Why the study?
Does triflusal compared to clopidogrel reduce the risk of recurrent stroke in patients with first-time non-cardiogenic ischemic stroke based on CYP2C19 genotype?
Does triflusal compared to clopidogrel reduce the risk of recurrent stroke in patients with first-time non-cardiogenic ischemic stroke based on CYP2C19 genotype?
Triflusal did not significantly reduce the risk of recurrent stroke compared to clopidogrel in patients with non-cardiogenic ischemic stroke, regardless of CYP2C19 genotype status.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Triflusal offers no advantage over clopidogrel in CYP2C19 poor metabolizers; leaves open whether genotype-guided selection improves secondary stroke prevention.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and safety of antiplatelet agents for the secondary prevention of ischemic stroke based on cytochrome P450 2C19 (CYP2C19) polymorphisms. METHODS: This study was a prospective, multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, open-label, blind genotype trial. First time non-cardiogenic ischemic stroke patients were enrolled and screened within 30 days. Participants were randomized to receive either triflusal or clopidogrel for secondary stroke prevention. The primary outcome was the time from randomization to first recurrent ischemic stroke or hemorrhagic stroke. RESULTS: The required sample size was 1,080 but only 784 (73%) participants were recruited. In patients with a poor CYP2C19 genotype for clopidogrel metabolism (n=484), the risk of recurrent stroke among those who received triflusal treatment was 2.9% per year, which was not significantly different from those who received clopidogrel treatment (2.2% per year; hazard ratio [HR], 1.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60-2.53). In the clopidogrel treatment group (n=393), 38% had good genotypes and 62% poor genotypes for clopidogrel metabolism. The risk of recurrent stroke in patients with a good CYP2C19 genotype was 1.6% per year, which was not significantly different from those with a poor genotype (2.2% per year; HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.26-1.79). CONCLUSIONS: Whilst there were no significant differences between the treatment groups in the rates of stroke recurrence, major vascular events, or coronary revascularization, the efficacy of antiplatelet agents for the secondary prevention of stroke according to CYP2C19 genotype status remains unclear.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Han et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: