Cerebrovascular Effects of Sildenafil in Small Vessel Disease: The OxHARP Trial.

BACKGROUND: Vascular cognitive impairment due to cerebral small vessel disease is associated with cerebral pulsatility, white matter hypoperfusion, and reduced cerebrovascular reactivity (CVR), and is potentially improved by endothelium-targeted drugs such as cilostazol. Whether sildenafil, a phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor, improves cerebrovascular dysfunction is unknown. METHODS: OxHARP trial (Oxford Haemodynamic Adaptation to Reduce Pulsatility) was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, 3-way crossover trial after nonembolic cerebrovascular events with mild-moderate white matter hyperintensities (WMH), the most prevalent manifestation of cerebral small vessel disease. The primary outcome assessed the superiority of 3 weeks of sildenafil 50 mg thrice daily versus placebo (mixed-effect linear models) on middle cerebral artery pulsatility, derived from peak systolic and end-diastolic velocities (transcranial ultrasound), with noninferiority to cilostazol 100 mg twice daily. Secondary end points included the following: cerebrovascular reactivity during inhalation of air, 4% and 6% CO2 on transcranial ultrasound (transcranial ultrasound-CVR); blood oxygen-level dependent-magnetic resonance imaging within WMH (CVR-WMH) and normal-appearing white matter (CVR-normal-appearing white matter); cerebral perfusion by arterial spin labeling (magnetic resonance imaging pseudocontinuous arterial spin labeling); and resistance by cerebrovascular conductance. Adverse effects were compared by Cochran Q. RESULTS: In 65/75 (87%) patients (median, 70 years;79% male) with valid primary outcome data, cerebral pulsatility was unchanged on sildenafil versus placebo (0.02, -0.01 to 0.05; P=0.18), or versus cilostazol (-0.01, -0.04 to 0.02; P=0.36), despite increased blood flow (∆ peak systolic velocity, 6.3 cm/s, 3.5-9.07; P<0.001; ∆ end-diastolic velocity, 1.98, 0.66-3.29; P=0.004). Secondary outcomes improved on sildenafil versus placebo for CVR-transcranial ultrasound (0.83 cm/s per mm Hg, 0.23-1.42; P=0.007), CVR-WMH (0.07, 0-0.14; P=0.043), CVR-normal-appearing white matter (0.06, 0.00-0.12; P=0.048), perfusion (WMH: 1.82 mL/100 g per minute, 0.5-3.15; P=0.008; and normal-appearing white matter, 2.12, 0.66-3.6; P=0.006) and cerebrovascular resistance (sildenafil-placebo: 0.08, 0.05-0.10; P=4.9×10-8; cilostazol-placebo, 0.06, 0.03-0.09; P=5.1×10-5). Both drugs increased headaches (P=1.1×10-4), while cilostazol increased moderate-severe diarrhea (P=0.013). CONCLUSIONS: Sildenafil did not reduce pulsatility but increased cerebrovascular reactivity and perfusion. Sildenafil merits further study to determine whether it prevents the clinical sequelae of small vessel disease. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03855332; Unique identifier: NCT03855332.

Cilostazol for peripheral arterial disease - a position paper from the Italian Society for Angiology and Vascular Medicine.

Cilostazol is a quinolinone-derivative selective phosphodiesterase inhibitor and is a platelet-aggregation inhibitor and arterial vasodilator for the symptomatic treatment of intermittent claudication (IC). Cilostazol has been shown to improve walking distance for patients with moderate to severe disabling intermittent claudication who do not respond to exercise therapy and who are not candidates for vascular surgical or endovascular procedures. Several studies evaluated the pharmacological effects of cilostazol for restenosis prevention and indicated a possible effect on re-endothelialization mediated by hepatocyte growth factor and endothelial precursor cells, as well as inhibiting smooth muscle cell proliferation and leukocyte adhesion to endothelium, thereby exerting an anti-inflammatory effect. These effects may suggest a potential effectiveness of cilostazol in preventing restenosis and promoting the long-term outcome of revascularization interventions. This review aimed to point out the role of cilostazol in treating patients with peripheral arterial disease, particularly with IC, and to explore its possible role in restenosis after lower limb revascularization.

Pharmacokinetic and Safety Comparison of Fixed-Dose Combination of Cilostazol/Rosuvastatin (200 + 20 mg) Versus Concurrent Administration of the Separate Components in Healthy Adults.

The combined cilostazol and rosuvastatin therapy is frequently used for coronary artery disease treatment. This open-label, 3 × 3 crossover clinical trial evaluated the pharmacokinetics and safety of a fixed-dose combination (FDC) of cilostazol/rosuvastatin (200 + 20 mg) versus a concurrent administration of the separate components (SCs) under both fasted and fed conditions. Among 48 enrolled healthy adults, 38 completed the study. Participants were administered a single oral dose of cilostazol/rosuvastatin (200 + 20 mg), either as an FDC or SCs in a fasted state, or FDC in a fed state, in each period of the trial. Blood samples were taken up to 48 hours after dosing, and plasma concentrations were analyzed using validated liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. The geometric mean ratios of FDC to SCs for area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to the last quantifiable concentration (AUClast) and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) were 0.94/1.05 and 1.06/1.15 for cilostazol and rosuvastatin, respectively (AUClast/Cmax). Compared with that during fasting, fed-state administration increased the AUClast and Cmax for cilostazol by approximately 72% and 160% and decreased these parameters for rosuvastatin by approximately 39% and 43%, respectively. To conclude, the FDC is bioequivalent to the SCs, with notable differences in pharmacokinetics when administered in a fed state. No significant safety differences were observed between the treatments.

The Use and Impact of Cilostazol on Patients Undergoing Endovascular Peripheral Interventions.

BACKGROUND: Cilostazol is used for the treatment of intermittent claudication. The impact of cilostazol on the outcomes of peripheral vascular interventions (PVIs) remains controversial. This study assesses the use and impact of cilostazol on patients undergoing PVI for peripheral arterial disease (PAD). METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) database files for PVI were reviewed. Patients with PAD who underwent PVI for chronic limb threatening-ischemia or claudication were included and divided based on the use of cilostazol preoperatively. After propensity matching for patient demographics and comorbidities, the short-term and long-term outcomes of the 2 groups (preoperative cilostazol use versus no preoperative cilostazol use) were compared. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to determine outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 245,309 patients underwent PVI procedures and 6.6% (N = 16,366) were on cilostazol prior to intervention. Patients that received cilostazol were more likely to be male (62% vs 60%; P < 0.001), White (77% vs. 75%; P < 0.001), and smokers (83% vs. 77%; P < 0.001). They were less likely to have diabetes mellitus (50% vs. 56%; P < 0.001) and congestive heart failure (14% vs. 23%; P < 0.001). Patient on cilostazol were more likely to be treated for claudication (63% vs. 40%, P < 0.001), undergo prior lower extremity revascularization (55% vs. 51%, P < 0.001) and less likely to have undergone prior minor and major amputation (10% vs. 19%; P < 0.001) compared with patients who did not receive cilostazol. After 3:1 propensity matching, there were 50,265 patients included in the analysis with no differences in baseline characteristics. Patients on cilostazol were less likely to develop renal complications and more likely to be discharged home. Patients on cilostazol had significantly lower rates of long-term mortality (11.5% vs. 13.4%, P < 0.001 and major amputation (4.0% vs. 4.7%, P = 0.022). However, there were no significant differences in rates of reintervention, major adverse limb events, or patency after PVI. Amputation-free survival rates were significantly higher for patients on cilostazol, after 4 years of follow up (89% vs. 87%, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Cilostazol is underutilized in the VQI database and seems to be associated with improved amputation-free survival. Cilostazol therapy should be considered in all patients with PAD who can tolerate it prior to PVI.

The effect of cilostazol on late outcomes after endovascular treatment for occlusive femoropopliteal disease.

OBJECTIVE: Restenosis and late occlusion remain a significant problem for endovascular treatment of peripheral artery disease. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effect of cilostazol on late outcomes after endovascular repair of occlusive femoropopliteal disease. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted conforming to established criteria to identify articles published up to September 2023 evaluating late outcomes after endovascular treatment for atherosclerotic femoropopliteal disease. Eligible studies should compare outcomes between patients treated with cilostazol and patients not treated with cilostazol. Both prospective and retrospective studies were eligible. Late outcomes included primary patency (PP), restenosis, target lesion revascularization (TLR), and major amputation during follow-up. RESULTS: Overall, 10 clinical studies were identified for analysis including 4721 patients (1831 with cilostazol vs 2890 without cilostazol) that were treated for 5703 lesions (2235 with cilostazol vs 3468 without cilostazol). All studies were performed in Japan. Mean follow-up was 24.1 ± 12.5 months. Cilostazol was associated with a lower risk for restenosis (pooled odds ratio [OR], 0.503; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.383-0.660; P < .0001). However, no association was found between cilostazol and TLR (pooled OR, 0.918; 95% CI, 0.300-2.812; P = .881) as well as major amputation (pooled OR, 1.512; 95% CI, 0.734-3.116; P = .263). Regarding primary patency, cilostazol was associated with a higher 12-month PP (OR, 3.047; 95% CI, 1.168-7.946; P = .023), and a higher 36-month PP (OR, 1.616; 95% CI, 1.412-1.850; P < .0001). No association was found between cilostazol and mortality during follow-up (pooled OR, .755; 95% CI, 0.293-1.946; P = .561). CONCLUSIONS: Cilostazol seems to have a positive effect on 1- to 3-year PP and restenosis rates among patients treated endovascularly for atherosclerotic femoropopliteal disease. A positive effect on TLR and amputation risk was not verified in this review.

Real-World Safety and Effectiveness of Controlled-Release Cilostazol in Patients with Symptomatic Peripheral Artery Disease.

BACKGROUND: Cilostazol is the only first-line medication for treating intermittent claudication, and the controlled-release (CR) formulation is associated with a lower prevalence of adverse events (AEs). OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of cilostazol CR in patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease (PAD). METHODS: In this multicentre (113 sites), open-label, prospective observational study, we evaluated the real-world safety and effectiveness of cilostazol CR 200 mg once daily in patients with symptomatic PAD treated in routine clinical settings. The primary endpoint was the incidence and severity of AEs, and their causal relationship with cilostazol CR. The secondary endpoint was the effectiveness of the drug, as assessed by each patient's physician, for improving intermittent claudication. RESULTS: Among 2063 participants who received cilostazol CR for a mean duration of 88.6 days, 99 (4.80 %) experienced adverse drug reactions (ADRs), although no unexpected adverse reactions were observed. There was no significant difference in the incidence of ADRs according to patient demographics and comorbidities (all p > 0.05). The treatment was 'effective' in 1600 patients (78.93 %), although effectiveness significantly differed according to the patients' sex and the presence of comorbidities, including diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and coronary artery disease (all p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated the tolerability and effectiveness of cilostazol CR treatment in patients with symptomatic PAD.

Second messenger signalling bypasses CGRP receptor blockade to provoke migraine attacks in humans.

There are several endogenous molecules that can trigger migraine attacks when administered to humans. Notably, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) has been identified as a key player in a signalling cascade involved in migraine attacks, acting through the second messenger cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) in various cells, including intracranial vascular smooth muscle cells. However, it remains unclear whether intracellular cAMP signalling requires CGRP receptor activation during a migraine attack in humans. To address this question, we conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel trial using a human provocation model involving the administration of CGRP and cilostazol in individuals with migraine pretreated with erenumab or placebo. Our study revealed that migraine attacks can be provoked in patients by cAMP-mediated mechanisms using cilostazol, even when the CGRP receptor is blocked by erenumab. Furthermore, the dilation of cranial arteries induced by cilostazol was not influenced by the CGRP receptor blockade. These findings provide clinical evidence that cAMP-evoked migraine attacks do not require CGRP receptor activation. This discovery opens up new possibilities for the development of mechanism-based drugs for the treatment of migraine.

Long-term effectiveness and safety of cilostazol versus clopidogrel in secondary prevention of noncardioembolic ischemic stroke.

PURPOSE: Cilostazol is a widely used antiplatelet drug for secondary stroke prevention in Asia, but its comparison with clopidogrel is not well understood. This study aims to investigate the effectiveness and safety of cilostazol compared to clopidogrel for the secondary prevention of noncardioembolic ischemic stroke. METHODS: This retrospective comparative effectiveness research analyzed 1:1 propensity scorematched data from insured individuals between 2012 and 2019, using administrative claims data in Health Insurance Review and Assessment in Korea. Patients with diagnosis codes for ischemic stroke without cardiac disease were included and divided into two groups, those receiving cilostazol and those receiving clopidogrel. The primary outcome was a recurrent ischemic stroke. Secondary outcomes included all-cause death, myocardial infarction, hemorrhagic stroke, and a composite of these outcomes. The safety outcome was major gastrointestinal bleeding. RESULTS: The study analyzed 4,754 patients in the propensity scorematched population and found no statistically significant difference in recurrent ischemic stroke (cilostazol group vs clopidogrel group, 2.7% vs 3.2%; 95% CI, 0.62-1.21), the composite outcome of recurrent ischemic stroke, all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and hemorrhagic stroke (5.1% vs 5.5%; 0.75-1.22), and major gastrointestinal bleeding (1.3% vs 1.5%; 0.57-1.47) between patients receiving cilostazol and those receiving clopidogrel. In subgroup analysis, cilostazol was associated with a lower incidence of recurrent ischemic stroke compared to clopidogrel in hypertensive patients (2.5% vs 3.9%; interaction P = 0.041). CONCLUSIONS: This real-world study suggests that cilostazol is effective and safe for noncardioembolic ischemic stroke and may be associated with better effectiveness in hypertensive patients compared to clopidogrel.

Cilostazol and isosorbide mononitrate for the prevention of progression of cerebral small vessel disease: baseline data and statistical analysis plan for the Lacunar Intervention Trial-2 (LACI-2) (ISRCTN14911850).

BACKGROUND: Cerebral small vessel disease (SVD) causes lacunar strokes (25% of all ischaemic strokes), physical frailty and cognitive impairment and vascular and mixed dementia. There is no specific treatment to prevent progression of SVD. METHODS: The LACunar Intervention Trial-2 is an investigator-initiated prospective randomised open-label blinded-endpoint phase II feasibility study assessing cilostazol and isosorbide mononitrate for preventing SVD progression. We aimed to recruit 400 patients with clinically evident lacunar ischaemic stroke and randomised to cilostazol, isosorbide mononitrate, both or neither, in addition to guideline secondary ischaemic stroke prevention, in a partial factorial design. The primary outcome is feasibility of recruitment and adherence to medication; key secondary outcomes include: drug tolerability; recurrent vascular events, cognition and function at 1 year after randomisation; and safety (bleeding, falls, death). Data are number (%) and median (IQR). RESULTS: The trial commenced on 5 February 2018 and ceased recruitment on 31 May 2021 with 363 patients randomised, with the following baseline characteristics: average age 64 (56.0, 72.0) years, female 112 (30.9%), stroke onset to randomisation 79.0 (27.0, 244.0) days, hypertension 267 (73.6%), median blood pressures 143.0 (130.0, 157.0)/83.0 (75.0, 90.0) mm Hg, current smokers 67 (18.5%), educationally achieved end of school examinations (A-level) or higher 118 (32.5%), modified Rankin scale 1.0 (0.0, 1.0), National Institutes Health stroke scale 1.0 (1.4), Montreal Cognitive Assessment 26.0 (23.0, 28.0) and total SVD score on brain imaging 1.0 (0.0, 2.0). This publication summarises the baseline data and presents the statistical analysis plan. SUMMARY: The trial is currently in follow-up which will complete on 31 May 2022 with results expected in October 2022. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN14911850.

Cilostazol as adjunctive therapy in treatment of children with autism spectrum disorders: a double-blind and placebo-controlled randomized trial.

We aimed to evaluate cilostazol therapeutic effects on aberrant behaviors of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) children and its safety profile in a double-blind, randomized clinical trial. Sixty-six children with confirmed ASD were allocated to receive either daily 50-mg cilostazol (increased to 100 mg/day after 2 weeks) or matched placebo in addition to risperidone. The Aberrant Behavior Checklist-Community Edition (ABC-C) scale and a checklist of probable adverse effects were used to assess the behavioral outcomes and safety profile at weeks 0, 5, and 10 of the study. Sixty-one participants, with comparable baseline characteristics, completed the trial. Unlike other ABC-C subscales, repeated-measures analysis showed significant effect for time × treatment interaction in the hyperactivity subscale ( P = 0.047; partial eta squared = 0.06). We used the median value for the baseline score hyperactivity subscale [median (interquartile range) = 31 (24-37)] to stratify participants to higher hyperactivity and lower hyperactivity subgroups and found that only participants with higher hyperactivity benefit from cilostazol adjunctive therapy ( P = 0.028; partial eta squared = 0.14). Cilostazol could be considered as a safe agent with beneficial effects on hyperactivity in children with ASD and higher levels of hyperactivity.

Systematic review the efficacy and safety of cilostazol, pentoxifylline, beraprost in the treatment of intermittent claudication: A network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of cilostazol, pentoxifylline, beraprost for intermittent claudication due to lower extremity arterial occlusive disease. METHODS: Randomized controlled clinical trials were identified from PubMed, Scopus, EMbase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, SinoMed, Wanfang and Chongqing VIP databases, from the database inception to 31/12/2021. The outcome measures were walking distance measured by treadmill (maximum and pain-free walking distance), ankle-brachial index and adverse events. The quality of included studies was assessed by the Cochrane bias risk assessment tool. A network meta-analysis was carried out with Stata 16.0 software. RESULTS: There were 29 RCTs included in the study, covering total 5352 patients. Cilostazol was ranked first for both maximum and pain-free walking distance, followed by beraprost and pentoxifylline. For cilostazol, pentoxifylline and beraprost, maximum walking distance increased by 62.93 95%CI(44.06, 81.79), 32.72 95%CI(13.51, 55.79) and 43.90 95%CI(2.10, 85.71) meters, respectively relative to placebo, and pain-free walking distance increased by 23.92 95%CI(11.24, 36.61), 15.16 95%CI(2.33, 27.99) and 19.78 95%CI(-3.07, 42.62) meters. For cilostazol, pentoxifylline, beraprost and cilostazol combined with beraprost, ankle-brachial index increased by 0.06 95%CI(0.04, 0.07), -0.01 95%CI(-0.08, 0.05), 0.18 95%CI(0.12, 0.23) and 0.23 95%CI(0.18, 0.27), respectively relative to placebo. The pentoxifylline and cilostazol was associated with a lower ratio of adverse events than beraprost and cilostazol combined with beraprost. CONCLUSION: Cilostazol, pentoxifylline and beraprost were all effective treatments for intermittent claudication; cilostazol with good tolerance was likely to be the most effective in walking distance, while beraprost and cilostazol combined with beraprost were more prominent in the ankle-brachial index.

Cilostazol-induced Acute Kidney Injury in A Patient With Diabetic Foot Ulcer: A Case Report and Review of Literature.

INTRODUCTION: Cilostazol is an antiplatelet agent, that has been recently used as an adjunctive therapy in the management of diabetic foot ulcers. Headache, diarrhea, palpitations, and edema are reported as common side effects. CASE PRESENTATION: A 53-year-old woman was admitted to hospital, with decreased urine output and increased serum creatinine level. She had taken Cilostazol for the first time, for only one day, so the diagnosis of acute kidney injury, probably drug-induced acute interstitial nephritis, due to Cilostazol use, was made. Her kidney function did not improve despite Cilostazol discontinuation and therefore, empirical corticosteroid therapy was initiated. Her urine output increased and her serum creatinine level significantly decreased, on the third day of treatment. She was discharged with acceptable kidney function. Follow-up visits showed gradual normalization of serum creatinine in the next 62 days. CONCLUSION: Based on our case, we may draw the conclusion that, Cilostazol may cause nephrotoxicity at any point after ingestion.  DOI: 10.52547/ijkd.6980.

Antithrombotic therapy for secondary prevention in patients with stroke or transient ischemic attack: A multiple treatment network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: As stroke represents one of the leading causes of mortality and disability worldwide, we aimed to determine the preventive effect of different antiplatelet therapies after an ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack. METHODS: Network meta-analysis evaluating antiplatelet regimes after an ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases until Nov. 23, 2021, for randomized controlled trials. Direct comparisons within trials were combined with indirect evidence from other trials by using a frequentist model. An additive network meta-analysis model was used to evaluate the influence of individual components. The primary efficacy endpoint was a recurrent stroke, the main safety outcomes were the risk of major bleeding and mortality at the longest available follow-up. RESULTS: 58 randomized controlled trials (175,730 patients) were analyzed. The analysis involved 20 antithrombotic strategies including different antiplatelet agents, combinations with aspirin, and anticoagulant therapies. Cilostazol proved to be the most efficacious in reducing stroke recurrence and the risk of bleeding (RR = 0.66, 95%CI = 0.55-0.80 and RR = 0.39, 95%CI = 0.08-2.01) compared to aspirin, respectively. Intensification with combinations of aspirin with ticagrelor or clopidogrel resulted in a lower risk of stroke recurrence (RR = 0.79, 95%CI = 0.67-0.93 and RR = 0.79, 95%CI = 0.72-0.87) but carried a higher bleeding risk (RR = 3.01, 95%CI = 1.65-5.49 and RR = 1.78 95%CI = 1.49-2.13). CONCLUSION: The prognosis of patients with an ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack is improved with antiplatelets. Cilostazol showed the best risk-benefit characteristics without trade-off with the risk of major bleeding. Improved stroke recurrence with intensified antiplatelet regimens is counterbalanced with higher bleeding risk, and consequently, mortality remains unaffected. Treatment decisions in stroke survivals should integrate the assessment of bleeding risk for better identification of patients with the highest benefit of treatment intensification. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Prospero registration number: CRD42020197143, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=197143.

Cilostazol for Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Delayed cerebral ischemia is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH). Cilostazol, a selective inhibitor of phosphodiesterase 3, was reported to reduce cerebral vasospasm and improve outcomes. We aimed to conduct an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of cilostazol in aSAH. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library for articles published in English with the latest publishing time in August 2020. Articles reporting favorable outcome as the primary outcome and reporting severe angiographic vasospasm (aVS), symptomatic vasospasm (sVS), new cerebral infarction, or mortality as the secondary outcome were included in this review. Furthermore, we examined whether clinical outcomes were associated with the dosage of cilostazol (300 mg/day vs. 100-200 mg/day). RESULTS: Data from 405 patients in 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 461 patients in 4 observational studies (OSs) were included. In RCT studies, cilostazol was associated with significant favorable outcomes at discharge or 1 month (risk ratio [RR] 1.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.97, p = 0.04) or 3 or 6 months (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.05-1.28, p = 0.002). However, in OSs, no significant difference was indicated in favorable outcomes at discharge or 1 month (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.94-1.60, p = 0.14) nor 3 or 6 months (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.92-1.81, p = 0.14). The analyses found that cilostazol significantly reduced the incidences of severe aVS (RCT: RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.41-1.01, p = 0.05; OS: RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.43-0.88, p = 0.007), sVS (RCT: RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.31-0.70, p = 0.0002; OS: RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.21-0.68, p = 0.001), and new cerebral infarction (RCT: RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.24-0.67, p = 0.0005; OS: RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.23-0.64, p = 0.0002). However, no significant difference in mortality (RCT: RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.23-3.21, p = 0.82; OS: RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02-1.24, p = 0.08) was found. In 3 OSs which reported different doses of cilostazol (300 mg/day vs. 100-200 mg/day) for aSAH, the 300-mg/day cilostazol groups showed decreased delayed cerebral infarction (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09-0.81, p = 0.02) but no significant difference in shunt-dependent hydrocephalus (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.33-2.60, p = 0.88) or functional outcomes (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.74-1.75, p = 0.56) compared with the 100-200 mg/day cilostazol groups. CONCLUSIONS: The meta-analyses suggest the credible efficacy and safety of cilostazol in treating aSAH. Furthermore, 300-mg/day cilostazol treatment appeared to be more effective than 100-200 mg/day treatment.

Efficacy and Safety of Cilostazol for Atherosclerosis: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT: To investigate the efficacy and safety of cilostazol for atherosclerosis. PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to May 29, 2021, were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Ten trials with 1577 patients were included. Treatment with cilostazol significantly reduced carotid intima-media thickness [mean difference (MD), -0.12 mm; 95% confidence interval (CI), -0.17 to -0.06]. According to the difference in intervening measures, the cilostazol group was superior to the control group in inhibiting the progression of carotid intima-media thickness: cilostazol versus placebo (MD, -0.04 mm; 95% CI, -0.06 to -0.02; P < 0.00001), cilostazol versus no antiplatelet drug (MD, -0.14 mm; 95% CI, -0.26 to -0.03; P = 0.02), cilostazol versus aspirin (MD, -0.17 mm; 95% CI, -0.32 to -0.02; P = 0.02), cilostazol + aspirin versus aspirin (MD, -0.08 mm; 95% CI, -0.14 to -0.02; P = 0.007), cilostazol + aspirin versus clopidogrel + aspirin (MD, -0.07 mm; 95% CI, -0.14 to -0.00; P = 0.04), and cilostazol + clopidogrel + aspirin versus clopidogrel + aspirin (MD, -0.16 mm; 95% CI, -0.30 to -0.02; P = 0.03). Cilostazol treatment considerably decreased triglyceride (MD, -20.18 mg/dL; 95% CI, -39.03 to -1.34) and improved high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (MD, 4.35 mg/dL; 95% CI, 2.61-6.10). Cilostazol therapy significantly increased the risk of adverse events of headache (odds ratio, 12.91; 95% CI 5.33-31.29). Our research has revealed that cilostazol has potent antiatherosclerotic effects and can reverse atherosclerosis progress even in high-risk patients, such as those with type 2 diabetes mellitus, and does not increase the risk of bleeding.

Cilostazol combined with P2Y12 receptor inhibitors: A substitute antiplatelet regimen for aspirin-intolerant patients undergoing percutaneous coronary stent implantation.

BACKGROUND: Cilostazol combined with P2Y12 receptor inhibitor has been used as a substitute regimen for aspirin-intolerant patients undergoing percutaneous coronary stent implantation on a small scale. Its exact impact on platelet functions and clinical benefits of aspirin-intolerant patients is unknown. HYPOTHESIS: Cilostazol combined with P2Y12 receptor inhibitors could be used as a substitute antiplatelet regimen for aspirin-intolerant patients undergoing percutaneous coronary stent implantation. METHODS: In this multicenter prospective cohort trial, patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary stent implantation were assigned to the cilostazol group (cilostazol plus P2Y12 receptor inhibitors), based on aspirin intolerance criteria, or the aspirin group (aspirin plus P2Y12 receptor inhibitors). Platelet PAC-1, CD62p, and vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein phosphorylation (VASP-P) were detected by flow cytometry. The primary endpoints were major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) including all-cause death, acute myocardial infarction, emerging arrhythmia, nonfatal stroke, and heart failure. The secondary endpoints were the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) bleeding events. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-four aspirin-intolerant percutaneous coronary stent implantation patients and 154 matched aspirin-tolerant patients from a total of 2059 percutaneous coronary stent implantation patients were enrolled. The relative activation level of PAC-1, CD62p, and platelet reaction index reflected by the VASP-P test were similar in the two groups (p > .05). After 12 months of follow-up, the incidence of all-cause death was 1.9% in the cilostazol group and 1.3% in the aspirin group (risk ratio [RR], 1.500; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.254-8.852; p = 1.000); the incidence of acute myocardial infarction was 0.6% in the cilostazol group and 1.3% in the aspirin group (RR, 0.500; 95% CI, 0.046-5.457; p = 1.000). No significant difference was seen in other MACCE events, or in any types of BARC bleeding events. CONCLUSIONS: Cilostazol combined with P2Y12 inhibitors was not inferior to aspirin-based standard therapy and could be used as a reasonable substitute antiplatelet regimen for aspirin-intolerant patients undergoing percutaneous coronary stent implantation, but again with limitations, which required a larger sample and longer follow-up to confirm its efficacy.

Association of Timing for Starting Dual Antiplatelet Treatment With Cilostazol and Recurrent Stroke: A CSPS.com Trial Post Hoc Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Long-term treatment with the combination of cilostazol with aspirin or clopidogrel showed a lower risk of stroke recurrence compared to aspirin or clopidogrel alone after high-risk noncardioembolic ischemic stroke in a randomized trial. We aimed to determine whether the effect of the dual medication compared to monotherapy on risk of recurrent ischemic stroke differs according to timing of starting medication after stroke onset. METHODS: In a subanalysis of the randomized controlled trial, patients between 8 and 180 days after stroke onset were randomly assigned to receive aspirin or clopidogrel alone or a combination of cilostazol with aspirin or clopidogrel. They were divided into 3 groups according to the timing of starting trial treatment: between 8 and 14 days after stroke onset (8-14 days group), between 15 and 28 days after stroke onset (15-28 days group), and between 29 and 180 days after stroke onset (29-180 days group). The primary efficacy outcome was the first recurrence of ischemic stroke. Safety outcomes included severe or life-threatening bleeding. RESULTS: Of 1,879 patients, 498 belonged to the 8-14 days group, 467 to the 15-28 days group, and 914 to the 29-180 days group. There was a significant treatment-by-subgroup interaction for the recurrence of ischemic stroke between trial treatment and trichotomized groups. The recurrence of ischemic stroke was less common with dual therapy than with monotherapy in the 15-28 days group (annualized rate 1.5% vs 4.9%, respectively; adjusted hazard ratio 0.34 [95% CI 0.12-0.95]) and the 29-180 days group (1.9% vs 4.4%, respectively; 0.27 [0.12-0.63]) and similarly common in the 8-14 days group (4.5% for both; 1.02 [0.51-2.04]). Severe or life-threatening bleeding occurred similarly between patients on dual therapy and those on monotherapy in any of the trichotomized groups (crude hazard ratio 0.22 [95% CI 0.03-1.88] in the 8-14 days group, 1.07 [0.15-7.60] in the 15-28 days group, and 0.76 [0.24-2.39] in the 29-180 days group). DISCUSSION: Long-term dual antiplatelet therapy using cilostazol starting 15-180 days after stroke onset, compared to therapy started 8-14 days after onset, was more effective for secondary stroke prevention than monotherapy without increasing hemorrhage risk. TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01995370; UMIN Clinical Trials Registry 000012180. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class II evidence that for patients with acute noncardioembolic stroke taking either aspirin or clopidogrel, the addition of cilostazol 15-180 days after stroke onset decreases the risk of recurrent ischemic stroke.