You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 7, Issue 5
  • Contemporary antiplatelet therapy for secondary stroke prevention: a narrative review of current literature and guidelines

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Review
Contemporary antiplatelet therapy for secondary stroke prevention: a narrative review of current literature and guidelines
  1. Jay Shah1,
  2. Shimeng Liu1,2,
  3. Wengui Yu1
  1. 1 Neurology, University of California, Irvine, California, USA
  2. 2 Neurology, Tiantan Hospital, Beijing, China
  1. Correspondence to Dr Wengui Yu; wyu{at}uci.edu

Abstract

Antiplatelet therapy is one of the mainstays for secondary stroke prevention. This narrative review aimed to highlight the current evidence and recommendations of antiplatelet therapy for stroke prevention.

We conducted advanced literature search for antiplatelet therapy. Landmark studies and randomised controlled trials evaluating antiplatelet therapy for secondary stroke prevention are reviewed. Results from Cochrane systematic review, pooled data analysis and meta-analysis are discussed.

Single-antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) with aspirin, aspirin/extended-release dipyridamole or clopidogrel reduces the risk of recurrent ischaemic stroke in patients with non-cardioembolic ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA). Dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and clopidogrel or ticagrelor for 21–30 days is more effective than SAPT in patients with minor acute noncardioembolic ischaemic stroke or high-risk TIA. Prolonged use of DAPT is associated with higher risk of haemorrhage without reduction in stroke recurrence than SAPT. Compared with placebo, aspirin reduces the relative risk of recurrent stroke by approximately 22%. Aspirin/dipyridamole and cilostazol are superior to aspirin but associated with significant side effects. Cilostazol or ticagrelor might be more effective than aspirin or clopidogrel in patients with intracranial stenosis.

SAPT is indicated for secondary stroke prevention in patients with non-cardioembolic ischaemic stroke or TIA. DAPT with aspirin and clopidogrel or ticagrelor for 21–30 days followed by SAPT is recommended for patients with minor acute noncardioembolic stroke or high-risk TIA. Selection of appropriate antiplatelet therapy should also be based on compliance, drug tolerance or resistance.

  • Atherosclerosis
  • Cerebral Infarction
  • Stroke
  • Asprin
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

https://doi.org/10.1136/svn-2021-001166

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Introduction

    Stroke is the second-leading cause of death and the third-leading cause of death and disability combined in 2019 globally.1 Platelets are activated by collagen, ADP and arachnoid acid metabolite thromboxane A2. Activated platelets induce platelet aggregation and blood clot formation, resulting in acute ischaemic stroke (AIS) or transient ischaemic attack (TIA). Antiplatelet agents inhibit platelet aggregation and reduce the risk of AIS or TIA.2 Aspirin, clopidogrel, dipyridamole/aspirin, cilostazol and ticagrelor are commonly used antiplatelet agents. In recent years, numerous randomised controlled trials (RCTs), Cochrane systematic reviews and meta-analyses evaluated the efficacy and safety of antiplatelet therapy for secondary stroke prevention.3–9 Due to the complexity of stroke aetiology and diverse mechanisms of antiplatelet agents (figure 1), it is essential to select optimal antiplatelet therapy in the real-world practice. In this narrative review, we aimed to highlight current evidence and recommendations of the antiplatelet therapy for secondary stroke prevention.2–10

    Figure 1
    Figure 1

    The mechanisms of antiplatelet agents. Aspirin irreversibly inhibits cyclooxygenase 1 (COX1) activity. Clopidogrel and ticagrelor blocks ADP receptor. Dipyridamole and cilostazol inhibits phosphodiesterase, thereby increasing cAMP levels and preventing platelet activation. ADP, adenosine diphosphate; COX, cyclooxygenase; GP, glycoprotein; TXA2, thromboxane A2.

    Methods and materials

    We conducted a literature search of peer-reviewed English language articles in PubMed and Cochrane Library using the following keywords: antiplatelet therapy AND stroke, antiplatelet therapy AND ischaemic stroke, antiplatelet therapy AND transient ischaemic attack, antiplatelet agent AND stroke, antiplatelet agent AND ischaemic stroke, antiplatelet agent AND transient ischaemic attack. The search was performed for studies published between 1 January 1980 and 15 November 2021. Landmark studies, RCTs, Cochrane systematic review, pooled data analysis and meta-analysis were included for discussion.

    Results

    Single-antiplatelet therapy

    Aspirin

    Aspirin irreversibly inactivates cyclooxygenase 1 (COX1) and inhibits platelet aggregation. In 1994, the Antiplatelet Trialists’ Collaboration study evaluated 145 RCTs regarding aspirin in preventing ischaemic stroke, myocardial infarct or vascular death.11 Aspirin treatment was associated with a 22% relative risk reduction of vascular event in patients with history of AIS or TIA.

    Table 1 lists the key RCTs of antiplatelet agents for stroke prevention. The International Stroke Trial (IST) randomised patients to aspirin 300 mg daily, subcutaneous heparin, both or neither within 48 hours of ischaemic stroke for up to 2 weeks.12 The aspirin group had significantly fewer recurrent ischaemic stroke (2.8% vs 3.9%, p<0.001) but equal rates of haemorrhage. The Chinese Acute Stroke Trial was similar in design except for a different aspirin dose (160 mg daily) and duration (4 weeks).13 There were significantly lower absolute risk of recurrent ischaemic stroke in the aspirin group (1.6% vs 2.1%, p=0.01). In a Cochrane systematic review of 8 RCTs with 41 483 participants on oral antiplatelet therapy for stroke prevention, aspirin 160–300 mg daily, started within 48 hours of stroke onset, reduced the risk of early recurrent ischaemic stroke without significant risk of haemorrhagic complications.5

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Landmark randomised controlled trials evaluating antiplatelet therapy in secondary stroke prevention

    Dipyridamole and aspirin/dipyridamole

    Dipyridamole inhibits phosphodiesterase and platelet activation.14 European Stroke Prevention Study (ESPS) randomised patients with either stroke or TIA within 3 months to receive aspirin/dipyridamole (325 mg/75 mg) or placebo three times a day.15 The treatment group was associated with 33% relative risk reduction in stroke and death. ESPS-2 randomised patients with TIA or ischaemic stroke within 3 months to either aspirin 25 mg two times a day, dipyridamole 200 mg two times a day, aspirin/dipyridamole or placebo.16 Compared with placebo, relative stroke risk was significantly reduced by 18%, 16% and 37%, respectively, suggesting a synergistic effect from combination therapy.

    There was no significant difference in risk of bleeding between aspirin and combination therapy group.

    The main side effects of dipyridamole were headache and diarrhoea.

    European Stroke Prevention in Reversible Ischaemia Trial randomised patients with TIA or minor stroke within 6 months to either aspirin/dipyridamole or aspirin.17 The dose of aspirin ranged from 30 to 325 mg, with majority receiving 30 mg daily. Aspirin/dipyridamole therapy was associated with an absolute risk reduction of 1% per year, corresponding to a number needed to treat of 104 to prevent 1 stroke, death or myocardial infarction. Of note, 34% of patients discontinued aspirin/dipyridamole due to side effects, mostly headache.

    The Prevention Regimen for Effectively Avoiding Second Strokes trial randomised patients to either aspirin/dipyridamole or clopidogrel.18 At a mean 2.5 years follow-up, there was no significant difference in recurrent stroke (9% vs 8.8%) between the two groups.

    Aspirin/dipyridamole has been rarely used due to high cost and significant side effect.

    Cilostazol

    Cilostazol also inhibits phosphodiesterase and platelet aggregation.19 CSPS randomised patients with recent stroke to cilostazol 100 mg two times daily or placebo.19 Cilostazol was associated with a relative stroke risk reduction by 41.7% (p=0.015). In CSPS-2 trial,20 2757 patients were randomised to receive cilostazol 100 mg two times daily (n=1379) or aspirin 81 mg daily (n=1378). At mean 29-month follow-up, cilostazol group had a 34% relative risk reduction in cerebral infarction than aspirin group (2.76% vs 3.71%, p=0.0357) and lower haemorrhagic events (0.77% vs 1.78%; p=0.0004).

    CSPS.com (CSPS for antiplatelet Combination) evaluated the efficacy of cilostazol and either aspirin or clopidogrel versus either aspirin or clopidogrel monotherapy.21 Patients with ischaemic stroke within the previous 6 months were eligible for enrolment if at least two vascular risk factors were present and at least 50% stenosis of either an extracranial or intracranial artery. Dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) was found to be superior to single-antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) in annual rate of ischaemic stroke (2.2% vs 4.5%, p=0.001). There was no significant difference in life-threatening bleeding between the two group. In a systemic review and meta-analysis of RCTs,22 cilostazol was shown to have lower rates of recurrent ischaemic stroke, haemorrhages or deaths, but higher rates of headache, palpitations and discontinuation than placebo, aspirin or clopidogrel.

    Of note, essentially all clinical trials on cilostazol were conducted in Asia and results have not been replicated in other ethnic populations.22

    Ticlopidine

    Ticlopidine was the first developed ADP receptor (P2Y12) antagonist.23 However, due to serious adverse effects, including hepatotoxicity and bone marrow suppression, it is not used in clinical practice.

    Clopidogrel

    Clopidogrel is a thienopyridine that blocks ADP receptor P2Y12 and interferes with platelet cross-linking and aggregation.23 The Clopidogrel vs Aspirin in Patients at Risk of Ischaemic Events trial randomised patients with stroke, myocardial infarction or peripheral vascular disease to either aspirin 325 mg or clopidogrel 75 mg daily.24 The clopidogrel group had a significantly lower annual rate of vascular event than the aspirin group (5.32% vs 5.83%, p=0.043). Of note, the relative risk reduction in patients with prior stroke was 7.3% and not statistically significant. Haemorrhage risks were similar between the two groups. Therefore, clopidogrel is considered a good option for secondary stroke prevention.

    Ticagrelor

    Ticagrelor is a new generation P2Y12 receptor antagonist. It is not dependent on hepatic activation and has a more potent antiplatelet effect.25 The Acute Stroke or Transient Ischaemic Attack Treated with Aspirin or Ticagrelor and Patient Outcomes trial randomised patients with minor stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score <5) or high-risk TIA within 24 hours to either ticagrelor 90 mg two times a day or aspirin 100 mg daily for 90 days.25 There was no significant difference in the rate of stroke, myocardial infarction or death between the two groups (6.7% vs 7.5%; HR 0.89; p=0.07). Haemorrhage risk was also similar. Of note, ticagrelor had a 17.5% discontinuation rate primarily due to dyspnoea and bleeding. A subgroup analysis showed that ticagrelor was superior to aspirin in patients with ipsilateral atherosclerotic stenosis.26

    Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa antagonists

    Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor antagonists, including abciximab, eptifibatide and tirofiban, represent a unique class of antiplatelet agents. Abciximab is a chimeric mouse/human monoclonal antibody with high affinity for the platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor.27 It was used as an adjunct to thrombolysis or endovascular procedures. Abciximab in Emergency Treatment of Stroke Trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of abciximab in patients with AIS within 5 hours of symptoms onset. It was terminated early after 808 enrolments due to an unfavourable benefit–risk profile.28 There was significantly higher rate of symptomatic or fatal intracranial haemorrhage in the abciximab group (5.5% vs 0.5%; p=0.002) without significant outcome benefit (32% vs 33%; p=0.944). Therefore, glycoprotein IIb/IIIa antagonists for patients with AIS is harmful and should not be used for stroke prevention.10

    Dual-antiplatelet therapy

    The key RCTs investigating the efficacy of DAPT in secondary stroke prevention are listed in table 2. Management of Atherosclerosis with Clopidogrel in High-Risk Patients trial randomised patients with recent ischaemic stroke or TIA to either clopidogrel 75 mg or aspirin 75 mg and clopidogrel 75 mg daily for 18 months.29 There was a non-significant difference in primary outcomes (15.7% vs 16.7%) but a significantly higher risk of life-threatening bleeding in the DAPT group (2.6% vs 1.3%).

    View this table:
    Table 2

    Randomised controlled trials evaluating dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in secondary stroke prevention

    Subsequently, Clopidogrel for High Atherothrombotic Risk and Ischaemic Stabilisation, Management and Avoidance and SPS3 (Stoke Prevention of Small Subcortical Strokes) showed no difference in stroke recurrence but higher risk of bleeding in the DAPT group in patients with atherosclerotic risk factors or lacunar stroke, respectively.30 31

    Clopidogrel in High-Risk Patients with Acute Nondisabling Cerebrovascular Events (CHANCE) evaluated DAPT for 21 days in Chinese population with high-risk TIA or minor ischaemic stroke within 24 hours of symptom onset.32 A total of 5170 patients were randomised to either clopidogrel (300 mg on day 1, followed by 75 mg daily) for 90 days plus aspirin 75 mg daily for the first 21 days or placebo plus aspirin 75 mg daily for 90 days. DAPT group had a significantly lower rate of ischaemic or haemorrhagic stroke at 90 days than aspirin group (8.2% vs 11.7%, HR 0.68; p<0.001). The absolute risk reduction was 3.5%. There was no significant difference in the rate of haemorrhage between the two groups. The benefit persisted during 1-year follow-up.33

    To determine if the results transcend to a broader population, POINT (Platelet-Oriented Inhibition in New TIA and Minor Ischaemic Stroke) trial was conducted in North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand.34 It showed a significant risk reduction in recurrent ischaemic events (5.0% vs 6.5%, p=0.02 but increased rate of bleeding (0.9% vs 0.4%, p=0.02) with DAPT. Of note, there were some differences in the study design between POINT and CHANCE. The POINT trial included a higher loading dose of clopidogrel (600 mg) and longer DAPT duration (90 days). These differences may explain the increased risk of bleeding in the POINT trial.

    The (Acute Stroke or Transient Ischaemic Attack Treated with Ticagrelor and ASA for Prevention of Stroke and Death) trial randomised patients with a mild-to-moderate acute noncardioembolic ischaemic stroke (NIHSS score ≤5) or TIA within 24 hours of symptom onset to either ticagrelor plus aspirin or placebo plus aspirin for 30 days.35 There were significant lower rates of stroke or death (5.5% vs 6.6%, HR, 0.83; 95% CI 0.71 to 0.96; p=0.02) and ischaemic stroke (5.0% vs 6.3%, HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.93; p=0.004), but higher rate of severe bleeding (0.5% vs 0.1%, p=0.001) in the DAPT group. Exploratory analysis showed that ticagrelor plus aspirin was associated with lower rate of disabling stroke or death than aspirin alone (4.0% vs 4.7%, p=0.001).36 For every 1000 patients, DAPT would prevent 11 strokes or deaths at the cost of four severe haemorrhages. The number needed to treat to benefit one patient is 143. In subgroup analysis of patients with ipsilateral atherosclerotic stenosis, ticagrelor plus aspirin was associated with lower rate of stroke or death than aspirin alone (8.1% vs 10.9%, p=0.023), resulting in a number needed to treat of 34 (95% CI 19 to 171).37

    Stenting vs Aggressive Medical Management for Preventing Recurrent Stroke in Intracranial Stenosis (SAMMPRIS) trial compared medical therapy with intracranial stenting.38 Patients with a TIA or stroke attributed to 70%–99% stenosis of an intracranial artery were randomised to aggressive medical management with aspirin 325 mg and clopidogrel 75 mg daily for 3 months vs angioplasty and stenting plus aggressive medical management. The study was stopped early after enrolment of 450 patients due to a higher 30-day rate of stroke and death in the stenting group (14.7% vs 5.8%, p=0.002) primarily due to periprocedural complications. At a median follow-up of 32.4 months, the risk of stroke or death was 23% in the stenting group vs 15% in the medical group.39 These results supported the use of DAPT for 90 days in patients with symptomatic high-grade intracranial stenosis.10

    CHANCE-2 trial randomised 6412 patients with a minor ischaemic stroke or TIA and CYP2C19 loss-of-function alleles to aspirin for 21 days plus ticagrelor or clopidogrel for 90 days.40 The risk of new stroke at 90 days was modestly lower in ticagrelor group (6.0% vs 7.6%, p=0.008). There was no difference in rate of severe or moderate bleeding between the two groups (0.3% vs 0.3%), but ticagrelor was associated with more total bleeding events (5.3% vs 2.5%).

    The Antiplatelet Therapy with Aspirin, Clopidogrel and Dipyridamole vs Clopidogrel Alone or Aspirin-Dipyridamole in Patients with Acute Cerebral Ischaemia trial compared triple antiplatelet therapy versus SAPT.41 After randomising 3096 patients within 48 hours of AIS or TIA, the trial was stopped early due to significantly more bleeding in the triple therapy group (20% vs 9%, p<0.001) without a decrease in recurrent stroke or TIA within 90 days (6% vs 7%, p=0.47). Therefore, triple antiplatelet therapy is harmful and should not be used for stroke prevention.10 41

    Cochrane systematic review, pooled data analysis and meta-analysis of RCTs demonstrated that DAPT with aspirin and clopidogrel or ticagrelor for 21–30 days is more effective than SAPT for secondary stroke prevention when initiated early after the onset of minor stroke or high-risk TIA.3 6–9 However, when initiated later and used longer than 90 days, DAPT increases the risk of bleeding without reduction of stroke recurrence than SAPT.7–9

    Recommendations

    The current evidence-based recommendations on antiplatelet therapy for secondary stroke prevention are summarised in table 3.3–10

    View this table:
    Table 3

    Current guidelines on the use of antiplatelet therapy for secondary stroke prevention2 10

    Special considerations

    Antiplatelet therapy after intracerebral haemorrhage

    Restart or Stop Antithrombotics Randomised Trial (RESTART) compared starting vs avoiding antiplatelet agent after intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH).42 At a median 3-year follow-up of 537 participants, there was no significant difference in recurrent ICH (8.2% vs 9.3%, p=0.64) or major vascular events (26.8% vs 32.5%, p=0.14) between two group.

    Restarting antiplatelet therapy after ICH should be considered, particularly in patients with high-risk thromboembolic conditions.

    Antiplatelet resistance

    One-third of patients who had a stroke may develop recurrent stroke while on antiplatelet therapy, partly due to aspirin or clopidogrel resistance.43–45 In the laboratory studies, aspirin resistance is defined as a failure to achieve reduction in TXA2 formation.44 Clopidogrel resistance refers to the inability to inhibit ADP-mediated platelet aggregation.45

    The most common cause of inadequate antiplatelet therapy is non-compliance.46 47 Approximately 50% of patients either stop taking medication or fail to adhere to the prescribed dose at 1 year.

    Potential drug interactions may also result in reduced effect of antiplatelet therapy. Concomitant use of NSAIDs, particularly ibuprofen, offsets the clinical benefit of aspirin.48 Proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) inactivates the hepatic enzyme that converts clopidogrel to its active metabolite. Therefore, concomitant use of PPIs may decrease clopidogrel’s effect.49

    Clopidogrel resistance has also been linked to gene polymorphisms.50 Clopidogrel is a prodrug that requires conversion into active metabolite by hepatic CYP2C19. The prevalence of poor metabolisers (subjects carrying two loss-of-function alleles) is as high as 58.8% among Asians.51

    Perspectives

    Many challenges remain for the selection of optimal antiplatelet therapy in the real-world practice. Currently, we are still uncertain about the best antiplatelet therapy in different ethnic populations. For example, is cilostazol equally effective in blacks or whites as in Asians? We also need to know the best dose of medications, best combination and duration of DAPT among patients with diverse comorbidities, multiple vascular risk factors, high body mass index, CYP2C19 loss-of-function gene mutations or stroke recurrence while on antiplatelet therapy.

    Ticagrelor does not need hepatic activation and was shown to be more effective than aspirin in patients with aortic arch and intracranial atherosclerotic disease.26 37 52 However, in patients with high risk of bleeding, cilostazol or aspirin-dipyridamole may be better option.17 21 22

    A common clinical practice is increasing the dose of aspirin or choosing a different antiplatelet agent after a recurrent TIA or AIS while on aspirin.53 However, systematic review and meta-analysis did not show effectiveness of increasing the dose of aspirin or changing to another antiplatelet medication.54

    Selecting of appropriate antiplatelet agent should also be based on compliance, drug tolerance or resistance.

    In a systematic review and meta-analysis, CYP2C19 loss-of-function alleles were found in 25% of white patients and in 60% of Asian patients.55 Among 15 studies of 4762 patients with stroke or TIA treated with clopidogrel, carriers of CYP2C19 loss-of-function alleles were at greater risk of stroke in comparison with noncarriers (12.0% vs 5.8%; risk ratio, 1.92, 95% CI 1.57 to 2.35; p<0.001). Therefore, patients with ischaemic stroke or TIA may need CYP2C19 gene test. In carriers of CYP2C19 loss-of-function alleles, ticagrelor is preferred to clopidogrel for secondary stroke prevention.40

    Additional RCTs are warranted to evaluate CYP2C19 gene testing-based antiplatelet therapy for stroke prevention: (1) Ticagrelor plus aspirin versus clopidogrel plus aspirin for patients with symptomatic intracranial stenosis and (2) Ticagrelor plus aspirin vs ticagrelor in patients with symptomatic intracranial stenosis or chronic large vessel occlusion.

    Conclusion

    SAPT is indicated for secondary stroke prevention in most patients with noncardioembolic ischaemic stroke or TIA. DAPT with aspirin and clopidogrel or ticagrelor for 21–30 days is more effective than SAPT for secondary stroke prevention when initiated early after minor noncardioembolic stroke or high-risk TIA. Aspirin is appropriate and cost-effective in antiplatelet naïve patients. Cilostazol, as off-label treatment, would be attractive alternative for patients with high risk for haemorrhage. In patients with intracranial stenosis, the addition of ticagrelor or cilostazol to aspirin for up to 30 days might reduce recurrent stroke risk. Ticagrelor might be preferred to clopidogrel in patients with CYP2C19 loss of function alleles.

    Ethics statements

    Patient consent for publication

    Acknowledgments

    We appreciate the generous support from the University of California Irvine Xiaoqi Cheng & Dongmei Liao International Stroke Research Scholarship.

    References

    1. ↵
      1. GBD 2019 Stroke Collaborators
      . Global, regional, and national burden of stroke and its risk factors, 1990-2019: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2019. Lancet Neurol 2021;20:795–820.doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(21)00252-0 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34487721
      OpenUrlPubMed
    2. ↵
      2. Del Brutto VJ ,
      3. Chaturvedi S ,
      4. Diener H-C , et al
      . Antithrombotic therapy to prevent recurrent strokes in ischemic cerebrovascular disease: JACC scientific expert panel. J Am Coll Cardiol 2019;74:786–803.doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2019.06.039 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31395130
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    3. ↵
      2. Kwok CS ,
      3. Shoamanesh A ,
      4. Copley HC , et al
      . Efficacy of antiplatelet therapy in secondary prevention following lacunar stroke: pooled analysis of randomized trials. Stroke 2015;46:1014–23.doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.114.008422 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25721018
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    4. ↵
      2. Sudlow CL ,
      3. Mason G ,
      4. Maurice JB , et al
      . Thienopyridine derivatives versus aspirin for preventing stroke and other serious vascular events in high vascular risk patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009:CD001246.doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001246.pub2 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19821273
    5. ↵
      2. Sandercock PAG ,
      3. Counsell C ,
      4. Tseng M-C , et al
      . Oral antiplatelet therapy for acute ischaemic stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev;349.doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000029.pub3
    6. ↵
      2. Kheiri B ,
      3. Osman M ,
      4. Abdalla A , et al
      . Clopidogrel and aspirin after ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. J Thromb Thrombolysis 2019;47:233–47.doi:10.1007/s11239-018-1786-z pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30511260
      OpenUrlPubMed
    7. ↵
      2. Naqvi IA ,
      3. Kamal AK ,
      4. Rehman H
      . Multiple versus fewer antiplatelet agents for preventing early recurrence after ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020;8:CD009716.doi:10.1002/14651858.CD009716.pub2 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32813275
      OpenUrlPubMed
    8. ↵
      2. Trifan G ,
      3. Gorelick PB ,
      4. Testai FD
      . Efficacy and safety of using dual versus monotherapy antiplatelet agents in secondary stroke prevention: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials. Circulation 2021;143:2441–53.doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.053782 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33926204
      OpenUrlPubMed
    9. ↵
      2. Brown DL ,
      3. Levine DA ,
      4. Albright K , et al
      . Benefits and risks of dual versus single antiplatelet therapy for secondary stroke prevention: a systematic review for the 2021 guideline for the prevention of stroke in patients with stroke and transient ischemic attack. Stroke 2021;52:e468-e479.doi:10.1161/STR.0000000000000377 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34024115
      OpenUrlPubMed
    10. ↵
      2. Kleindorfer DO ,
      3. Towfighi A ,
      4. Chaturvedi S , et al
      . 2021 guideline for the prevention of stroke in patients with stroke and transient ischemic attack: a guideline from the American heart Association/American stroke association. Stroke 2021;52.doi:10.1161/STR.0000000000000375
    11. ↵
      1. Antiplatelet Trialists’ Collaboration
      . Collaborative overview of randomised trials of antiplatelet therapy--I: Prevention of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke by prolonged antiplatelet therapy in various categories of patients. Antiplatelet Trialists' Collaboration. BMJ 1994;308:81–106.doi:10.1136/bmj.308.6921.81 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8298418
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    12. ↵
      1. International Stroke Trial Collaborative Group
      . The International Stroke Trial (IST): a randomised trial of aspirin, subcutaneous heparin, both, or neither among 19 435 patients with acute ischaemic stroke. The Lancet 1997;349:1569–81.doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(97)04011-7
      OpenUrl
    13. ↵
      2. Chen Z-M
      . CAST: randomised placebo-controlled trial of early aspirin use in 20 000 patients with acute ischaemic stroke. The Lancet 1997;349:1641–9.doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(97)04010-5
      OpenUrl
    14. ↵
      2. Harker LA ,
      3. Kadatz RA
      . Mechanism of action of dipyridamole. Thromb Res 1983;29:39–46.doi:10.1016/0049-3848(83)90356-0
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    15. ↵
      1. The European Stroke Prevention Study (ESPS)
      . Principal end-points. The ESPS group. Lancet 1987;2:1351–4.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    16. ↵
      2. Diener HC ,
      3. Cunha L ,
      4. Forbes C , et al
      . European stroke prevention study. 2. dipyridamole and acetylsalicylic acid in the secondary prevention of stroke. J Neurol Sci 1996;143:1–13.doi:10.1016/S0022-510X(96)00308-5 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8981292
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    17. ↵
      1. ESPRIT Study Group,
      2. Halkes PHA ,
      3. van Gijn J , et al
      . Aspirin plus dipyridamole versus aspirin alone after cerebral ischaemia of arterial origin (ESPRIT): randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2006;367:1665–73.doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68734-5 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16714187
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    18. ↵
      2. Sacco RL ,
      3. Diener H-C ,
      4. Yusuf S , et al
      . Aspirin and extended-release dipyridamole versus clopidogrel for recurrent stroke. N Engl J Med 2008;359:1238–51.doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0805002 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18753638
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    19. ↵
      2. Gotoh F ,
      3. Tohgi H ,
      4. Hirai S , et al
      . Cilostazol stroke prevention study: a placebo-controlled double-blind trial for secondary prevention of cerebral infarction. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2000;9:147–57.doi:10.1053/jscd.2000.7216 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24192020
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    20. ↵
      2. Shinohara Y ,
      3. Katayama Y ,
      4. Uchiyama S , et al
      . Cilostazol for prevention of secondary stroke (CSPS 2): an aspirin-controlled, double-blind, randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet Neurol 2010;9:959–68.doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(10)70198-8 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20833591
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    21. ↵
      2. Toyoda K ,
      3. Uchiyama S ,
      4. Yamaguchi T , et al
      . Dual antiplatelet therapy using cilostazol for secondary prevention in patients with high-risk ischaemic stroke in Japan: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Neurol 2019;18:539–48.doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(19)30148-6 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31122494
      OpenUrlPubMed
    22. ↵
      2. McHutchison C ,
      3. Blair GW ,
      4. Appleton JP , et al
      . Cilostazol for secondary prevention of stroke and cognitive decline: systematic review and meta-analysis. Stroke 2020;51:2374–85.doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.120.029454 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32646330
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    23. ↵
      2. Quinn MJ ,
      3. Fitzgerald DJ
      . Ticlopidine and clopidogrel. Circulation 1999;100:1667–72.doi:10.1161/01.CIR.100.15.1667 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10517740
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    24. ↵
      2. Committee CS ,
      3. randomized A , CAPRIE Steering Committee
      . A randomised, blinded, trial of clopidogrel versus aspirin in patients at risk of ischaemic events (CAPRIE). CAPRIE Steering Committee. Lancet 1996;348:1329–39.doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(96)09457-3 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8918275
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    25. ↵
      2. Johnston SC ,
      3. Amarenco P ,
      4. Albers GW , et al
      . Ticagrelor versus aspirin in acute stroke or transient ischemic attack. N Engl J Med 2016;375:35–43.doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1603060
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    26. ↵
      2. Amarenco P ,
      3. Albers GW ,
      4. Denison H , et al
      . Efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus aspirin in acute stroke or transient ischaemic attack of atherosclerotic origin: a subgroup analysis of SOCRATES, a randomised, double-blind, controlled trial. Lancet Neurol 2017;16:301–10.doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(17)30038-8 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28238711
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    27. ↵
      2. Eckert B ,
      3. Koch C ,
      4. Thomalla G , et al
      . Aggressive therapy with intravenous abciximab and intra-arterial rtPA and additional PTA/stenting improves clinical outcome in acute vertebrobasilar occlusion: combined local fibrinolysis and intravenous abciximab in acute vertebrobasilar stroke treatment (fast): results of a multicenter study. Stroke 2005;36:1160–5.doi:10.1161/01.STR.0000165918.80812.1e pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15890988
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    28. ↵
      2. Adams HP ,
      3. Effron MB ,
      4. Torner J , et al
      . Emergency administration of abciximab for treatment of patients with acute ischemic stroke: results of an international phase III trial: abciximab in emergency treatment of stroke trial (AbESTT-II). Stroke 2008;39:87–99.doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.106.476648 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18032739
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    29. ↵
      2. Diener H-C ,
      3. Bogousslavsky J ,
      4. Brass LM , et al
      . Aspirin and clopidogrel compared with clopidogrel alone after recent ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack in high-risk patients (match): randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2004;364:331–7.doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16721-4 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15276392
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    30. ↵
      2. Bhatt DL ,
      3. Fox KAA ,
      4. Hacke W , et al
      . Clopidogrel and aspirin versus aspirin alone for the prevention of atherothrombotic events. N Engl J Med 2006;354:1706–17.doi:10.1056/NEJMoa060989 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16531616
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    31. ↵
      1. SPS3 Investigators,
      2. Benavente OR ,
      3. Hart RG , et al
      . Effects of clopidogrel added to aspirin in patients with recent lacunar stroke. N Engl J Med 2012;367:817–25.doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1204133 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22931315
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    32. ↵
      2. Wang Y ,
      3. Wang Y ,
      4. Zhao X , et al
      . Clopidogrel with aspirin in acute minor stroke or transient ischemic attack. N Engl J Med 2013;369:11–19.doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1215340 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23803136
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    33. ↵
      2. Wang Y ,
      3. Pan Y ,
      4. Zhao X , et al
      . Clopidogrel with aspirin in acute minor stroke or transient ischemic attack (chance) trial: one-year outcomes. Circulation 2015;132:40–6.doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.014791 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25957224
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    34. ↵
      2. Johnston SC ,
      3. Easton JD ,
      4. Farrant M , et al
      . Clopidogrel and aspirin in acute ischemic stroke and high-risk TIA. N Engl J Med 2018;379:215–25.doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1800410 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29766750
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    35. ↵
      2. Johnston SC ,
      3. Amarenco P ,
      4. Denison H , et al
      . Ticagrelor and aspirin or aspirin alone in acute ischemic stroke or TIA. N Engl J Med 2020;383:207–17.doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1916870 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32668111
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    36. ↵
      2. Amarenco P ,
      3. Denison H ,
      4. Evans SR , et al
      . Ticagrelor added to aspirin in acute ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack in prevention of disabling stroke. JAMA Neurol 2021;78:177–9.doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.4396
      OpenUrl
    37. ↵
      2. Amarenco P ,
      3. Denison H ,
      4. Evans SR , et al
      . Ticagrelor added to aspirin in acute nonsevere ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack of atherosclerotic origin. Stroke 2020;51:3504–13.doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.120.032239 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33198608
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    38. ↵
      2. Chimowitz MI ,
      3. Lynn MJ ,
      4. Derdeyn CP , et al
      . Stenting versus aggressive medical therapy for intracranial arterial stenosis. N Engl J Med 2011;365:993–1003.doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1105335 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21899409
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    39. ↵
      2. Derdeyn CP ,
      3. Chimowitz MI ,
      4. Lynn MJ , et al
      . Aggressive medical treatment with or without stenting in high-risk patients with intracranial artery stenosis (SAMMPRIS): the final results of a randomised trial. Lancet 2014;383:333–41.doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62038-3 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24168957
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    40. ↵
      2. Wang Y ,
      3. Meng X ,
      4. Wang A , et al
      . Ticagrelor versus Clopidogrel in CYP2C19 Loss-of-Function Carriers with Stroke or TIA. N Engl J Med 2021;385:2520–30.doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2111749
      OpenUrl
    41. ↵
      2. Bath PM ,
      3. Woodhouse LJ ,
      4. Appleton JP , et al
      . Antiplatelet therapy with aspirin, clopidogrel, and dipyridamole versus clopidogrel alone or aspirin and dipyridamole in patients with acute cerebral ischaemia (tardis): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 superiority trial. Lancet 2018;391:850–9.doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32849-0 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29274727
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    42. ↵
      2. Al-Shahi Salman R ,
      3. Dennis MS ,
      4. Sandercock PAG , et al
      . Effects of antiplatelet therapy after stroke caused by intracerebral hemorrhage: extended follow-up of the restart randomized clinical trial. JAMA Neurol 2021;78:1179–86.doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2021.2956 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34477823
      OpenUrlPubMed
    43. ↵
      2. Virani SS ,
      3. Alonso A ,
      4. Benjamin EJ , et al
      . Heart disease and stroke Statistics-2020 update: a report from the American heart association. Circulation 2020;141:e139–596.doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000000757 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31992061
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    44. ↵
      2. Hankey GJ ,
      3. Eikelboom JW
      . Aspirin resistance. Lancet 2006;367:606–17.doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68040-9 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16488805
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    45. ↵
      2. Cuisset T ,
      3. Frere C ,
      4. Poyet R , et al
      . Clopidogrel response: head-to-head comparison of different platelet assays to identify clopidogrel non Responder patients after coronary stenting. Arch Cardiovasc Dis 2010;103:39–45.doi:10.1016/j.acvd.2009.11.004 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20142119
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    46. ↵
      2. Hamann GF ,
      3. Weimar C ,
      4. Glahn J , et al
      . Adherence to secondary stroke prevention strategies--results from the German Stroke Data Bank. Cerebrovasc Dis 2003;15:282–8.doi:10.1159/000069490 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12686793
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    47. ↵
      2. Serebruany V ,
      3. Cherala G ,
      4. Williams C , et al
      . Association of platelet responsiveness with clopidogrel metabolism: role of compliance in the assessment of "resistance". Am Heart J 2009;158:925–32.doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2009.10.012 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19958858
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    48. ↵
      2. Topçuoglu MA ,
      3. Arsava EM ,
      4. Ay H
      . Antiplatelet resistance in stroke. Expert Rev Neurother 2011;11:251–63.doi:10.1586/ern.10.203 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21306212
      OpenUrlPubMed
    49. ↵
      2. O'Donoghue ML ,
      3. Braunwald E ,
      4. Antman EM , et al
      . Pharmacodynamic effect and clinical efficacy of clopidogrel and prasugrel with or without a proton-pump inhibitor: an analysis of two randomised trials. Lancet 2009;374:989–97.doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61525-7 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19726078
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    50. ↵
      2. Mega JL ,
      3. Close SL ,
      4. Wiviott SD , et al
      . Cytochrome P-450 polymorphisms and response to clopidogrel. N Engl J Med 2009;360:354–62.doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0809171 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19106084
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    51. ↵
      2. Wang Y ,
      3. Zhao X ,
      4. Lin J , et al
      . Association between CYP2C19 loss-of-function allele status and efficacy of clopidogrel for risk reduction among patients with minor stroke or transient ischemic attack. JAMA 2016;316:70–8.doi:10.1001/jama.2016.8662 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27348249
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    52. ↵
      2. Markus HS ,
      3. Levi C ,
      4. King A , et al
      . Antiplatelet therapy vs anticoagulation therapy in cervical artery dissection: the cervical artery dissection in stroke study (CADISS) randomized clinical trial final results. JAMA Neurol 2019;76:657–64.doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.0072 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30801621
      OpenUrlPubMed
    53. ↵
      2. Michelson AD ,
      3. Cattaneo M ,
      4. Eikelboom JW , et al
      . Aspirin resistance: position paper of the Working group on aspirin resistance. J Thromb Haemost 2005;3:1309–11.doi:10.1111/j.1538-7836.2005.01351.x pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15892858
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    54. ↵
      2. Lee M ,
      3. Saver JL ,
      4. Hong K-S , et al
      . Antiplatelet regimen for patients with breakthrough strokes while on aspirin: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Stroke 2017;48:2610–3.doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.117.017895 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28701574
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    55. ↵
      2. Pan Y ,
      3. Chen W ,
      4. Xu Y , et al
      . Genetic polymorphisms and clopidogrel efficacy for acute ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Circulation 2017;135:21–33.doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.024913 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27806998
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
      2. Chimowitz MI ,
      3. Lynn MJ ,
      4. Howlett-Smith H , et al
      . Comparison of warfarin and aspirin for symptomatic intracranial arterial stenosis. N Engl J Med 2005;352:1305–16.doi:10.1056/NEJMoa043033 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15800226
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      2. Kwon SU ,
      3. Hong K-S ,
      4. Kang D-W , et al
      . Efficacy and safety of combination antiplatelet therapies in patients with symptomatic intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis. Stroke 2011;42:2883–90.doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.110.609370 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21799173
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
      2. Uchiyama S ,
      3. Sakai N ,
      4. Toi S , et al
      . Final results of Cilostazol-Aspirin therapy against recurrent stroke with intracranial artery stenosis (CATHARSIS). Cerebrovasc Dis Extra 2015;5:1–13.doi:10.1159/000369610 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25759708
      OpenUrlPubMed
      2. Taylor DW ,
      3. Barnett HJ ,
      4. Haynes RB , et al
      . Low-Dose and high-dose acetylsalicylic acid for patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy: a randomised controlled trial. ASA and carotid endarterectomy (ACE) trial Collaborators. Lancet 1999;353:2179–84.doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(99)05388-x pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10392981
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      2. Amarenco P ,
      3. Albers GW ,
      4. Denison H , et al
      . Ticagrelor versus aspirin in acute embolic stroke of undetermined source. Stroke 2017;48:2480–7.doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.117.017217 pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28720658
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors JS contributed to drafting and revising the manuscript. SL contributed to literature review, data collection and revision of the draft. WY contributed to the conception, intellectual contents, revising the manuscript and final revision.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.