Why the study?
Secondary prevention is essential to reduce recurrence after ischemic stroke, but the comparative efficacy and safety of aspirin versus clopidogrel required evaluation.
Does clopidogrel reduce the recurrence of stroke compared to aspirin in adult patients with ischemic stroke?
Does clopidogrel reduce the recurrence of stroke compared to aspirin in adult patients with ischemic stroke?
Clopidogrel monotherapy is more effective than aspirin for the secondary prevention of recurrent stroke in patients with ischemic stroke, without increasing severe adverse events.
Favors clopidogrel over aspirin for secondary ischemic stroke prevention; confirms reduced recurrence without increased adverse events in RCT meta-analysis.
Background: Ischemic stroke is a leading cause of global morbidity and mortality. Secondary prevention is essential to reduce the recurrence of events. This study compares the efficacy and safety of aspirin versus clopidogrel in preventing recurrent events in patients with ischemic stroke. Materials and Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials published between 2004 and 2024 was conducted. Studies comparing aspirin and clopidogrel in adult patients with ischemic stroke were included. Results: Eleven studies involving 77,216 patients were analyzed. Clopidogrel significantly reduced the recurrence of stroke compared to aspirin (RR 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75–0.98). No significant differences were found in the rate of serious adverse events between the two treatments. Conclusion: Clopidogrel, as monotherapy, proves to be more effective than aspirin in preventing recurrent events in patients with ischemic stroke, without a significant increase in severe adverse events. However, dual therapy may offer additional benefits for some patients, albeit at the cost of an increased risk of bleeding. These findings suggest that clopidogrel is a preferred option for secondary prevention, with careful assessment of the risk-benefit profile in specific cases.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Adolfo Savia (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: