4.7 Article

Cilostazol for prevention of secondary stroke (CSPS 2): an aspirin-controlled, double-blind, randomised non-inferiority trial

期刊

LANCET NEUROLOGY
卷 9, 期 10, 页码 959-968

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S1474-4422(10)70198-8

关键词

-

资金

  1. Otsuka Pharmaceutical
  2. Japan Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare
  3. Sanofi-Aventis
  4. Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma
  5. Bayer HealthCare
  6. Kyorin Pharmaceutical
  7. Daiichi-Sankyo
  8. Boehringer Ingelheim
  9. Bayer Health Care
  10. Schering-Plough
  11. Statcom
  12. Ono Pharmaceutical
  13. Eisai
  14. Pfizer Japan
  15. Novartis Pharma
  16. Astellas Pharma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background The antiplatelet drug cilostazol is efficacious for prevention of stroke recurrence compared with placebo. We designed the second Cilostazol Stroke Prevention Study (CSPS 2) to establish non-inferiority of cilostazol versus aspirin for prevention of stroke, and to compare the efficacy and safety of cilostazol and aspirin in patients with non-cardioembolic ischaemic stroke. Methods Patients aged 20-79 years who had had a cerebral infarction within the previous 26 weeks were enrolled at 278 sites in Japan and allocated to receive 100 mg cilostazol twice daily or 81 mg aspirin once daily for 1-5 years. Patients were allocated according to a computer-generated randomisation sequence by means of a dynamic balancing method using patient information obtained at registration. All patients, study personnel, investigators, and the sponsor were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was the first occurrence of stroke (cerebral infarction, cerebral haemorrhage, or subarachnoid haemorrhage). The predefined margin of non-inferiority was an upper 95% CI limit for the hazard ratio of 1.33. Analyses were by full-analysis set. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00234065. Findings Between December, 2003, and October, 2006,2757 patients were enrolled and randomly allocated to receive cilostazol (n=1379) or aspirin (n=1378), of whom 1337 on cilostazol and 1335 on aspirin were included in analyses; mean follow-up was 29 months (SD 16). The primary endpoint occurred at yearly rates of 2.76% (n=82) in the cilostazol group and 3.71% (n=119) in the aspirin group (hazard ratio 0.743, 95% CI 0.564-0 . 981; p=0.0357). Haemorrhagic events (cerebral haemorrhage, subarachnoid haemorrhage, or haemorrhage requiring hospital admission) occurred in fewer patients on cilostazol (0.77%, n=23) than on aspirin (1.78%, n=57; 0.458, 0.296-0 . 711; p=0.0004), but headache, diarrhoea, palpitation, dizziness, and tachycardia were more frequent in the cilostazol group than in the aspirin group. Interpretation Cilostazol seems to be non-inferior, and might be superior, to aspirin for prevention of stroke after an ischaemic stroke, and was associated with fewer haemorrhagic events. Therefore, cilostazol could be used for prevention of stroke in patients with non-cardioembolic stroke. Funding Otsuka Pharmaceutical.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据