Search

Background and purposeSOCRATES (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.MethodsA 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.ResultsThe 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).ConclusionsIn 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 registrationURL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01994720.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Adjudication of endpoints is a standard procedure in cardiovascular clinical trials. However, several studies indicate that the benefit of adjudication in estimating treatment effect may be limited. Aims: This post hoc analysis of SOCRATES (NCT01994720) compared the treatment effects and investigated the agreement of clinical event assessment by site investigators and independent adjudicators. Methods: SOCRATES compared ticagrelor and aspirin in 13,199 patients with acute minor stroke or high-risk transient ischemic attack. The primary endpoint was stroke, myocardial infarction, or death. Stroke was the major component of the primary endpoint and a secondary endpoint. The endpoints were adjudicated by a blinded independent committee. We compared the treatment effect on the primary endpoint and stroke alone based on the investigators' and adjudicators' assessments, and investigated the agreement rate on the stroke endpoint and major hemorrhages. Results: The hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) for ticagrelor versus aspirin therapy for the primary endpoint were 0.89 (0.78–1.01) when calculated on adjudicator-assessed events and 0.88 (0.78–1.00) for investigator-assessed events. The hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) for stroke were 0.86 (0.75–0.99) based on the adjudicators' diagnoses and 0.85 (0.75–0.97) based on the investigators' diagnoses. The overall agreement between adjudicator- and investigator-diagnosed stroke was 91%, and for major hemorrhages was 88%. Conclusions: In SOCRATES, there was no clinically meaningful difference in the estimated treatment effect, on either the primary endpoint or stroke, by using investigator- or adjudicator-assessed events. Double-blind treatment outcome studies with stroke endpoints may not benefit from adjudication. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01994720. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale: In patients with acute cerebral ischemia, the rate of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death during 90 days was reported to be non-significantly lower with ticagrelor compared with aspirin, with no increase in major hemorrhage. Dual antiplatelet therapy may be more effective in this setting. Aim: To investigate whether ticagrelor combined with aspirin are superior to aspirin alone in preventing stroke or death in patients with non-severe, non-cardioembolic ischemic stroke or high-risk transient ischemic attack. Design: The Acute Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack Treated with Ticagrelor and Aspirin for Prevention of Stroke and Death (THALES) trial is a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, event-driven study. Patients will be randomized within 24 h of onset of acute ischemic symptoms. THALES is expected to randomize 13,000 at ∼450 sites worldwide, to collect 764 primary outcome events. Study treatments are ticagrelor 180 mg loading dose on day 1, then 90 mg twice daily on days 2–30, or matching placebo. All patients will also receive open-label aspirin 300–325 mg on day 1, then 75–100 mg once daily on days 2–30. Study outcomes: The primary efficacy outcome is time to the composite endpoint of stroke or death through 30-day follow-up. The primary safety outcome is time to first severe bleeding event. Discussion: The THALES trial will provide important information about the benefits and risks of dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor and aspirin in patients with acute cerebral ischemia in a global setting (funding: AstraZeneca). Clinical Trial Registration URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT03354429. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims Observational studies favor percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale (PFO) over medical therapy to reduce the risk of recurrent stroke, whereas randomized clinical trials have not shown significant differences. This study aims to compare long-term outcomes of PFO closure versus non-closure. Methods and results Patients with PFO and stroke considered for PFO closure were invited to a long-term clinical follow-up. Of the 314 patients, 151 (48%) were accepted for closure and 163 (52%) were not accepted (mean age 50 vs. 58 years). The cumulative incidence of all-cause mortality, stroke or transient ischemic attacks (TIAs) for closure vs. non-closure under a mean follow-up time of five years was 10.6% (16 events) vs. 12.9% (21 events), p = 0.53. Six patients, 3.7% vs. 3.6%, died in each group, but no deaths were associated with PFO closure, recurrent stroke or TIA. The incidence of recurrent stroke or TIA for closure vs. non-closure was 6.6% (10 events) vs. 9.2% (15 events), p = 0.63. The respective event rates for stroke were 3.9% (6 events) vs. 5.5% (9 events), p = 0.50 and for TIA, 2.6% (4 events) vs. 3.7% (6 events), p = 0.59. Conclusion PFO closure was associated with a low risk of recurrent events; however, compared to the non-closure group, no significant differences could be demonstrated. Careful patient selection can avoid under- as well as over-treatment of PFO patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Patent foramen ovale (PFO) has been implicated as a risk factor for cryptogenic ischemic stroke (CS). However, there is still a lack of widely accepted, undisputed indications for PFO closure. The present study describes the concept of the multidisciplinary PFO conference and a decision making process for closure versus no closure that was developed into a formalized clinical algorithm, and presents the results of implementing these, in terms of number and proportion of PFO closures as well as repeat referrals. Design: Five specialists in neurology, cardiology, internal medicine, thromboembolism, and echocardiography evaluated the clinical data of 311 patients at PFO conferences during 2006 to 2009. The main criteria for closure were patients with first-ever CS with PFO and atrial septal aneurysm, or patients with recurrent CS and PFO without atrial septal aneurysm. Results: A total of 143 patients (46%) were accepted for closure and 167 patients were rejected. Patients accepted for closure were younger (mean 50 years versus 58 years) (P , 0.001). The acceptance rate for PFO closure was similar throughout these years, with an average of 45%. Three of 167 patients (1.8%) initially rejected for PFO closure were re-referred due to recurrent stroke, and the PFO closure was subsequently performed. Conclusion: The acceptance rate of less than 50% in the present study underscores the complex relationship between CS and PFO. Whatever the criteria used for PFO closure, any unit caring for these patients needs to have a rigorous process to avoid overtreatment as well as undertreatment and to ensure that personal preferences and economic incentives do not steer the selection process. Our algorithm provides a stable acceptance rate and a low rate of repeat referrals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Trials have evaluated the use of clopidogrel and aspirin to prevent stroke after an ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). In a previous trial, ticagrelor was not better than aspirin in preventing vascular events or death after stroke or TIA. The effect of the combination of ticagrelor and aspirin on prevention of stroke has not been well studied.Methods: We conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial involving patients who had had a mild-to-moderate acute noncardioembolic ischemic stroke, with a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 5 or less (range, 0 to 42, with higher scores indicating more severe stroke), or TIA and who were not undergoing thrombolysis or thrombectomy. The patients were assigned within 24 hours after symptom onset, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive a 30-day regimen of either ticagrelor (180-mg loading dose followed by 90 mg twice daily) plus aspirin (300 to 325 mg on the first day followed by 75 to 100 mg daily) or matching placebo plus aspirin. The primary outcome was a composite of stroke or death within 30 days. Secondary outcomes were first subsequent ischemic stroke and the incidence of disability within 30 days. The primary safety outcome was severe bleeding.Results: A total of 11,016 patients underwent randomization (5523 in the ticagrelor-aspirin group and 5493 in the aspirin group). A primary-outcome event occurred in 303 patients (5.5%) in the ticagrelor-aspirin group and in 362 patients (6.6%) in the aspirin group (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71 to 0.96; P = 0.02). Ischemic stroke occurred in 276 patients (5.0%) in the ticagrelor-aspirin group and in 345 patients (6.3%) in the aspirin group (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.93; P = 0.004). The incidence of disability did not differ significantly between the two groups. Severe bleeding occurred in 28 patients (0.5%) in the ticagrelor-aspirin group and in 7 patients (0.1%) in the aspirin group (P = 0.001).Conclusions: Among patients with a mild-to-moderate acute noncardioembolic ischemic stroke (NIHSS score ≤5) or TIA who were not undergoing intravenous or endovascular thrombolysis, the risk of the composite of stroke or death within 30 days was lower with ticagrelor-aspirin than with aspirin alone, but the incidence of disability did not differ significantly between the two groups. Severe bleeding was more frequent with ticagrelor. (Funded by AstraZeneca; THALES ClinicalTrial.gov number, NCT03354429.). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Ticagrelor is an effective antiplatelet therapy for patients with coronary atherosclerotic disease and might be more effective than aspirin in preventing recurrent stroke and cardiovascular events in patients with acute cerebral ischaemia of atherosclerotic origin. Our aim was to test for a treatment-by-ipsilateral atherosclerotic stenosis interaction in a subgroup analysis of patients in the Acute Stroke or Transient Ischaemic Attack Treated with Aspirin or Ticagrelor and Patient Outcomes (SOCRATES) trial.Methods: SOCRATES was a randomised, double-blind, controlled trial of ticagrelor versus aspirin in patients aged 40 years or older with a non-cardioembolic, non-severe acute ischaemic stroke, or high-risk transient ischaemic attack from 674 hospitals in 33 countries. We randomly allocated patients (1:1) to ticagrelor (180 mg loading dose on day 1 followed by 90 mg twice daily for days 2-90, given orally) or aspirin (300 mg on day 1 followed by 100 mg daily for days 2-90, given orally) within 24 h of symptom onset. Investigators classified all patients into atherosclerotic and non-atherosclerotic groups for the prespecified, exploratory analysis reported in this study. The primary endpoint was the time to occurrence of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death within 90 days. Efficacy analysis was by intention to treat. The SOCRATES trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01994720.Findings: Between Jan 7, 2014, and Oct 29, 2015, we randomly allocated 13 199 patients (6589 [50%] to ticagrelor and 6610 [50%] to aspirin). Potentially symptomatic ipsilateral atherosclerotic stenosis was reported in 3081 (23%) of 13 199 patients. We found a treatment-by-atherosclerotic stenosis interaction (p=0·017). 103 (6·7%) of 1542 patients with ipsilateral stenosis in the ticagrelor group and 147 (9·6%) of 1539 patients with ipsilateral stenosis in the aspirin group had an occurrence of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death within 90 days (hazard ratio 0·68 [95% CI 0·53-0·88]; p=0·003). In 10 118 patients with no ipsilateral stenosis, 339 (6·7%) of 5047 patients in the ticagrelor group had an occurrence of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death within 90 days compared with 350 (6·9%) of 5071 in the aspirin group (0·97 [0·84-1·13]; p=0·72). There were no significant differences in the proportion of life-threatening bleeding or major or minor bleeding events in patients with ipsilateral stenosis in the ticagrelor group compared with the aspirin group.Interpretation: In this prespecified exploratory analysis, ticagrelor was superior to aspirin at preventing stroke, myocardial infarction, or death at 90 days in patients with acute ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack when associated with ipsilateral atherosclerotic stenosis. An understanding of stroke mechanisms and causes is important to deliver safe and efficacious treatments for early stroke prevention.Funding: AstraZeneca. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]