Key result
Triflusal was equivalent to aspirin for the composite of MI, stroke, or vascular death at 12 months.
Why the study?
Does triflusal prevent myocardial infarction, stroke, or vascular death compared to aspirin in patients with stable coronary artery disease or prior non-cardioembolic ischaemic stroke?
RCT (n=1,119)
randomly assigned
Yes
Does triflusal prevent myocardial infarction, stroke, or vascular death compared to aspirin in patients with stable coronary artery disease or prior non-cardioembolic ischaemic stroke?
Triflusal demonstrates equivalent efficacy to aspirin for the secondary prevention of atherothrombotic events over 12 months, with a significantly lower risk of bleeding.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports triflusal as an aspirin alternative for secondary prevention; confirms equivalence in this RCT.
BACKGROUND: Triflusal has demonstrated an efficacy similar to aspirin in the prevention of vascular events in patients with acute myocardial infarction (ΜΙ) and ischaemic stroke but with less bleeding events. OBJECTIVE: We performed a randomised, multicentre, phase 4 clinical trial to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of triflusal versus aspirin, administered for 12 months in patients eligible to receive a cyclooxygenase-1 (COX-1) inhibitor. METHODS: Patients with stable coronary artery disease or with a history of non-cardioembolic ischaemic stroke were randomly assigned to receive either triflusal 300 mg twice or 600 mg once daily or aspirin 100 mg once daily for 12 months. The primary efficacy endpoint was the composite of: (a) ΜΙ, (b) stroke (ischaemic or haemorrhagic), or, (c) death from vascular causes for the entire follow-up period. The primary safety endpoints were the rate of bleeding events as defined by Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria. RESULTS: At 12-month follow-up, an equivalent result was revealed between the triflusal (n=559) and aspirin (n=560) in primary efficacy endpoint. Specifically, the combined efficacy outcome rate (i.e. MI, stroke or death from vascular causes) difference was equal to -1.3% (95% confidence interval -1.1 to 3.5) and lied within the a-priori defined equivalence interval (p<0.001). Regarding the primary safety endpoints, patients on triflusal treatment were 50% less likely to develop bleeding events according to the BARC criteria, and especially any clinically overt sign of haemorrhage that requires diagnostic studies, hospitalisation or special treatment (BARC type 2). CONCLUSION: The efficacy of triflusal in the secondary prevention of vascular events is similar to aspirin when administered for 12 months. Importantly, triflusal significantly reduced the incidence of ΜΙ and showed a better safety profile compared with aspirin. (ASpirin versus Triflusal for Event Reduction In Atherothrombosis Secondary prevention, ASTERIAS trial; Clinical Trials.gov Identifier: NCT02616497).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kalantzi et al. (2018) conducted an RCT in stable coronary artery disease or history of non-cardioembolic ischaemic stroke (n=1,119). Triflusal vs. Aspirin 100 mg once daily was evaluated on Composite of: (a) MI, (b) stroke (ischaemic or haemorrhagic), or, (c) death from vascular causes (Difference -1.3%, 95% CI -1.1 to 3.5, p=<0.001). Triflusal was equivalent to aspirin for the composite of MI, stroke, or vascular death at 12 months.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: