An International Report on the Adaptations of Rapid Transient Ischaemic Attack Pathways During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: This report aims to describe changes that centres providing transient ischaemic attack (TIA) pathway services have made to stay operational in response to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. METHODS: An international cross-sectional description of the adaptions of TIA pathways between 30th March and 6th May 2020. Experience was reported from 18 centres with rapid TIA pathways in seven countries (Australia, France, UK, Canada, USA, New Zealand, Italy, Canada) from three continents. RESULTS: All pathways remained active (n = 18). Sixteen (89%) had TIA clinics. Six of these clinics (38%) continued to provide in-person assessment while the majority (63%) used telehealth exclusively. Of these, three reported PPE use and three did not. Five centres with clinics (31%) had adopted a different vascular imaging strategy. CONCLUSION: The COVID pandemic has led TIA clinics around the world to adapt and move to the use of telemedicine for outpatient clinic review and modified investigation pathways. Despite the pandemic, all have remained operational.

Intracranial and systemic atherosclerosis in the NAVIGATE ESUS trial: Recurrent stroke risk and response to antithrombotic therapy.

BACKGROUND: Non-stenotic intracranial and systemic atherosclerosis are associated with ischemic stroke. We report frequency and response to anticoagulant vs. antiplatelet prophylaxis of patients with embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS) who have non-stenotic intracranial atherosclerosis and/or systemic atherosclerosis. METHODS: Exploratory analysis of the international NAVIGATE ESUS randomized trial comparing rivaroxaban 15mg daily with aspirin 100mg daily in 7213 patients with recent ESUS. Among participants with results of intracranial arterial imaging with either computed tomographic angiography (CTA) or magnetic resonance angiography (MRA), the frequency and predictors of non-stenotic intracranial and systemic atherosclerosis and responses to antithrombotic therapy were assessed. RESULTS: Among 4723 participants with available intracranial CTA or MRA results (65% of the trial cohort), the prevalence of intracranial atherosclerosis was 16% (n=739). Patient features independently associated with intracranial atherosclerosis included East Asian region (odds ratio 2.7, 95%CI 2.2,3.3) and cervical carotid plaque (odds ratio 2.3, 95%CI 1.9,2.7), among others. The rate of recurrent ischemic stroke averaged 4.8%/year among those with intracranial atherosclerosis vs. 5.0.%/year for those without (HR 0.95, 95%CI 0.65, 1.4). Among those with intracranial atherosclerosis, the recurrent ischemic stroke rate was higher if assigned to rivaroxaban (5.8%/year) vs. aspirin (3.7%/year), but the difference was not statistically significant (HR 1.6, 95%CI 0.78, 3.3). There was trend for the effect of antithrombotic treatments to be different according to the presence or absence of intracranial atherosclerosis (pinteraction=0.09). Among participants with evidence of systemic atherosclerosis by either history or imaging (n=3820), recurrent ischemic stroke rates were similar among those assigned to rivaroxaban (5.5%/year) vs. aspirin (4.9%/year)(HR 1.1, 95%CI 0.84, 1.5). CONCLUSIONS: East Asia region was the strongest factor associated with intracranial atherosclerosis. There were no statistically significant differences between rivaroxaban and aspirin prophylaxis for recurrent ischemic stroke in patients with non-stenotic intracranial atherosclerosis and/or systemic atherosclerosis.

Efficacy and Safety of Rivaroxaban Versus Aspirin in Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source and Carotid Atherosclerosis.

Background and Purpose- The sources of emboli in patients with embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS) are multiple and may not respond uniformly to anticoagulation. In this exploratory subgroup analysis of patients with carotid atherosclerosis in the NAVIGATE (New Approach Rivaroxaban Inhibition of Factor Xa in a Global Trial Versus ASA to Prevent Embolism)-ESUS trial, we assessed whether the treatment effect in this subgroup is consistent with the overall trial population and investigated the association of carotid atherosclerosis with recurrent ischemic stroke. Methods- Carotid atherosclerosis was analyzed either as the presence of mild (ie, 20%-49%) atherosclerotic stenosis or, separately, as the presence of carotid plaque. Primary efficacy outcome was ischemic stroke recurrence. Safety outcomes were major bleeding and symptomatic intracerebral bleeding. Results- Carotid plaque was present in 40% of participants and mild carotid stenosis in 11%. There was no significant difference in ischemic stroke recurrence between rivaroxaban- and aspirin-treated patients among 490 patients with carotid stenosis (5.0 versus 5.9/100 patient-years, respectively, hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.39-1.87; P for interaction of treatment effect with patients without carotid stenosis 0.78) and among 2905 patients with carotid plaques (5.9 versus 4.9/100 patient-years, respectively, HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.86-1.68; P for interaction of treatment effect with patients without carotid stenosis 0.2). Among patients with carotid plaque, major bleeding was more frequent in rivaroxaban-treated patients compared with aspirin-treated (2.0 versus 0.5/100 patient-years, HR, 3.75; 95% CI, 1.63-8.65). Patients with carotid stenosis had similar rate of ischemic stroke recurrence compared with those without (5.4 versus 4.9/100 patient-years, respectively, HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.73-1.69), but there was a strong trend of higher rate of ischemic stroke recurrence in patients with carotid plaque compared with those without (5.4 versus 4.3/100 patient-years, respectively, HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.99-1.54). Conclusions- In ESUS patients with carotid atherosclerosis, we found no difference in efficacy between rivaroxaban and aspirin for prevention of recurrent stroke, but aspirin was safer, consistent with the overall trial results. Carotid plaque was much more often present ipsilateral to the qualifying ischemic stroke than contralateral, supporting an important etiological role of nonstenotic carotid disease in ESUS. Clinical Trial Registration- URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02313909.

Real-world vs. randomized trial outcomes in similar populations of rivaroxaban-treated patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation in ROCKET AF and XANTUS.

AIMS: Based on Phase III data, non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants are recommended for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation. To determine whether trial outcomes translate into similar event rates in unselected patients, this analysis compared outcomes from the real-world XANTUS study with those from the Phase III ROCKET AF study. METHODS AND RESULTS: Individual patient data from 4020 XANTUS patients were re-weighted to match the proportion of selected baseline characteristics in 7061 rivaroxaban-treated patients from ROCKET AF, using the matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) method. For the primary analysis, CHADS2 scores and gender were selected as relevant variables. Adjusted annualized incidence rates for XANTUS were calculated and compared with incidence rates from ROCKET AF-the ratio of these rates ('MAIC ratio') was used as a relative effect estimate. Rates of major bleeding [3.10%/year vs. 3.60%/year; MAIC ratio 0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67-1.12] and stroke/non-central nervous system systemic embolism (1.54%/year vs. 1.70%/year; MAIC ratio 0.91; 95% CI 0.62-1.32) were similar between XANTUS and ROCKET AF. The rate of all-cause death was higher in XANTUS (3.22%/year vs. 1.87%/year; MAIC ratio 1.72; 95% CI 1.31-2.27), but the rates of vascular death were similar (1.83%/year vs. 1.53%/year; MAIC ratio 1.19; 95% CI 0.84-1.70). Sensitivity analyses weighted by different baseline characteristics supported these results. CONCLUSION: The low rates of major bleeding and stroke in XANTUS were consistent with results from ROCKET AF. All-cause death, but not vascular death, was higher in XANTUS, as expected in an unselected real-world population.

Rivaroxaban for Stroke Prevention after Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source.

BACKGROUND: Embolic strokes of undetermined source represent 20% of ischemic strokes and are associated with a high rate of recurrence. Anticoagulant treatment with rivaroxaban, an oral factor Xa inhibitor, may result in a lower risk of recurrent stroke than aspirin. METHODS: We compared the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban (at a daily dose of 15 mg) with aspirin (at a daily dose of 100 mg) for the prevention of recurrent stroke in patients with recent ischemic stroke that was presumed to be from cerebral embolism but without arterial stenosis, lacune, or an identified cardioembolic source. The primary efficacy outcome was the first recurrence of ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke or systemic embolism in a time-to-event analysis; the primary safety outcome was the rate of major bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 7213 participants were enrolled at 459 sites; 3609 patients were randomly assigned to receive rivaroxaban and 3604 to receive aspirin. Patients had been followed for a median of 11 months when the trial was terminated early because of a lack of benefit with regard to stroke risk and because of bleeding associated with rivaroxaban. The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 172 patients in the rivaroxaban group (annualized rate, 5.1%) and in 160 in the aspirin group (annualized rate, 4.8%) (hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87 to 1.33; P=0.52). Recurrent ischemic stroke occurred in 158 patients in the rivaroxaban group (annualized rate, 4.7%) and in 156 in the aspirin group (annualized rate, 4.7%). Major bleeding occurred in 62 patients in the rivaroxaban group (annualized rate, 1.8%) and in 23 in the aspirin group (annualized rate, 0.7%) (hazard ratio, 2.72; 95% CI, 1.68 to 4.39; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Rivaroxaban was not superior to aspirin with regard to the prevention of recurrent stroke after an initial embolic stroke of undetermined source and was associated with a higher risk of bleeding. (Funded by Bayer and Janssen Research and Development; NAVIGATE ESUS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02313909 .).

Impact of Switching From a Vitamin K Antagonist to Rivaroxaban on Satisfaction With Anticoagulation Therapy: The XANTUS-ACTS Substudy.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy, safety, and ease of use of rivaroxaban may reduce anticoagulation-treatment burden and improve nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patient satisfaction compared with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). HYPOTHESIS: Transitioning from a VKA to rivaroxaban improves treatment satisfaction in routine practice. METHODS: Xarelto for Prevention of Stroke in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation (XANTUS) is a prospective, noninterventional study in patients with NVAF prescribed rivaroxaban for prevention of stroke in routine practice. Patients receiving a VKA 4 weeks prior to the initial XANTUS study visit and switched to rivaroxaban were asked to complete the Anti-Clot Treatment Scale (ACTS). Changes from the initial visit to the first follow-up visit at ∼ 3 months (corresponding to a comparison of rivaroxaban vs prior VKA) for ACTS burden and benefit scores were calculated using and reported as least squared mean differences (LSMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: The study included 1291 NVAF patients with prior VKA treatment. The mean baseline ACTS burden and benefit scores were 50.51 ± 8.42 and 10.30 ± 2.70, respectively. After ∼ 3 months of rivaroxaban treatment, LSMDs were 4.38 points (95% CI: 2.53-6.22, P < 0.0001) for the burden and 1.01 points (95% CI: 0.27-1.75, P = 0.0075) for the benefit score. Fifty-four percent and 48% of patients reported experiencing at least a minimally important clinical difference in burden and benefit scores, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Within this XANTUS cohort, switching from a VKA to rivaroxaban yielded statistically and clinically significant improvements in ACT burden and benefit scores.

XANTUS: a real-world, prospective, observational study of patients treated with rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation.

AIMS: Although non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants are recommended for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) based on clinical trial results, there is a need for safety and efficacy data from unselected patients in everyday clinical practice. XANTUS investigated the safety and efficacy of the Factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban in routine clinical use in the NVAF setting. METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive consenting patients with NVAF newly started on rivaroxaban were eligible and were followed up at ∼3-month intervals for 1 year, or for at least 30 days after permanent discontinuation. All adverse events (AEs) were recorded as AEs or serious AEs; major outcomes (including major bleeding, symptomatic thromboembolic events [stroke, systemic embolism, transient ischaemic attack, and myocardial infarction], and all-cause death) were centrally adjudicated. There were 6784 patients treated with rivaroxaban at 311 centres in Europe, Israel, and Canada. Mean patient age was 71.5 years (range 19-99), 41% were female, and 9.4% had documented severe or moderate renal impairment (creatinine clearance <50 mL/min). The mean CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc scores were 2.0 and 3.4, respectively; 859 (12.7%) patients had a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 0 or 1. The mean treatment duration was 329 days. Treatment-emergent major bleeding occurred in 128 patients (2.1 events per 100 patient-years), 118 (1.9 events per 100 patient-years) died, and 43 (0.7 events per 100 patient-years) suffered a stroke. CONCLUSION: XANTUS is the first international, prospective, observational study to describe the use of rivaroxaban in a broad NVAF patient population. Rates of stroke and major bleeding were low in patients receiving rivaroxaban in routine clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01606995.

XANTUS: rationale and design of a noninterventional study of rivaroxaban for the prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with a fivefold increase in the risk of stroke. The Phase III ROCKET AF (Rivaroxaban Once-Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared with Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation) trial showed that rivaroxaban, an oral, direct Factor Xa inhibitor, was noninferior to warfarin for the reduction of stroke or systemic embolism in patients with AF. Compared with warfarin, rivaroxaban significantly reduced rates of intracranial and fatal hemorrhages, although not rates of bleeding overall. XANTUS (Xarelto(®) for Prevention of Stroke in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation) is a prospective, international, observational, postauthorization, noninterventional study designed to collect safety and efficacy data on the use of rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in AF in routine clinical practice. The key goal is to determine whether the safety profile of rivaroxaban established in ROCKET AF is also observed in routine clinical practice. XANTUS is designed as a single-arm cohort study to minimize selection bias, and will enroll approximately 6,000 patients (mostly from Europe) with nonvalvular AF prescribed rivaroxaban, irrespective of their level of stroke risk. Overall duration of follow-up will be 1 year; the first patient was enrolled in June 2012. Similar studies (XANTUS-EL [Xarelto(®) for Prevention of Stroke in Patients with Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation, Eastern Europe, Middle East, Africa and Latin America] and XANAP [Xarelto(®) for Prevention of Stroke in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation in Asia-Pacific]) are ongoing in Latin America and Asia-Pacific. Data from these studies will supplement those from ROCKET AF and provide practical information concerning the use of rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in AF.

Effect of high-dose atorvastatin on renal function in subjects with stroke or transient ischemic attack in the SPARCL trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Higher low-density lipoprotein cholesterol is associated with more rapid chronic kidney disease progression; reduction in cholesterol with statins, in conjunction with statins' pleiotropic effects, such as decreasing inflammation, may be renoprotective. The Stroke Prevention by Aggressive Reduction in Cholesterol Levels (SPARCL) trial assessed the effect of statin treatment on the risk of nonfatal and fatal stroke in subjects with a noncardioembolic stroke or transient ischemic attack, no known coronary heart disease, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol between 2.6 and 4.9 mmol/L (100-190 mg/dL). METHODS: We explored the effect of randomization to atorvastatin 80 mg/d or placebo on the change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR; using the 4-component Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study equation) in SPARCL subjects (n=4731) with (eGFR, <60 mL/min per 1.73 m2; n=3119) and without (eGFR, ≥60 mL/min per 1.73 m2; n=1600) chronic kidney disease overall and by glycemic status at baseline. RESULTS: Mean baseline eGFR was similar between treatment groups (65.5±0.26 versus 65.6±0.26 mL/min per 1.73 m2 atorvastatin versus placebo; 33% versus 34% had chronic kidney disease, respectively; P=0.55). After 60 months, eGFR increased 3.46±0.33 mL/min per 1.73 m2 in those randomized to atorvastatin versus 1.42±0.34 mL/min per 1.73 m2 in those randomized to placebo (P<0.001) independent of baseline renal function. In the subgroup with diabetes mellitus at randomization, eGFR increased 1.12±0.92 mL/min per 1.73 m2 in the atorvastatin group and decreased 1.69±0.92 mL/min per 1.73 m2 in placebo group during a period of 60 months (P=0.016). CONCLUSIONS: This post hoc analysis suggests that atorvastatin treatment may improve renal function in patients with prior stroke or transient ischemic attack with and without chronic kidney disease, and that atorvastatin treatment may prevent eGFR decline in patients with stroke and diabetes mellitus. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00147602.

Impact of high-dose atorvastatin therapy and clinical risk factors on incident aortic valve stenosis in patients with cardiovascular disease (from TNT, IDEAL, and SPARCL).

Clinical trials have not provided evidence for a role of statin therapy in reducing aortic valve stenosis (AVS) severity in patients with documented AVS. However, whether statin therapy could prevent the onset of AVS is unknown. Our objectives were (1) to compare the incidence rates of AVS among patients treated with high-dose versus usual-dose statin or placebo and (2) to identify clinical risk factors associated with the development of AVS. We conducted post hoc analyses in 23,508 participants from 3 large-scale multicenter atorvastatin randomized blinded clinical trials: Treating to New Targets, the Incremental Decrease in End Points Through Aggressive Lipid Lowering, and the Stroke Prevention by Aggressive Reduction in Cholesterol Levels. The main outcome measure was the incidence of clinical AVS over a median follow-up of 4.9 years (82 cases). Among patients who developed AVS, 39 (47.6%) were treated with atorvastatin 80 mg and 43 (52.4%) were treated with lower dose statin (atorvastatin 10 mg in Treating to New Targets, simvastatin 20 to 40 mg in Incremental Decrease in End Points Through Aggressive Lipid Lowering, or placebo in Stroke Prevention by Aggressive Reduction in Cholesterol Levels; hazard ratio [HR] 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59 to 1.41, p=0.67). In multivariate analyses forcing treatment, sex, and race into the model, factors that were significantly associated with AVS included age (HR 2.17, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.93, p<0.0001 per 1-SD increment), diabetes (HR 1.67, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.80, p=0.05), vitamin K antagonist use (HR 3.25, 95% CI 2.06 to 5.16, p<0.0001), and previous statin use (HR 2.65, 95% CI 1.54 to 4.60, p=0.0008). In conclusion, random allocation to high-dose versus usual-dose statin therapy or placebo did not impact the incidence of AVS among patients without known AVS. Age, diabetes, vitamin K antagonists, and previous statin use were significant predictors of incident AVS in these high-risk patients.

Residual macrovascular risk in 2013: what have we learned?

Cardiovascular disease poses a major challenge for the 21st century, exacerbated by the pandemics of obesity, metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes. While best standards of care, including high-dose statins, can ameliorate the risk of vascular complications, patients remain at high risk of cardiovascular events. The Residual Risk Reduction Initiative (R3i) has previously highlighted atherogenic dyslipidaemia, defined as the imbalance between proatherogenic triglyceride-rich apolipoprotein B-containing-lipoproteins and antiatherogenic apolipoprotein A-I-lipoproteins (as in high-density lipoprotein, HDL), as an important modifiable contributor to lipid-related residual cardiovascular risk, especially in insulin-resistant conditions. As part of its mission to improve awareness and clinical management of atherogenic dyslipidaemia, the R3i has identified three key priorities for action: i) to improve recognition of atherogenic dyslipidaemia in patients at high cardiometabolic risk with or without diabetes; ii) to improve implementation and adherence to guideline-based therapies; and iii) to improve therapeutic strategies for managing atherogenic dyslipidaemia. The R3i believes that monitoring of non-HDL cholesterol provides a simple, practical tool for treatment decisions regarding the management of lipid-related residual cardiovascular risk. Addition of a fibrate, niacin (North and South America), omega-3 fatty acids or ezetimibe are all options for combination with a statin to further reduce non-HDL cholesterol, although lacking in hard evidence for cardiovascular outcome benefits. Several emerging treatments may offer promise. These include the next generation peroxisome proliferator-activated receptorα agonists, cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitors and monoclonal antibody therapy targeting proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9. However, long-term outcomes and safety data are clearly needed. In conclusion, the R3i believes that ongoing trials with these novel treatments may help to define the optimal management of atherogenic dyslipidaemia to reduce the clinical and socioeconomic burden of residual cardiovascular risk.

Triglyceride-rich lipoproteins and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol in patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease: evidence and guidance for management.

Even at low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal, patients with cardiometabolic abnormalities remain at high risk of cardiovascular events. This paper aims (i) to critically appraise evidence for elevated levels of triglyceride-rich lipoproteins (TRLs) and low levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) as cardiovascular risk factors, and (ii) to advise on therapeutic strategies for management. Current evidence supports a causal association between elevated TRL and their remnants, low HDL-C, and cardiovascular risk. This interpretation is based on mechanistic and genetic studies for TRL and remnants, together with the epidemiological data suggestive of the association for circulating triglycerides and cardiovascular disease. For HDL, epidemiological, mechanistic, and clinical intervention data are consistent with the view that low HDL-C contributes to elevated cardiovascular risk; genetic evidence is unclear however, potentially reflecting the complexity of HDL metabolism. The Panel believes that therapeutic targeting of elevated triglycerides (≥ 1.7 mmol/L or 150 mg/dL), a marker of TRL and their remnants, and/or low HDL-C (<1.0 mmol/L or 40 mg/dL) may provide further benefit. The first step should be lifestyle interventions together with consideration of compliance with pharmacotherapy and secondary causes of dyslipidaemia. If inadequately corrected, adding niacin or a fibrate, or intensifying LDL-C lowering therapy may be considered. Treatment decisions regarding statin combination therapy should take into account relevant safety concerns, i.e. the risk of elevation of blood glucose, uric acid or liver enzymes with niacin, and myopathy, increased serum creatinine and cholelithiasis with fibrates. These recommendations will facilitate reduction in the substantial cardiovascular risk that persists in patients with cardiometabolic abnormalities at LDL-C goal.

Placebo-controlled trial of high-dose atorvastatin in patients with severe cerebral small vessel disease.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Uncontrolled studies have shown that statins can improve cerebral vasoreactivity (CVR) in patients with mild small vessel disease. We sought to determine whether high-dose atorvastatin increases CVR compared with placebo in patients with severe small vessel disease. METHODS: Ninety-four adults with recent lacunar stroke were randomly allocated in a double-blind manner to 80 mg of atorvastatin daily or matching placebo after stratification for hypertensive and diabetic status. The primary end point was change in CVR after 3 months of treatment. Secondary outcomes were changes in brachial and carotid artery endothelial-dependent vasodilations. RESULTS: At baseline, all patients had a severely impaired CVR (mean, 12.1%; 95% CI, 9.5-14.7) and carotid (mean, -0.25%; 95% CI, -1.17-0.67) and brachial artery (mean, 2.72%; 95% CI, 1.39-4.05) endothelial function. Despite reductions of 55% in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and of 30% in high-sensitivity C-reactive protein in the active arm compared to placebo, atorvastatin 80 mg per day did not improve CVR or endothelial dysfunction of carotid and brachial arteries. CONCLUSIONS: We found no positive effect of 3-month treatment with atorvastatin on severe cerebral microvasculature endothelial dysfunction in patients with lacunar stroke.

High-dose atorvastatin after stroke or transient ischemic attack.

BACKGROUND: Statins reduce the incidence of strokes among patients at increased risk for cardiovascular disease; whether they reduce the risk of stroke after a recent stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) remains to be established. METHODS: We randomly assigned 4731 patients who had had a stroke or TIA within one to six months before study entry, had low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels of 100 to 190 mg per deciliter (2.6 to 4.9 mmol per liter), and had no known coronary heart disease to double-blind treatment with 80 mg of atorvastatin per day or placebo. The primary end point was a first nonfatal or fatal stroke. RESULTS: The mean LDL cholesterol level during the trial was 73 mg per deciliter (1.9 mmol per liter) among patients receiving atorvastatin and 129 mg per deciliter (3.3 mmol per liter) among patients receiving placebo. During a median follow-up of 4.9 years, 265 patients (11.2 percent) receiving atorvastatin and 311 patients (13.1 percent) receiving placebo had a fatal or nonfatal stroke (5-year absolute reduction in risk, 2.2 percent; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.84; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.71 to 0.99; P=0.03; unadjusted P=0.05). The atorvastatin group had 218 ischemic strokes and 55 hemorrhagic strokes, whereas the placebo group had 274 ischemic strokes and 33 hemorrhagic strokes. The five-year absolute reduction in the risk of major cardiovascular events was 3.5 percent (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.69 to 0.92; P=0.002). The overall mortality rate was similar, with 216 deaths in the atorvastatin group and 211 deaths in the placebo group (P=0.98), as were the rates of serious adverse events. Elevated liver enzyme values were more common in patients taking atorvastatin. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with recent stroke or TIA and without known coronary heart disease, 80 mg of atorvastatin per day reduced the overall incidence of strokes and of cardiovascular events, despite a small increase in the incidence of hemorrhagic stroke. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00147602 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).