to clopidogrel whereas ticlopidine was not inferior to aspirin.
BACKGROUND: In real-world practice settings, there is insufficient evidence on the efficacy of antiplatelet drugs, including clopidogrel, aspirin, and ticlopidine, in stroke prevention. PURPOSE: To compare the efficacies between aspirin and clopidogrel and aspirin and ticlopidine in stroke prevention. METHODS: This population-based case-cohort study utilized the data obtained from a randomized sample of one million subjects in the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. Patients who were hospitalized owing to the primary diagnosis of ischemic stroke from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2010 and treated with aspirin, ticlopidine, or clopidogrel were included in the study. Propensity score matching with a 1:4 ratio was performed to compare aspirin with ticlopidine and clopidogrel. The criteria for inclusion were the use of one of the three antiplatelet drugs for more than 14 days within the first month after the stroke and then continued use of the antiplatelet drugs until the study endpoint of recurrent stroke. RESULTS: During the 3-year follow-up period, the recurrent stroke rates were 1.62% (42/2585), 1.48% (3/203), and 2.55% (8/314) in the aspirin, ticlopidine, and clopidogrel groups, respectively. Compared with the patients treated with aspirin, those treated with clopidogrel and ticlopidine showed competing risk-adjusted hazard ratios of recurrent stroke of 2.27 (1.02-5.07) and 0.62 (0.08-4.86), respectively. CONCLUSION: Compared with the patients treated with aspirin, those treated with clopidogrel were at a higher risk of recurrent stroke. For stroke prevention, aspirin was superior to clopidogrel whereas ticlopidine was not inferior to aspirin.
Authors: Ralph L Sacco; Scott E Kasner; Joseph P Broderick; Louis R Caplan; J J Buddy Connors; Antonio Culebras; Mitchell S V Elkind; Mary G George; Allen D Hamdan; Randall T Higashida; Brian L Hoh; L Scott Janis; Carlos S Kase; Dawn O Kleindorfer; Jin-Moo Lee; Michael E Moseley; Eric D Peterson; Tanya N Turan; Amy L Valderrama; Harry V Vinters Journal: Stroke Date: 2013-05-07 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Philip M W Bath; Daniel Cotton; Reneé H Martin; Yuko Palesch; Salim Yusuf; Ralph Sacco; Hans-Christoph Diener; Conrado Estol; Robin Roberts Journal: Stroke Date: 2010-02-24 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Karen L Furie; Scott E Kasner; Robert J Adams; Gregory W Albers; Ruth L Bush; Susan C Fagan; Jonathan L Halperin; S Claiborne Johnston; Irene Katzan; Walter N Kernan; Pamela H Mitchell; Bruce Ovbiagele; Yuko Y Palesch; Ralph L Sacco; Lee H Schwamm; Sylvia Wassertheil-Smoller; Tanya N Turan; Deidre Wentworth Journal: Stroke Date: 2010-10-21 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: John W Eikelboom; Jack Hirsh; Jeffrey I Weitz; Marilyn Johnston; Qilong Yi; Salim Yusuf Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-04-09 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: M Gent; J A Blakely; J D Easton; D J Ellis; V C Hachinski; J W Harbison; E Panak; R S Roberts; J Sicurella; A G Turpie Journal: Lancet Date: 1989-06-03 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Marharyta Kamarova; Sheharyar Baig; Hamish Patel; Kimberley Monks; Mohammed Wasay; Ali Ali; Jessica Redgrave; Arshad Majid; Simon M Bell Journal: Ann Pharmacother Date: 2022-01-29 Impact factor: 3.463