Key result
Stroke secondary prevention trials reported higher annualized stroke rates (7.4%/y vs 1.2%/y; P=0.004) and lower MI rates (0.1%/y vs 1.5%/y; P<0.001) compared to cardiovascular trials.
Why the study?
Definitions and component event rates of MACE may vary between cardiovascular disease and stroke populations in trials of antithrombotic therapies.
Do annualized rates of MACE components differ between stroke and cardiovascular secondary prevention trials of antithrombotic therapies?
Meta-Analysis (n=403,957)
Do annualized rates of MACE components differ between stroke and cardiovascular secondary prevention trials of antithrombotic therapies?
Absolute Event Rate: 7.4% vs 1.2%
p-value: p=0.004
Recurrent event types differ significantly between stroke and cardiovascular trials, highlighting the need for disease-specific prevention strategies and standardized MACE definitions.
Stroke vs cardiovascular secondary prevention trials show divergent recurrent event patterns; supports disease-specific strategies and standardized MACE definitions.
No abstract yet. The journal hasn't published one we can show.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2025) conducted a meta-analysis in Cardiovascular disease and stroke (n=403,957). Stroke secondary prevention trials vs. Cardiovascular secondary prevention trials was evaluated on Annualized stroke rates (p=0.004). Stroke secondary prevention trials reported higher annualized stroke rates (7.4%/y vs 1.2%/y; P=0.004) and lower MI rates (0.1%/y vs 1.5%/y; P<0.001) compared to cardiovascular trials.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: