| pathology | Benefit (demonstrated or suggested) and harm | | | |
|---|
| percutaneous coronary intervention | All results are NS for efficacy | meta-analysis | | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
|---|
| Kozuma, 2001 | vs ticlopidine + aspirin | | | MACE 0.00 [0.00; NaN] | | Ochiai, 1999 | vs ticlopidine + aspirin | | | MACE 1.00 [0.15; 6.55] | | Park, 1999 | vs ticlopidine + aspirin | | | MACE 1.97 [0.18; 21.56] | | Yoon, 1999 | vs ticlopidine + aspirin | | | MACE 0.68 [0.11; 3.99] | | Kamishirado, 2002 | vs ticlopidine + aspirin | | | MACE 0.00 [0.00; NaN] | | Sekiya, 1998 | vs ticlopidine + aspirin | | | MACE 0.00 [0.00; NaN] | | Kunishima, 1997 | vs ticlopidine + 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: |
|
| peripheral vascular diseases | All results are NS for efficacy | meta-analysis | | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
|---|
| Beebe, 1999 | vs placebo | | | | | Dawson, 1998 | vs placebo | | | | | Money, 1998 | vs placebo | | | | | Strandness, 2002 | vs placebo | | | | | Dawson (cilostazol), 2000 | vs placebo | | | | | Elam, 1998 | vs placebo | | | | | Otsuka 21-95-201 | vs placebo | | | |
| Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
|---|
| Beebe, 1999 | Cilostazol 100 ou 200 mg / j (2 groupes) (n=346) vs. placebo (n=170) | AOMI stade II | Double aveugle Parallel groups Sample size: 346/170 Primary endpoint: Périmètre de marche sans douleur, périmètre de marche maximum à 6 mois FU duration: 6 mois La randomisation a été efectuée par permutation par blocs. | | Dawson, 1998 | Cilostazol 200 mg/d (n=54) vs. placebo (n=27) | Stade de la maladie: II, avec durée des symptomes (années) de : 6.25+/-0.82 | Double aveugle Parallel groups Sample size: 54/27 Primary endpoint: Périmètre de marche FU duration: 3 mois | | Money, 1998 | Cilostazol 200 mg/d (n=119) vs. placebo (n=120) | Stade de la maladie: II | Double aveugle Parallel groups Sample size: 119/120 Primary endpoint: Périmètres de marche FU duration: 4 mois | | Strandness, 2002 | cilostazol 50 or 100 mg twice daily (n=265) vs. placebo (n=129) | AOMI stade II. | Double aveugle Parallel groups Sample size: 265/129 Primary endpoint: périmètre de marche FU duration: 6 mois | | Dawson (cilostazol), 2000 | Cilostazol 200 mg/d (n=227) vs. placebo (n=239) | Stade de la maladie: II en situation chronique. | Double aveugle Parallel groups Sample size: 227/239 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 6 mois | | Elam, 1998 | cilostazol 100 mg twice daily (n=-9) vs. placebo (n=-9) | | double blind Parallel groups Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | | Otsuka 21-95-201 | cilostazol 100 or 150 mg twice daily (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) 3 arms trial: cilostazol 100, 150 mg twice daily and placebo | | double blind Parallel groups Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 12 weeks |
|
| stent | All results are NS for efficacy | meta-analysis | | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
|---|
| Kozuma, 2001 | vs ticlopidine + aspirin | | | MACE 0.00 [0.00; NaN] | | Ochiai, 1999 | vs ticlopidine + aspirin | | | MACE 1.00 [0.15; 6.55] | | Park, 1999 | vs ticlopidine + aspirin | | | MACE 1.97 [0.18; 21.56] | | Yoon, 1999 | vs ticlopidine + aspirin | | | MACE 0.68 [0.11; 3.99] | | Kamishirado, 2002 | vs ticlopidine + aspirin | | | MACE 0.00 [0.00; NaN] | | Sekiya, 1998 | vs ticlopidine + aspirin | | | MACE 0.00 [0.00; NaN] | | Kunishima, 1997 | vs ticlopidine + 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: |
|
