Review of Antiplatelet Therapy in Secondary Prevention of Cerebrovascular Events: A Need for Direct Comparisons Between Antiplatelet Agents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients experiencing stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) are at high risk for recurrent (secondary) strokes, which comprise 29% of all strokes in the United States. Current recommendations for prevention of secondary stroke from the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) call for the broad use of platelet antiaggregation (antiplatelet) agents for patients with a history of noncardioembolic stroke or TIA. Five agents--aspirin, ticlopidine, clopidogrel, extended-release dipyridamole (ER-DP), and triflusal--have demonstrated efficacy in large-scale clinical studies in the prevention of recurrent vascular events and/or stroke in patients with a history of stroke. The results of the following studies are reviewed and compared: the Swedish Aspirin Low-Dose Trial (SALT), the United Kingdom Transient Ischaemic Attack (UK-TIA) Aspirin Trial, Dutch Transient Ischemic Attack (Dutch TIA) study (aspirin), the Canadian American Ticlopidine Study (CATS), the Ticlopidine Aspirin Stroke Study (TASS), the African American Antiplatelet Stroke Prevention Study (AAASPS) (ticlopidine), the Clopidogrel versus Aspirin in Patients at Risk of Recurrent Ischemic Events (CAPRIE) trial, the Management of Atherothrombosis With Clopidogrel in High-Risk Patients study (MATCH) (clopidogrel), the second European Stroke Prevention Study (ESPS2) (aspirin plus ER-DP), and the Triflusal versus Aspirin in Cerebral Infarction Prevention (TACIP) study. In comparative monotherapy studies of patients with previous stroke, ticlopidine demonstrates statistically significant improved efficacy over aspirin, and clopidogrel demonstrates nonsignificant slight improvement over aspirin for the prevention of ischemic cardiac and cerebrovascular events; however, the adverse event profile of ticlopidine (including rash, diarrhea, and neutropenia) will probably limit its long-term use. Among combination approaches, only aspirin plus ER-DP has demonstrated statistically significant, clinically meaningful additive benefit over monotherapy with each agent. Clopidogrel plus aspirin did not significantly improve preventive efficacy and increased the risk of serious side effects, including life-threatening bleeding episodes. The 15,500-patient PRoFESS (the Prevention Regimen for Effectively Avoiding Second Strokes) study, with results expected in 2008, will directly compare aspirin plus ER-DP with clopidogrel monotherapy for the prevention of recurrent stroke and should provide statistically robust estimates of comparative efficacy for the development of improved recommendations.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".