mechanism | treatment | Demonstrated benefit and harm | k | | | |
---|
antithrombotics | cilostazol | versus antiplatelet drugs No demonstrated result for efficacy | 7 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
Kozuma, 2001 | cilostazol + aspirin vs ticlopidine + aspirin | | | MACE 0.00 [0.00; NaN] | Ochiai, 1999 | cilostazol + aspirin vs ticlopidine + aspirin | | | MACE 1.00 [0.15; 6.55] | Park, 1999 | cilostazol + aspirin vs ticlopidine + aspirin | | | MACE 1.97 [0.18; 21.56] | Yoon, 1999 | cilostazol + aspirin vs ticlopidine + aspirin | | | MACE 0.68 [0.11; 3.99] | Kamishirado, 2002 | cilostazol + aspirin vs ticlopidine + aspirin | | | MACE 0.00 [0.00; NaN] | Sekiya, 1998 | cilostazol + aspirin vs aspirin | | | MACE 0.00 [0.00; NaN] | Kunishima, 1997 | cilostazol vs aspirin | | | MACE 0.00 [0.00; NaN] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
Kozuma, 2001 | Cilostazol 200 mg qD x6 mos Aspirin 81–162 mg qD (n=62) vs. Ticlopidine 200 mg qD x6 mos Aspirin 81–162 mg qD (n=63) | | Sample size: 62/63 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | Ochiai, 1999 | Cilostazol 100 mg BID x6 mos Aspirin 81 mg TID (n=25) vs. Ticlopidine 100 mg BID x1 mo Aspirin 81 mg TID (n=25) | | Sample size: 25/25 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | Park, 1999 | Cilostazol 100 mg BID x6 mos Aspirin 200 mg qD (n=247) vs. Ticlopidine 250 mg BID x4 wks Aspirin 200 mg qD (n=243) | | Sample size: 247/243 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | Yoon, 1999 | Cilostazol 100 mg BID x30 days Aspirin 100 mg qD (n=147) vs. Ticlopidine 250 mg BID x30 days Aspirin 100 mg qD (n=149) | | Sample size: 147/149 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | Kamishirado, 2002 | Cilostazol 200 mg qD x6 mos Aspirin 81 mg qD (n=65) vs. Ticlopidine 200 mg qD x6 mos Aspirin 81 mg qD (n=65) | | Sample size: 65/65 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | Sekiya, 1998 | Cilostazol 200 mg qD x6mos Aspirin 81 mg qD (n=63) vs. Coumadin unspecified regimen Aspirin 81 mg qD (n=63) | | Sample size: 63/63 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | Kunishima, 1997 | Cilostazol 200 mg qD unspecified durationg qD (n=30) vs. Aspirin 81 mg qD (n=40) | | Sample size: 30/40 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
antithrombotics | clopidogrel | versus No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
REAL-LATE, ZEST-LATE, 2010 | clopidogrel+aspirin vs aspirin | | | all cause death 1.52 [0.76; 3.05] major bleeding 2.97 [0.31; 28.51] stroke 2.23 [0.69; 7.21] MI 1.41 [0.54; 3.70] definite stent thrombosis 1.24 [0.33; 4.60] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
REAL-LATE, ZEST-LATE, 2010 | clopidogrel plus aspirin (n=1357) vs. aspirin alone (n=1344) | patients who had received drugeluting
stents and had been free of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events
and major bleeding for a period of at least 12 months | open Parallel groups Sample size: 1357/1344 Primary endpoint: CV death, MI FU duration: 19.2 months |
|
antithrombotics | clopidogrel | versus antiplatelet drugs No demonstrated result for efficacy | 4 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
Müller, 2000 | clopidogrel + aspirin vs ticlopidine + aspirin | | | MACE 1.78 [0.67; 4.76] | CLASSICS, 2000 | clopidogrel + aspirin vs ticlopidine + aspirin | | | MACE 1.31 [0.30; 5.83] | TOPPS, 2001 | clopidogrel + aspirin vs ticlopidine + aspirin | | | MACE 0.84 [0.46; 1.51] | Piamsomboon, 2001 | clopidogrel + aspirin vs ticlopidine + aspirin | | | MACE 0.00 [0.00; NaN] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
Müller, 2000 | Clopidogrel 75 mg qD x4 wks Aspirin 100 mg qD (n=355) vs. Ticlopidine 250 mg BID x4 wks Aspirin 100 mg qD (n=345) | | Sample size: 355/345 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | CLASSICS, 2000 | Clopidogrel 300mg x1, 75 mg qD x4 wks Aspirin 325 mg qDypñ ·` (n=345) vs. Ticlopidine 250 mg BID x4 wks Aspirin 325 mg qD (n=340) | | Sample size: 345/340 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | TOPPS, 2001 | Clopidogrel 300 mg x1, unsp. Dose x2 wks Aspirin 325 mg qD (n=494) vs. Ticlopidine 500 mg x1, unsp. Dose x2 wks Aspirin 325 mg qD (n=522) | | Sample size: 494/522 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | Piamsomboon, 2001 | Clopidogrel 300 mg x1, 75 mg qD x4 wks Aspirin 300 mg BID x4 wks, 300 mg qD (n=37) vs. Ticlopidine 250 mg po BID x4 wks Aspirin 300 mg BID x4 wks, 300 mg qD (n=31) | | Sample size: 37/31 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
antithrombotics | clopidogrel | versus standard clopidogrel No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
GRAVITAS, 2011 | high-dose clopidogrel vs normal-dose clopidogrel | | | all cause death 0.70 [0.27; 1.83] Cardiovascular death 0.37 [0.10; 1.40] MI 1.11 [0.59; 2.08] any bleeding 1.17 [0.93; 1.49] GUSTO severe/moderate bleeding 0.60 [0.32; 1.13] Cardiovascular death/MI/stent thrombosis 1.01 [0.58; 1.76] definite stent thrombosis 0.62 [0.20; 1.90] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
GRAVITAS, 2011 | High-dose clopidogrel (600-mg initial dose, 150 mg daily thereafter) (n=1109) vs. regular clopidogrel dose (n=1105) | patients receiving drug-eluting stents with high residual platelet activity (PRU>=230) on the regular clopidogrel dose (platelet-function tests with the VerifyNow assay 12 to 24 hours after PCI) | open Parallel groups Sample size: 1109/1105 Primary endpoint: Cardiovascular death/MI/stent thrombosis FU duration: 6 months |
|
antithrombotics | ticlopidine | versus anticoagulant + antiplatelet No demonstrated result for efficacy | 5 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
FANTASTIC, 1998 | ticlopidine + aspirin vs coumadin + aspirin | | | MACE 0.70 [0.36; 1.36] | ISAR, 1996 | ticlopidine + aspirin vs coumadin + aspirin | MACE 0.25 [0.09; 0.75] | | | Foussas, 2000 | ticlopidine + aspirin vs coumadin + aspirin | MACE 0.31 [0.15; 0.63] | | | MATTIS, 1998 | ticlopidine + aspirin vs coumadin + aspirin | | | MACE 0.51 [0.25; 1.07] | STARS (vs coumadin+asp), 1998 | ticlopidine + aspirin vs coumadin + aspirin | MACE 0.20 [0.06; 0.69] | | |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
FANTASTIC, 1998 | Ticlopidine 250 mg BID 6 wks Aspirin 100–325 mg qD (n=243) vs. Coumadin INR† 2.5–3.0 6 wks Aspirin 100–325 mg qD/pj (n=230) | | Sample size: 243/230 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | ISAR, 1996 | Ticlopidine 250 mg BID 4 wks Aspirin 100 mg BIDage/pj (n=257) vs. Coumadin INR 3.5–4.5 4 wks Aspirin 100 mg BID (n=260) | | Sample size: 257/260 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | Foussas, 2000 | Ticlopidine 500mg qD 1 mo Aspirin 325 mg qD (n=203) vs. Coumadin INR 2–3 x4 wks Aspirin 325 mg qDg BID (n=201) | | Sample size: 203/201 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | MATTIS, 1998 | Ticlopidine 250 mg BID 30 days Aspirin 250 mg qD (n=177) vs. Coumadin INR 2.5–3.0 x30 days Aspirin 250 mg qDg qD/pj (n=173) | | Sample size: 177/173 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | STARS (vs coumadin+asp), 1998 | Ticlopidine 250 mg BID x4 wks Aspirin 325 mg qD (n=546) vs. Coumadin INR 2–2.5 x4 wks Aspirin 325 mg qDBID (n=550) | | Sample size: 546/550 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
antithrombotics | ticlopidine | versus antiplatelet drugs No demonstrated result for efficacy | 2 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
STARS (vs aspirin), 1998 | ticlopidine + aspirin vs aspirin | MACE 0.15 [0.05; 0.51] | | | Hall, 1996 | ticlopidine + aspirin vs aspirin | | | MACE 1.98 [0.24; 16.40] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
STARS (vs aspirin), 1998 | Ticlopidine 250 mg BID 4 wks Aspirin 325 mg qDDage/pj (n=546) vs. Aspirin 325 mg qD (n=557) | | Sample size: 546/557 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | Hall, 1996 | Ticlopidine 250 mg BID 1 mo Aspirin 325 mg qD 5 days (n=13) vs. Aspirin 325 mg qD (n=103) | | Sample size: 13/103 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|