3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      Call for Papers: Sex and Gender in Neurodegenerative Diseases

      Submit here before September 30, 2024

      About Neurodegenerative Diseases: 3.0 Impact Factor I 4.3 CiteScore I 0.695 Scimago Journal & Country Rank (SJR)

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Design of ESPRIT: An International Randomized Trial for Secondary Prevention after Non-Disabling Cerebral Ischaemia of Arterial Origin

      research-article
      Cerebrovascular Diseases
      S. Karger AG
      Stroke, ischaemic, Secondary prevention, Trial

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The ESPRIT trial addresses the problem that aspirin, the standard therapy for secondary prevention of vascular complications after a transient ischaemic attack (TIA) or ischaemic stroke of arterial origin, reduces the risk of serious vascular events by only about 13%. Anticoagulants may be an alternative, as these have proved highly efficacious in trials after myocardial infarction and after cerebral ischaemia with atrial fibrillation. After cerebral ischaemia of presumed arterial origin, high-intensity anticoagulation (INR 3.0–4.5) is not safe, but the value of anticoagulation with an INR between 2.0 and 3.0 is still unknown. Secondly, a recent, large trial showed that the combination of aspirin and dipyridamole prevents more major vascular events than aspirin alone, but several earlier trials did not find such an advantage. In ESPRIT, patients with a TIA or minor ischaemic stroke (Rankin grade ≤3) will be randomized between oral anticoagulation (INR 2.0–3.0), the combination of dipyridamole (400 mg daily) plus aspirin (in any dose between 30 and 325 mg daily) and aspirin only. Primary outcome is the composite event ‘death from all vascular causes, non-fatal stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction or major bleeding complication’, whichever occurs first. Outcome assessment will be blinded. The recruitment of a total of 4,500 patients from more than 10 countries is planned; the mean follow-up will be 3 years.

          Related collections

          Most cited references6

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          European Stroke Prevention Study. 2. Dipyridamole and acetylsalicylic acid in the secondary prevention of stroke.

          In 1988, we undertook a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial to investigate the safety and efficacy of low-dose acetylsalicylic acid (ASA), modified-release dipyridamole, and the two agents in combination for secondary prevention of ischemic stroke. Patients with prior stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) were randomized to treatment with ASA alone (50 mg daily), modified-release dipyridamole alone (400 mg daily), the two agents in a combined formulation, or placebo. Primary endpoints were stroke, death, and stroke or death together. TIA and other vascular events were secondary endpoints. Patients were followed on treatment for two years. Data from 6,602 patients were analysed. Factorial analysis demonstrated a highly significant effect for ASA and for dipyridamole in reducing the risk of stroke (p < or = 0.001) and stroke or death combined (p < 0.01). In pairwise comparisons, stroke risk in comparison to placebo was reduced by 18% with ASA alone (p = 0.013); 16% with dipyridamole alone (p = 0.039); and 37% with combination therapy (p < 0.001). Risk of stroke or death was reduced by 13% with ASA alone (p = 0.016); 15% with dipyridamole alone (p = 0.015); and 24% with the combination (p < 0.001). The treatment had no statistically significant effect on the death rate alone. Factorial analysis also demonstrated a highly significant effect of ASA (p < 0.001) and dipyridamole (p < 0.01) for preventing TIA. The risk reduction for the combination was 36% (p < 0.001) in comparison with placebo. Headache was the most common adverse event, occurring more frequently in dipyridamole-treated patients. All-site bleeding and gastrointestinal bleeding were significantly more common in patients who received ASA in comparison to placebo or dipyridamole. We conclude that (1) ASA 25 mg twice daily and dipyridamole, in a modified-release form, at a dose of 200 mg twice daily have each been shown to be equally effective for the secondary prevention of ischemic stroke and TIA; (2) when co-prescribed the protective effects are additive, the combination being significantly more effective than either agent prescribed singly; (3) low-dose ASA does not eliminate the propensity for induced bleeding.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            An analysis of the lowest effective intensity of prophylactic anticoagulation for patients with nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation.

            To avert major hemorrhage, physicians need to know the lowest intensity of anticoagulation that is effective in preventing stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation. Since the low rate of stroke has made it difficult to perform prospective studies to resolve this issue, we conducted a case-control study. We studied 74 consecutive patients with atrial fibrillation who were admitted to our hospital from 1989 through 1994 after having an ischemic stroke while taking warfarin. For each patient with stroke, three controls with nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation who were treated as outpatients were randomly selected from the 1994 registry of the anticoagulant-therapy unit (222 controls). We used the international normalized ratio (INR) to measure the intensity of anticoagulation. For the patients with stroke, we used INR at admission; for the controls, we selected the INR that was measured closest to the month and day of the matched case patient's hospital admission. The risk of stroke rose steeply at INRs below 2.0. At an INR of 1.7, the adjusted odds ratio for stroke, as compared with the risk at an INR of 2.0, was 2.0 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.6 to 2.4); at an INR of 1.5, it was 3.3 (95 percent confidence interval, 2.4 to 4.6); and at an INR of 1.3, it was 6.0 (95 percent confidence interval, 3.6 to 9.8). Other independent risk factors were previous stroke (odds ratio, 10.4; 95 percent confidence interval, 4.4 to 24.5), diabetes mellitus (odds ratio, 2.95; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.3 to 6.5), hypertension (odds ratio, 2.5; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.1 to 5.7), and current smoking (odds ratio, 5.7; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.4 to 24.0). Among patients with atrial fibrillation, anticoagulant prophylaxis is effective at INRs of 2.0 or greater. Since previous studies have indicated that the risk of hemorrhage rises rapidly at INRs greater than 4.0 to 5.0, tight control of anticoagulant therapy to maintain the INR between 2.0 and 3.0 is a better strategy than targeting lower, less effective levels of anticoagulation.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Secondary prevention in non-rheumatic atrial fibrillation after transient ischaemic attack or minor stroke

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                CED
                Cerebrovasc Dis
                10.1159/issn.1015-9770
                Cerebrovascular Diseases
                S. Karger AG
                1015-9770
                1421-9786
                2000
                April 2000
                18 February 2000
                : 10
                : 2
                : 147-150
                Affiliations
                Trial Office Neurology, University Hospital, Utrecht, The Netherlands
                Article
                16044 Cerebrovasc Dis 2000;10:147–150
                10.1159/000016044
                10686454
                5fc53036-f35b-4eea-bc28-cd74a848516a
                © 2000 S. Karger AG, Basel

                Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

                History
                Page count
                References: 31, Pages: 4
                Categories
                Clinical Trial Design

                Geriatric medicine,Neurology,Cardiovascular Medicine,Neurosciences,Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry,Public health
                Secondary prevention,Trial,Stroke, ischaemic

                Comments

                Comment on this article