4.7 Article

Reduction in the recurrence of stroke by eicosapentaenoic acid for hypercholesterolemic patients - Subanalysis of the JELIS trial

期刊

STROKE
卷 39, 期 7, 页码 2052-2058

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.107.509455

关键词

JELIS; EPA; stroke; clinical trial; prevention

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Purpose - The JELIS trial examined the preventive effect of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) against coronary artery diseases. Hypercholesterolemic patients received statin only (no EPA group: n = 9319) or statin with EPA (EPA group: n = 9326) for around 5 years. EPA significantly suppressed the incidence of coronary events in previous analysis. Herein, we investigated the effects of EPA on the primary and secondary prevention of stroke. Methods - We conducted a subanalysis of JELIS with respect to stroke incidence in the primary and secondary prevention subgroups defined as those without and with a prior history of stroke using Cox proportional hazard ratios, adjusted for baseline risk factor levels. Results - As for primary prevention of stroke, this occurred in 114 (1.3%) of 8862 no EPA group and in 133 (1.5%) of 8841 EPA group. No statistically significant difference in total stroke incidence (Hazard Ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.95 to 1.22) was observed between the no EPA and the EPA groups. In the secondary prevention subgroup, stroke occurred in 48 (10.5%) of 457 no EPA group and in 33 (6.8%) of 485 EPA group, showing a 20% relative reduction in recurrent stroke in the EPA group (Hazard Ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.64 to 0.997). Conclusions - Administration of highly purified EPA appeared to reduce the risk of recurrent stroke in a Japanese population of hypercholesterolemic patients receiving low-dose statin therapy. Further research is needed to determine whether similar benefits are found in other populations with lower levels of fish intake. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials. gov (number NCT00231738).

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