Baseline Stroke Risk and Efficacy of Dual-Antiplatelet Therapy: A Post Hoc Analysis of the POINT Trial.

BACKGROUND: High-risk transient ischemic attacks and minor ischemic strokes are followed by a variable risk of ischemic stroke. We aimed to determine how baseline stroke risk modified the efficacy of clopidogrel-aspirin (referred to here as dual-antiplatelet therapy [DAPT]) for transient ischemic attack and minor ischemic stroke. METHODS: We performed an unplanned secondary analysis of the POINT trial (Platelet-Oriented Inhibition in New Transient Ischemic Attack and Minor Ischemic Stroke). We first evaluated the associations of the CHA2DS2-VASc and stroke prognosis instrument II (SPI-II) scores with the risk of incident ischemic stroke and major hemorrhage (intracranial hemorrhage or major systemic hemorrhage). We then tested for heterogeneity of the relative and absolute treatment effect of DAPT relative to aspirin across low- and high-risk patient subgroups. RESULTS: A total of 4841 trial participants were included in this analysis, with 2400 participants assigned to treatment with short-term DAPT and 2430 participants to treatment with aspirin and placebo. The dichotomized SPI-II score, but not the CHA2DS2-VASc score (P=0.18), was associated with the risk of incident ischemic stroke. A high-risk SPI-II score (>3) was associated with greater risk of incident ischemic stroke (hazard ratio of incident ischemic stroke relative to low-risk SPI-II score of 1.84 [95% CI, 1.44-2.35]; P<0.001) and numerically greater risk of major hemorrhage though not meeting statistical significance (hazard ratio, 1.80 [95% CI, 0.90-3.57]; P=0.10). The relative risk reduction with DAPT was similar across SPI-II strata (Pinteraction=0.31). The absolute risk reduction for ischemic stroke with DAPT compared with aspirin was nearly 4-fold higher (2.80% versus 0.76%; number needed to treat, 31 versus 131) in the high-risk SPI-II stratum relative to the low-risk stratum. The absolute risk increase for major hemorrhage with DAPT compared with aspirin was 3-fold higher (0.84% versus 0.30%; number needed to harm, 119 versus 331) in the high-risk SPI-II stratum relative to the low-risk stratum. CONCLUSIONS: Stratification by baseline stroke risk identifies a patient subgroup that derives greater absolute benefit from treatment with DAPT. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT00991029.

Time to treatment and disability attributed to index stroke in the POINT trial.

BACKGROUND: In the Platelet-Oriented Inhibition in New TIA and Minor Ischemic Stroke (POINT) trial, dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) was associated with reduced disability attributable to the index stroke compared to antiplatelet monotherapy. However, it is unknown whether earlier treatment with DAPT versus aspirin is associated with greater benefit. METHODS: We analyzed patients enrolled in POINT with minor ischemic stroke who had available data recording the treatment initiation time and modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at 90 days. Patients were randomized to DAPT (aspirin plus clopidogrel) vs. aspirin alone within 12 h of symptom onset. We estimated the effect of DAPT on disability (defined as mRS>1) ascribed to the index event and major hemorrhage at 90 days, stratified by tertiles of time from symptom onset-to-treatment-initiation. RESULTS: A total of 2559 patients were included; median onset-to-treatment-initiation time was 8.3 h (IQR:5.8-11.0). Comparing DAPT to aspirin, the rate of disability attributed to the index event at 90-day follow-up was 5.1 % vs. 8.6 % (OR 0.57; 95 % CI:0.33-0.99) in patients treated <6.7 h, 7.5 % vs. 9.9 % (OR 0.74; 95 % CI:0.45-1.19) in those treated 6.7-10.0 h, and 8.6 % vs. 10.6 % (OR 0.80; 95 % CI:0.50-1.26) in those treated >10.0 h after symptom onset (p for interaction=0.65). There was no difference in major hemorrhage across time strata. CONCLUSIONS: While not statistically significant, these results suggest the possibility of greater efficacy at reducing disability ascribed to minor stroke with earlier treatment with DAPT compared to aspirin. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Identifier: NCT00991029.

Predictors of Atrial Fibrillation Development in Patients With Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source: An Analysis of the RE-SPECT ESUS Trial.

BACKGROUND: A proportion of patients with embolic stroke of undetermined source have silent atrial fibrillation (AF) or develop AF after the initial evaluation. Better understanding of the risk for development of AF is critical to implement optimal monitoring strategies with the goal of preventing recurrent stroke attributable to underlying AF. The RE-SPECT ESUS trial (Randomized, Double-Blind Evaluation in Secondary Stroke Prevention Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of the Oral Thrombin Inhibitor Dabigatran Etexilate Versus Acetylsalicylic Acid in Patients With Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source) provides an opportunity to assess predictors for developing AF and associated recurrent stroke. METHODS: RE-SPECT ESUS was a randomized, controlled trial (564 sites, 42 countries) assessing dabigatran versus aspirin for the prevention of recurrent stroke in patients with embolic stroke of undetermined source. Of 5390 patients enrolled and followed for a median of 19 months, 403 (7.5%) were found to develop AF reported as an adverse event or using cardiac monitoring per standard clinical care. Univariable and multivariable regression analyses were performed to define predictors of AF. RESULTS: In the multivariable model, older age (odds ratio for 10-year increase, 1.99 [95% CI, 1.78-2.23]; P<0.001), hypertension (odds ratio, 1.36 [95% CI, 1.03-1.79]; P=0.0304), diabetes (odds ratio, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.56-0.96]; P=0.022), and body mass index (odds ratio for 5-U increase, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.16-1.43]; P<0.001) were independent predictors of AF during the study. In a sensitivity analysis restricted to 1117 patients with baseline NT-proBNP (N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide) measurements, only older age and higher NT-proBNP were significant independent predictors of AF. Performance of several published predictive models was assessed, including HAVOC (AF risk score based on hypertension, age ≥75 years, valvular heart disease, peripheral vascular disease, obesity, congestive heart failure, and coronary artery disease) and CHA2DS2-VASc (stroke risk score based on congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥75 years [doubled], diabetes, previous stroke, transient ischemic attack or thromboembolism [doubled], vascular disease, age 65 to 74 years, and sex category [female]) scores, and higher scores were associated with higher rates of developing AF. CONCLUSIONS: Besides age, the most important variable, several other factors, including hypertension, higher body mass index, and lack of diabetes, are independent predictors of AF after embolic stroke of undetermined source. When baseline NT-proBNP was available, only older age and elevation of this biomarker were predictive of subsequent AF. Understanding who is at higher risk of developing AF will assist in identifying patients who may benefit from more intense, long-term cardiac monitoring. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02239120.

Dabigatran for Prevention of Stroke after Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source.

BACKGROUND: Cryptogenic strokes constitute 20 to 30% of ischemic strokes, and most cryptogenic strokes are considered to be embolic and of undetermined source. An earlier randomized trial showed that rivaroxaban is no more effective than aspirin in preventing recurrent stroke after a presumed embolic stroke from an undetermined source. Whether dabigatran would be effective in preventing recurrent strokes after this type of stroke was unclear. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial of dabigatran at a dose of 150 mg or 110 mg twice daily as compared with aspirin at a dose of 100 mg once daily in patients who had had an embolic stroke of undetermined source. The primary outcome was recurrent stroke. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 5390 patients were enrolled at 564 sites and were randomly assigned to receive dabigatran (2695 patients) or aspirin (2695 patients). During a median follow-up of 19 months, recurrent strokes occurred in 177 patients (6.6%) in the dabigatran group (4.1% per year) and in 207 patients (7.7%) in the aspirin group (4.8% per year) (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 1.03; P = 0.10). Ischemic strokes occurred in 172 patients (4.0% per year) and 203 patients (4.7% per year), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.03). Major bleeding occurred in 77 patients (1.7% per year) in the dabigatran group and in 64 patients (1.4% per year) in the aspirin group (hazard ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.66). Clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding occurred in 70 patients (1.6% per year) and 41 patients (0.9% per year), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with a recent history of embolic stroke of undetermined source, dabigatran was not superior to aspirin in preventing recurrent stroke. The incidence of major bleeding was not greater in the dabigatran group than in the aspirin group, but there were more clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events in the dabigatran group. (Funded by Boehringer Ingelheim; RE-SPECT ESUS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02239120.).

Dabigatran or Aspirin After Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source in Patients With Patent Foramen Ovale: Results From RE-SPECT ESUS.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Patent foramen ovale (PFO) may increase the risk of embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS). Guidelines suggest anticoagulation may be more effective than antiplatelets in preventing stroke in patients with ESUS and PFO when interventional closure is not performed. METHODS: Patients with ESUS randomized to dabigatran (150/110 mg BID) or aspirin (100 mg QD) from the RE-SPECT ESUS study (Randomized, Double-Blind, Evaluation in Secondary Stroke Prevention Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of the Oral Thrombin Inhibitor Dabigatran Etexilate Versus Acetylsalicylic Acid in Patients With Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source) were included. The rate of recurrent stroke (primary end point) and ischemic stroke was reported for patients with and without baseline PFO. A meta-analysis comparing the effects of anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy on ischemic stroke in patients with PFO was updated to include RE-SPECT ESUS. RESULTS: PFO was present in 680 of 5388 (12.6%) patients with documented PFO status. The risk of recurrent stroke with dabigatran versus aspirin was similar in patients with and without PFO (P for interaction, 0.8290). In patients with PFO, the meta-analysis found no statistically significant difference between anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy (odds ratio, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.43-1.14]) for ischemic stroke. CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to recommend anticoagulation over antiplatelet therapy for patients with ESUS and a PFO. More data are needed to guide antithrombotic therapy in this population. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02239120.

Carotid Stenosis and Recurrent Ischemic Stroke: A Post-Hoc Analysis of the POINT Trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Randomized trials demonstrated the benefit of dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with minor ischemic stroke or high-risk transient ischemic attack. We sought to determine whether the presence of carotid stenosis was associated with increased risk of ischemic stroke and whether the addition of clopidogrel to aspirin was associated with more benefit in patients with versus without carotid stenosis. METHODS: This is a post-hoc analysis of the POINT trial (Platelet-Oriented Inhibition in New TIA and Minor Ischemic Stroke) that randomized patients with minor ischemic stroke or high-risk transient ischemic attack within 12 hours from last known normal to receive either clopidogrel plus aspirin or aspirin alone. The primary predictor was the presence of ≥50% stenosis in either cervical internal carotid artery. The primary outcome was ischemic stroke. We built Cox regression models to determine the association between carotid stenosis and ischemic stroke and whether the effect of clopidogrel was modified by ≥50% carotid stenosis. RESULTS: Among 4881 patients enrolled POINT, 3941 patients met the inclusion criteria. In adjusted models, ≥50% carotid stenosis was associated with ischemic stroke risk (hazard ratio, 2.45 [95% CI, 1.68-3.57], P<0.001). The effect of clopidogrel (versus placebo) on ischemic stroke risk was not significantly different in patients with <50% carotid stenosis (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.50-0.93], P=0.014) versus those with ≥50% carotid stenosis (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.45-1.72], P=0.703), P value for interaction=0.573. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of carotid stenosis was associated with increased risk of ischemic stroke during follow-up. The effect of added clopidogrel was not significantly different in patients with versus without carotid stenosis. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03354429.

Antiplatelet Use and Ischemic Stroke Risk in Minor Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack: A Post Hoc Analysis of the POINT Trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Dual antiplatelet therapy has been shown to reduce the risk of recurrent stroke in patients with minor stroke or transient ischemic attack. However, whether the effect of dual antiplatelet therapy is modified by pretreatment antiplatelet status is unclear. METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of the POINT trial (Platelet-Oriented Inhibition in New TIA and Minor Ischemic Stroke). Patients were divided into 2 groups based on pretreatment antiplatelet use. The primary outcome was ischemic stroke within 90 days of randomization. RESULTS: We included 4881 patients of whom 41% belonged to the no pretreatment antiplatelet. Ischemic stroke occurred in 6% and 5% in the antiplatelet pretreatment and no antiplatelet pretreatment, respectively. Antiplatelet pretreatment was not associated with the risk of ischemic stroke (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.81-137]) or risk of major hemorrhage (hazard ratio, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.55-2.21]; P=0.794). The effect of dual antiplatelet therapy on recurrent ischemic stroke risk was not different in patients who were on antiplatelet before randomization (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.50-0.94]) as opposed to those who were not (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.50-1.12]), P for interaction = 0.685. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with minor stroke and high-risk transient ischemic attack, dual antiplatelet therapy reduces the risk of ischemic stroke regardless of premorbid antiplatelet use.

Dabigatran or Aspirin in East Asian Patients With Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source: RE-SPECT ESUS Subgroup Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We assessed the outcomes of dabigatran versus aspirin in a prespecified subgroup analysis of East Asian patients with embolic stroke of undetermined source in the RE-SPECT ESUS trial (Randomized, Double-Blind, Evaluation in Secondary Stroke Prevention Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of the Oral Thrombin Inhibitor Dabigatran Etexilate Versus Acetylsalicylic Acid in Patients With Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source). METHODS: Patients with a recent embolic stroke of undetermined source were randomized to dabigatran (150 or 110 mg BID) or aspirin (100 mg QD). The primary efficacy outcome was recurrent stroke; the primary safety outcome was major bleeding. The East Asia cohort was compared with patients from all other countries (non-East Asia cohort). RESULTS: Overall, 988 of 5390 patients (18%) were randomized in East Asia. During a median follow-up of 18.8 months, there was no statistically significant difference in recurrent stroke (hazard ratio, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.41-1.03]) or major bleeding (hazard ratio, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.57-1.91]) in East Asian patients receiving dabigatran versus aspirin. Death from any cause occurred more often in the dabigatran versus the aspirin group (hazard ratio, 3.98 [95% CI, 1.32-12.01]). CONCLUSIONS: The treatment effect of dabigatran versus aspirin was consistent between cohorts, with no apparent superiority for dabigatran over aspirin in preventing recurrent stroke in patients with embolic stroke of undetermined source. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02239120.

Clopidogrel and Aspirin in Acute Ischemic Stroke and High-Risk TIA.

BACKGROUND: Combination antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel and aspirin may reduce the rate of recurrent stroke during the first 3 months after a minor ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). A trial of combination antiplatelet therapy in a Chinese population has shown a reduction in the risk of recurrent stroke. We tested this combination in an international population. METHODS: In a randomized trial, we assigned patients with minor ischemic stroke or high-risk TIA to receive either clopidogrel at a loading dose of 600 mg on day 1, followed by 75 mg per day, plus aspirin (at a dose of 50 to 325 mg per day) or the same range of doses of aspirin alone. The dose of aspirin in each group was selected by the site investigator. The primary efficacy outcome in a time-to-event analysis was the risk of a composite of major ischemic events, which was defined as ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, or death from an ischemic vascular event, at 90 days. RESULTS: A total of 4881 patients were enrolled at 269 international sites. The trial was halted after 84% of the anticipated number of patients had been enrolled because the data and safety monitoring board had determined that the combination of clopidogrel and aspirin was associated with both a lower risk of major ischemic events and a higher risk of major hemorrhage than aspirin alone at 90 days. Major ischemic events occurred in 121 of 2432 patients (5.0%) receiving clopidogrel plus aspirin and in 160 of 2449 patients (6.5%) receiving aspirin plus placebo (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59 to 0.95; P=0.02), with most events occurring during the first week after the initial event. Major hemorrhage occurred in 23 patients (0.9%) receiving clopidogrel plus aspirin and in 10 patients (0.4%) receiving aspirin plus placebo (hazard ratio, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.10 to 4.87; P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with minor ischemic stroke or high-risk TIA, those who received a combination of clopidogrel and aspirin had a lower risk of major ischemic events but a higher risk of major hemorrhage at 90 days than those who received aspirin alone. (Funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; POINT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00991029 .).

Time Course for Benefit and Risk of Clopidogrel and Aspirin After Acute Transient Ischemic Attack and Minor Ischemic Stroke.

BACKGROUND: In patients with acute minor ischemic stroke or high-risk transient ischemic attack enrolled in the POINT trial (Platelet-Oriented Inhibition in New TIA and Minor Ischemic Stroke [POINT] Trial), the combination of clopidogrel and aspirin for 90 days reduced major ischemic events but increased major hemorrhage in comparison to aspirin alone. METHODS: In a secondary analysis of POINT (N=4881), we assessed the time course for benefit and risk from the combination of clopidogrel and aspirin. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, or ischemic vascular death. The primary safety outcome was major hemorrhage. Risks and benefits were estimated for delayed times of treatment initiation using left-truncated models. RESULTS: Through 90 days, the rate of major ischemic events was initially high then decreased markedly, whereas the rate of major hemorrhage remained low but relatively constant throughout. With the use of a model-based approach, the optimal change point for major ischemic events was 21 days (0-21 days hazard ratio 0.65 for clopidogrel-aspirin versus aspirin; 95% CI, 0.50-0.85; P=0.0015, in comparison to 22-90 days hazard ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.81-2.35; P=0.24). Models showed benefits of clopidogrel-aspirin for treatment delayed as long as 3 days after symptom onset. CONCLUSIONS: The benefit of clopidogrel-aspirin occurs predominantly within the first 21 days, and outweighs the low, but ongoing risk of major hemorrhage. When considered with the results of the CHANCE trial (Clopidogrel in High-Risk Patients With Non-disabling Cerebrovascular Events), a similar trial treating with clopidogrel-aspirin for 21 days and showing no increase in major hemorrhage, these results suggest that limiting clopidogrel-aspirin use to 21 days may maximize benefit and reduce risk after high-risk transient ischemic attack or minor ischemic stroke. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00991029.

Disability After Minor Stroke and Transient Ischemic Attack in the POINT Trial.

Background and Purpose- While combination aspirin and clopidogrel reduces recurrent stroke compared with aspirin alone in patients with transient ischemic attack (TIA) or minor stroke, the effect on disability is uncertain. Methods- The POINT trial (Platelet-Oriented Inhibition in New TIA and Minor Ischemic Stroke) randomized patients with TIA or minor stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score ≤3) within 12 hours of onset to dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin plus clopidogrel versus aspirin alone. The primary outcome measure was a composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, or vascular death. We performed a post hoc exploratory analysis to examine the effect of treatment on overall disability (defined as modified Rankin Scale score >1) at 90 days, as well as disability ascribed by the local investigator to index or recurrent stroke. We also evaluated predictors of disability. Results- At 90 days, 188 of 1964 (9.6%) of patients enrolled with TIA and 471 of 2586 (18.2%) of those enrolled with stroke were disabled. Overall disability was similar between patients assigned DAPT versus aspirin alone (14.7% versus 14.3%; odds ratio, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.82-1.14]; P=0.69). However, there were numerically fewer patients with disability in conjunction with a primary outcome event in the DAPT arm (3.0% versus 4.0%; odds ratio, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.53-1.01]; P=0.06) and significantly fewer patients in the DAPT arm with disability attributed by the investigators to either the index event or recurrent stroke (5.9% versus 7.4%; odds ratio, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.62-0.99]; P=0.04). Notably, disability attributed to the index event accounted for the majority of this difference (4.5% versus 6.0%; odds ratio, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.57-0.96]; P=0.02). In multivariate analysis, age, subsequent ischemic stroke, serious adverse events, and major bleeding were significantly associated with disability in TIA; for those with stroke, female sex, hypertension, or diabetes mellitus, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, recurrent ischemic stroke, subsequent myocardial infarction, and serious adverse events were associated with disability. Conclusions- In addition to reducing recurrent stroke in patients with acute minor stroke and TIA, DAPT might reduce stroke-related disability. Registration- URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00991029.

Efficacy of Clopidogrel for Prevention of Stroke Based on CYP2C19 Allele Status in the POINT Trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Clopidogrel is an antiplatelet drug that is metabolized to its active form by the CYP2C19 enzyme. The CHANCE trial (Clopidogrel in High-Risk Patients With Acute Nondisabling Cerebrovascular Events) found a significant interaction between loss-of-function allele status for the CYP2C19 gene and the effect of dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel on the rate of early recurrent stroke following acute transient ischemic attack/minor stroke. The POINT (Platelet-Oriented Inhibition in New TIA and Minor Ischemic Stroke Trial), similar in design to CHANCE but performed largely in North America and Europe, demonstrated a reduction in early recurrent stroke with dual antiplatelet therapy compared with aspirin alone. This substudy was done to evaluate a potential interaction between loss-of-function CYP2C19 alleles and outcome by treatment group in POINT. METHODS: Of the 269 sites in 10 countries that enrolled patients in POINT, 134 sites participated in this substudy. DNA samples were genotyped for CYP2C19 *2, *3, and *17 alleles and classified as being carriers or noncarriers of loss-of-function alleles. Major ischemia consisted of ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, or ischemic vascular death. RESULTS: Nine hundred thirty-two patients provided analyzable DNA. The rates of major ischemia were 6.7% for the aspirin group versus 2.3% for the dual antiplatelet therapy group (hazard ratio, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.09-1.21]; P=0.09) among carriers of loss-of-function allele. The rates of major ischemia were 5.6% for the aspirin group versus 3.7% for the dual antiplatelet therapy group (hazard ratio, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.32-1.34]; P=0.25) among noncarriers. There was no significant interaction by genotype for major ischemia (P=0.36) or stroke (P=0.33). CONCLUSIONS: This substudy of POINT found no significant interaction with CYP2C19 loss-of-function carrier status and outcome by treatment group. Failure to confirm the findings from the CHANCE trial may be because the loss-of-function alleles tested are not clinically important in this context or because the 2 trials had differences in racial/ethnic composition. Additionally, differences between the 2 trials might be due to chance as our statistical power was limited to 50%. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00991029.

Antithrombotic Treatment of Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source: RE-SPECT ESUS Elderly and Renally Impaired Subgroups.

Background and Purpose- The RE-SPECT ESUS trial (Randomized, Double-Blind, Evaluation in Secondary Stroke Prevention Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of the Oral Thrombin Inhibitor Dabigatran Etexilate Versus Acetylsalicylic Acid in Patients With Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source) tested the hypothesis that dabigatran would be superior to aspirin for the prevention of recurrent stroke in patients with embolic stroke of undetermined source. This exploratory subgroup analysis investigates the impact of age, renal function (both predefined), and dabigatran dose (post hoc) on the rates of recurrent stroke and major bleeding. Methods- RE-SPECT ESUS was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial of dabigatran 150 or 110 mg (for patients aged ≥75 years and/or with creatinine clearance 30 to <50 mL/minute) twice daily compared with aspirin 100 mg once daily. The primary outcome was recurrent stroke. Results- The trial, which enrolled 5390 patients from December 2014 to January 2018, did not demonstrate superiority of dabigatran versus aspirin for prevention of recurrent stroke in patients with embolic stroke of undetermined source. However, among the population qualifying for the lower dabigatran dose, the rate of recurrent stroke was reduced with dabigatran versus aspirin (7.4% versus 13.0%; hazard ratio, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.39-0.82]; interaction P=0.01). This was driven mainly by the subgroup aged ≥75 years (7.8% versus 12.4%; hazard ratio, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.43-0.94]; interaction P=0.10). Stroke rates tended to be lower with dabigatran versus aspirin with declining renal function. Risks for major bleeding were similar between treatments, irrespective of renal function, but with a trend for lower bleeding rates with dabigatran versus aspirin in older patients. Conclusions- In subgroup analyses of RE-SPECT ESUS, dabigatran reduced the rate of recurrent stroke compared with aspirin in patients qualifying for the lower dose of dabigatran. These results are hypothesis-generating. Aspirin remains the standard antithrombotic treatment for patients with embolic stroke of undetermined source. Registration- URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02239120.

Methodologies for pragmatic and efficient assessment of benefits and harms: Application to the SOCRATES trial.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Standard approaches to trial design and analyses can be inefficient and non-pragmatic. Failure to consider a range of outcomes impedes evidence-based interpretation and reduces power. Traditional approaches synthesizing information obtained from separate analysis of each outcome fail to incorporate associations between outcomes and recognize the cumulative nature of outcomes in individual patients, suffer from competing risk complexities during interpretation, and since efficacy and safety analyses are often conducted on different populations, generalizability is unclear. Pragmatic and efficient approaches to trial design and analyses are needed. METHODS: Approaches providing a pragmatic assessment of benefits and harms of interventions, summarizing outcomes experienced by patients, and providing sample size efficiencies are described. Ordinal outcomes recognize finer gradations of patient responses. Desirability of outcome ranking is an ordinal outcome combining benefits and harms within patients. Analysis of desirability of outcome ranking can be based on rank-based methodologies including the desirability of outcome ranking probability, the win ratio, and the proportion in favor of treatment. Partial credit analyses, involving grading the levels of the desirability of outcome ranking outcome similar to an academic test, provides an alternative approach. The methodologies are demonstrated using the acute stroke or transient ischemic attack treated with aspirin or ticagrelor and patient outcomes study (SOCRATES; NCT01994720), a randomized clinical trial. RESULTS: Two 5-level ordinal outcomes were developed for SOCRATES. The first was based on a modified Rankin scale. The odds ratio is 0.86 (95% confidence interval = 0.75, 0.99; p = 0.04) indicating that the odds of worse stroke categorization for a trial participant assigned to ticagrelor is 0.86 times that of a trial participant assigned to aspirin. The 5-level desirability of outcome ranking outcome incorporated and prioritized survival; the number of strokes, myocardial infarction, and major bleeding events; and whether a stroke event was disabling. The desirability of outcome ranking probability and win ratio are 0.504 (95% confidence interval = 0.499, 0.508; p = 0.10) and 1.11 (95% confidence interval = 0.98, 1.26; p = 0.10), respectively, implying that the probability of a more desirable result with ticagrelor is 50.4% and that a more desirable result occurs 1.11 times more frequently on ticagrelor versus aspirin. CONCLUSION: Ordinal outcomes can improve efficiency through required pre-specification, careful construction, and analyses. Greater pragmatism can be obtained by composing outcomes within patients. Desirability of outcome ranking provides a global assessment of the benefits and harms that more closely reflect the experience of patients. The desirability of outcome ranking probability, the proportion in favor of treatment, the win ratio, and partial credit can more optimally inform patient treatment, enhance the understanding of the totality of intervention effects on patients, and potentially provide efficiencies over standard analyses. The methods provide the infrastructure for incorporating patient values and estimating personalized effects.

Non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants for secondary stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation.

The aims of this article are to review the evidence regarding the use of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) for secondary stroke prevention as compared to vitamin K antagonists in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and in patients with embolic strokes of uncertain source (ESUS), and when to initiate or resume anticoagulation after an ischaemic stroke or intracranial haemorrhage. Four large trials compared NOACs with warfarin in patients with AF. In our meta-analyses, the rate of all stroke or systemic embolism (SE) was 4.94% with NOACs vs. 5.73% with warfarin. Among the patients with AF and previous transient ischaemic attack or ischaemic stroke, the rate of haemorrhagic stroke was halved with a NOAC vs. warfarin, and the rate of major bleeding was 5.7% with a NOAC vs. 6.4% with warfarin. There was no significant difference in mortality. In a trial comparing apixaban with aspirin in patients with AF, the rate of stroke or SE was 2.4% at 1 year with apixaban vs. 9.2% at 1 year with aspirin and the rates of major bleeding were 4.1% with apixaban vs. 2.9% with aspirin. Data from registries confirmed the results from the randomized trials. Initiation or resumption of anticoagulation after ischaemic stroke or cerebral haemorrhage depends on the size and severity of stroke and the risk of recurrent bleeding. Two large trials tested the hypothesis that NOACs are more effective than 100 mg aspirin in patients with ESUS. Neither trial showed a significant benefit of the NOAC over aspirin. In the meta-analysis, the rate all stroke or SE was 4.94% with NOACs vs. 5.73% with warfarin and the rate of haemorrhagic stroke was halved with a NOAC. The four NOACs had broadly similar efficacy for the major outcomes in secondary stroke prevention.

Time to Loading Dose and Risk of Recurrent Events in the SOCRATES Trial.

Background and Purpose- Recurrent ischemia risk is high in the acute period after cerebral ischemic events. Effects of antiplatelet agents may vary by time to loading dose (TLD). We explored the risk of recurrent events and safety and efficacy of ticagrelor versus aspirin in relation to TLD. Methods- We randomized 13 199 patients with noncardioembolic, nonsevere ischemic stroke, or high-risk transient ischemic attack to 90-day ticagrelor or aspirin treatment within 24 hours of symptom onset. For this analysis, 13 126 patients were categorized by TLD as <12 hours or ≥12 hours from start of index event. The primary end point was the composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death within 90 days. Major bleeding was the primary safety end point. Results- TLD was <12 hours in 4403 (33.5%) and ≥12 hours in 8723 (66.5%). The Kaplan-Meier% for the primary end point for all patients with TLD<12 hours was 7.5% versus 6.9% in TLD≥12 hours. Among patients with TLD<12 hours, the primary end point occurred in 147/2196 (6.8%) randomized to ticagrelor and in 184/2207 (8.3%) randomized to aspirin (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.98; P=0.036). Among patients with TLD≥12 hours, the primary end point occurred in 6.7% patients randomized to ticagrelor versus 7.0% to aspirin (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.81-1.12; P=0.55). There was no significant treatment-by-TLD interaction. Major bleeding rates were comparable on ticagrelor and aspirin, regardless of TLD. Conclusions- The event rate for the primary end point was higher in patients treated early (<12 hours) versus later (≥12 hours). In this exploratory analysis, a larger numerical difference in the primary end point was observed among patients on ticagrelor than on aspirin when TLD was <12 hours compared with ≥12 hours, although the interaction terms for treatment-by-TLD were not significant. For major bleeding, no relation to TLD was observed. Clinical Trial Registration- URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01994720.

Ticagrelor versus Aspirin in Acute Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack.

BACKGROUND: Ticagrelor may be a more effective antiplatelet therapy than aspirin for the prevention of recurrent stroke and cardiovascular events in patients with acute cerebral ischemia. METHODS: We conducted an international double-blind, controlled trial in 674 centers in 33 countries, in which 13,199 patients with a nonsevere ischemic stroke or high-risk transient ischemic attack who had not received intravenous or intraarterial thrombolysis and were not considered to have had a cardioembolic stroke were randomly assigned within 24 hours after symptom onset, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive either ticagrelor (180 mg loading dose on day 1 followed by 90 mg twice daily for days 2 through 90) or aspirin (300 mg on day 1 followed by 100 mg daily for days 2 through 90). The primary end point was the time to the occurrence of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death within 90 days. RESULTS: During the 90 days of treatment, a primary end-point event occurred in 442 of the 6589 patients (6.7%) treated with ticagrelor, versus 497 of the 6610 patients (7.5%) treated with aspirin (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 1.01; P=0.07). Ischemic stroke occurred in 385 patients (5.8%) treated with ticagrelor and in 441 patients (6.7%) treated with aspirin (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.00). Major bleeding occurred in 0.5% of patients treated with ticagrelor and in 0.6% of patients treated with aspirin, intracranial hemorrhage in 0.2% and 0.3%, respectively, and fatal bleeding in 0.1% and 0.1%. CONCLUSIONS: In our trial involving patients with acute ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack, ticagrelor was not found to be superior to aspirin in reducing the rate of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death at 90 days. (Funded by AstraZeneca; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01994720.).

Intracranial hemorrhage in patients with atrial fibrillation receiving anticoagulation therapy.

We investigated the frequency and characteristics of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), the factors associated with the risk of ICH, and outcomes post-ICH overall and by randomized treatment. We identified patients with ICH from the overall trial population enrolled in the Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation trial who received ≥1 dose of the study drug (n = 18 140). ICH was adjudicated by a central committee. Cox regression models were used to identify factors associated with ICH. ICH occurred in 174 patients; most ICH events were spontaneous (71.7%) versus traumatic (28.3%). Apixaban resulted in significantly less ICH (0.33% per year), regardless of type and location, than warfarin (0.80% per year). Independent factors associated with increased risk of ICH were enrollment in Asia or Latin America, older age, prior stroke/transient ischemic attack, and aspirin use at baseline. Among warfarin-treated patients, the median (25th, 75th percentiles) time from most recent international normalized ratio (INR) to ICH was 13 days (6, 21 days). Median INR prior to ICH was 2.6 (2.1, 3.0); 78.5% of patients had a pre-ICH INR <3.0. After ICH, the modified Rankin scale score at discharge was ≥4 in 55.7% of patients, and the overall mortality rate at 30 days was 43.3% with no difference between apixaban- and warfarin-treated patients. ICH occurred at a rate of 0.80% per year with warfarin regardless of INR control and at a rate of 0.33% per year with apixaban and was associated with high short-term morbidity and mortality. This highlights the clinical relevance of reducing ICH by using apixaban rather than warfarin and avoiding concomitant aspirin, especially in patients of older age. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00412984.

Risk for Major Bleeding in Patients Receiving Ticagrelor Compared With Aspirin After Transient Ischemic Attack or Acute Ischemic Stroke in the SOCRATES Study (Acute Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack Treated With Aspirin or Ticagrelor and Patient Outcomes).

BACKGROUND: Patients with minor acute ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack are at high risk for subsequent stroke, and more potent antiplatelet therapy in the acute setting is needed. However, the potential benefit of more intense antiplatelet therapy must be assessed in relation to the risk for major bleeding. The SOCRATES trial (Acute Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack Treated With Aspirin or Ticagrelor and Patient Outcomes) was the first trial with ticagrelor in patients with acute ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack in which the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor were compared with those of aspirin. The main safety objective was assessment of PLATO (Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes)-defined major bleeds on treatment, with special focus on intracranial hemorrhage (ICrH). METHODS: An independent adjudication committee blinded to study treatment classified bleeds according to the PLATO, TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction), and GUSTO (Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries) definitions. The definitions of ICrH and major bleeding excluded cerebral microbleeds and asymptomatic hemorrhagic transformations of cerebral infarctions so that the definitions better discriminated important events in the acute stroke population. RESULTS: A total of 13 130 of 13 199 randomized patients received at least 1 dose of study drug and were included in the safety analysis set. PLATO major bleeds occurred in 31 patients (0.5%) on ticagrelor and 38 patients (0.6%) on aspirin (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-1.34). The most common locations of major bleeds were intracranial and gastrointestinal. ICrH was reported in 12 patients (0.2%) on ticagrelor and 18 patients (0.3%) on aspirin. Thirteen of all 30 ICrHs (4 on ticagrelor and 9 on aspirin) were hemorrhagic strokes, and 4 (2 in each group) were symptomatic hemorrhagic transformations of brain infarctions. The ICrHs were spontaneous in 6 and 13, traumatic in 3 and 3, and procedural in 3 and 2 patients on ticagrelor and aspirin, respectively. In total, 9 fatal bleeds occurred on ticagrelor and 4 on aspirin. The composite of ICrH or fatal bleeding included 15 patients on ticagrelor and 18 on aspirin. Independently of bleeding classification, PLATO, TIMI, or GUSTO, the relative difference between treatments for major/severe bleeds was similar. Nonmajor bleeds were more common on ticagrelor. CONCLUSIONS: Antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor in patients with acute ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack showed a bleeding profile similar to that of aspirin for major bleeds. There were few ICrHs. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01994720.

Efficacy and Safety of Ticagrelor in Relation to Aspirin Use Within the Week Before Randomization in the SOCRATES Trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: SOCRATES (Acute Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack Treated With Aspirin or Ticagrelor and Patient Outcomes), comparing ticagrelor with aspirin in patients with acute cerebral ischemia, found a nonsignificant 11% relative risk reduction for stroke, myocardial infarction, or death (P=0.07). Aspirin intake before randomization could enhance the effect of ticagrelor by conferring dual antiplatelet effect during a high-risk period for subsequent stroke. Therefore, we explored the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus aspirin in the patients who received any aspirin the week before randomization. METHODS: A prespecified subgroup analysis in SOCRATES (n=13 199), randomizing patients with acute ischemic stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of ≤5) or transient ischemic attack (ABCD2 score of ≥4) to 90-day treatment with ticagrelor or aspirin. Patients in the prior-aspirin group had received any aspirin within the week before randomization. Primary end point was time to stroke, myocardial infarction, or death. Safety end point was PLATO (Study of Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes) major bleeding. RESULTS: The 4232 patients in the prior-aspirin group were older, had more vascular risk factors, and vascular disease than the other patients. In the prior-aspirin group, the primary end point occurred in 138/2130 (6.5%) of patients on ticagrelor and in 177/2102 (8.3%) on aspirin (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.95; P=0.02); in patients with no prior-aspirin usage an event occurred in 304/4459 (6.9%) and 320/4508 (7.1%) on ticagrelor and aspirin, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-1.12; P=0.59). The treatment-by-prior-aspirin interaction was not statistically significant (P=0.10). In the prior-aspirin group, major bleeding occurred in 0.7% and 0.4% of patients on ticagrelor and aspirin, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.68-3.65; P=0.28). CONCLUSIONS: In this secondary analysis from SOCRATES, fewer primary end points occurred on ticagrelor treatment than on aspirin in patients receiving aspirin before randomization, but there was no significant treatment-by-prior-aspirin interaction. A new study will investigate the benefit-risk of combining ticagrelor and aspirin in patients with acute cerebral ischemia (URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT03354429). CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01994720.