Effect of cilostazol on cerebral arteries in secondary prevention of ischemic stroke

The Role of Cilostazol, a Phosphodiesterase-3 Inhibitor, in the Development of Atherosclerosis and Vascular Biology: A Review with Meta-Analysis

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) stands as the leading global cause of mortality. Addressing this vital and pervasive condition requires a multifaceted approach, in which antiplatelet intervention plays a pivotal role, together with antihypertensive, antidiabetic, and lipid-lowering therapies. Among the antiplatelet agents available currently, cilostazol, a phosphodiesterase-3 inhibitor, offers a spectrum of pharmacological effects. These encompass vasodilation, the impediment of platelet activation and aggregation, thrombosis inhibition, limb blood flow augmentation, lipid profile enhancement through triglyceride reduction and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol elevation, and the suppression of vascular smooth muscle cell proliferation. However, the role of cilostazol has not been clearly documented in many guidelines for ASCVD. We comprehensively reviewed the cardiovascular effects of cilostazol within randomized clinical trials that compared it to control or active agents and involved individuals with previous coronary artery disease or stroke, as well as those with no previous history of such conditions. Our approach demonstrated that the administration of cilostazol effectively reduced adverse cardiovascular events, although there was less evidence regarding its impact on myocardial infarction. Most studies have consistently reported its favorable effects in reducing intermittent claudication and enhancing ambulatory capacity in patients with peripheral arterial disease. Furthermore, cilostazol has shown promise in mitigating restenosis following coronary stent implantation in patients with acute coronary syndrome. While research from more diverse regions is still needed, our findings shed light on the broader implications of cilostazol in the context of atherosclerosis and vascular biology, particularly for individuals at high risk of ASCVD.

The Efficacy and Safety of Cilostazol vs. Aspirin for Secondary Stroke Prevention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Cilostazol is often used in Asia-Pacific countries for stroke prevention. The current systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness, safety, and adverse outcomes of cilostazol monotherapy compared to aspirin monotherapy for secondary stroke prevention.

Methods

The researchers conducted a comprehensive research in multiple databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library) of randomized controlled trials from conception to December 2020. The primary efficacy outcome was the occurrence of any stroke, the primary safety outcome was the bleeding risk, and the primary adverse outcome was the rate of headache and dizziness. The Mantel-Haenszel method was used to calculate a random-effects prediction. Cilostazol and aspirin were compared using a pooled risk assessment with 95% CIs.

Results

Six studies involving 5,617 patients were included in this review. Compared with aspirin monotherapy, cilostazol was associated with significantly lower rates of any strokes (RR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.55–0.82) and significantly lower bleeding rates [risk ratio (RR): 0.53; 95% CI: 0.37–0.74]. However, compared with aspirin monotherapy, cilostazol was associated with significantly higher rates of headache (RR: 1.77; 95% CI: 1.41–2.20) and dizziness (RR: 1.28; 95% CI: 1.08–1.52).

Conclusions

Consistent with previous studies, cilostazol monotherapy is superior to aspirin monotherapy in reducing the rate of any strokes and the bleeding risk after having a stroke. However, the use of cilostazol monotherapy is associated with several adverse life outcomes such as headaches and dizziness.

Antiplatelet drugs for secondary prevention in patients with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Antiplatelet drugs may prevent recurrent ischemic events after ischemic stroke but their relative effectiveness and harms still need to be clarified. Within this network meta-analysis we aimed to summarize the current evidence for using antiplatelet drugs for secondary stroke prevention.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL up to September 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing antiplatelet drugs for secondary stroke prevention were included. We did pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses using random-effects models. Primary outcomes were all strokes (ischemic or hemorrhagic) and all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

The review included 57 RCTs, 50 (n = 165,533 participants) provided data for the meta-analyses. Compared to placebo/no treatment, moderate to high-confidence evidence indicated that cilostazol, clopidogrel, dipyridamole + aspirin, ticagrelor, ticlopidine, and aspirin ≤ 150 mg/day significantly reduced the risk of all strokes (odds ratios, ORs and absolute risk difference, ARD): cilostazol 0.51 (95 % confidence interval, CI, 0.37 to 0.71; 3.6 % fewer), clopidogrel 0.63 (95 % CI, 0.49 to 0.79; 2.7 % fewer), dipyridamole + aspirin 0.65 (95 % CI, 0.55 to 0.78; 2.5 % fewer), ticagrelor 0.68 (95 % CI, 0.50 to 0.93; 2.3 % fewer), ticlopidine 0.74 (95 % CI 0.59 to 0.93; 1.9 % fewer), aspirin ≤ 150 mg/day 0.79 (95 % CI, 0.66 to 0.95; 1.5 % fewer). Aspirin > 150 mg/day and the combinations clopidogrel/aspirin, ticagrelor/aspirin, also decrease all strokes but increase the risk of hemorrhagic events. Only aspirin > 150 mg/day significantly reduced all-cause mortality (OR 0.86, 95 % CI 0.76 to 0.97; ARD 0.9 %, 95 %CI 1.5-0.2 % fewer, moderate confidence). Compared to aspirin ≤ 150 mg/day, clopidogrel significantly reduced the risk of all strokes, cardiovascular events, and intracranial hemorrhage outcomes. Cilostazol also appeared to provide advantages but data are limited to the Asian population.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the benefits and harms ratio, cilostazol, clopidogrel, dipyridamole + aspirin, ticagrelor, ticlopidine, and aspirin ≤ 150 mg/day appear to be the best choices as antiplatelet drugs for secondary prevention of patients with ischemic stroke or TIA.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020159896 .

Antiplatelet regimens for Asian patients with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background

The optimal antiplatelet treatment for the secondary prevention of non-cardioembolic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) remains uncertain in Asians.

Methods

We searched for eligible randomized control trials in Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. A Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to assess the efficacy and safety of antiplatelet regimens with placebo as the control. Each therapy was compared using relative risk ratios (RR) and 95% credible intervals (CrI), and ranked according to the value of the surface under the cumulative ranking curve.

Results

A total of 84,103 patients from 32 studies were included: patients in used aspirin (n=26,834); cilostazol (n=3,303); clopidogrel (n=12,406); prasugrel (n=1,885); sarpogrelate (n=752); ticagrelor (n=1,933); ticlopidine (n=1,644); triflusal (n=391); aspirin plus cilostazol (n=1,120), aspirin plus clopidogrel (n=4,623); aspirin plus dipyridamole (n=10,853); aspirin plus ticagrelor (n=5,859); aspirin plus ticlopidine (n=132). Patients who used aspirin plus clopidogrel and cilostazol had a lower risk of recurrent stroke than those who used placebo. Patients administered with aspirin plus ticagrelor, aspirin plus clopidogrel, and cilostazol had a lower risk of composite vascular events than those administered placebo. Patients administered aspirin plus ticagrelor had a higher risk of major bleeding than those administered placebo. Clustered three-dimensional rank plots of recurrent stroke, major bleeding, and composite vascular events demonstrated that cilostazol had higher values of the surface under the cumulative ranking curve than other treatments.

Conclusions

Of the antiplatelet regimens, cilostazol showed the best net clinical benefits than other antiplatelet regimens in Asians with non-cardioembolic stroke or TIA.

Cilostazol for secondary stroke prevention: systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Stroke is one of the leading causes of death worldwide. Cilostazol, an antiplatelet and phosphodiesterase 3 inhibitor, has not been clearly established for ischaemic stroke use. We aim to determine the efficacy and safety of cilostazol for secondary stroke prevention.

Methods

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to 25 September 2020, for randomised trials comparing the efficacy and safety of cilostazol monotherapy or dual therapy with another antiplatelet regimen or placebo, in patients with ischaemic stroke. Version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2) was used to assess study quality. This meta-analysis was reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement.

Results

Eighteen randomised trials comprising 11 429 participants were included in this meta-analysis. Most trials possessed low risk of bias and were of low heterogeneity. Cilostazol significantly reduced the rate of ischaemic stroke recurrence (risk ratio, RR=0.69, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.81), any stroke recurrence (RR=0.64, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.74) and major adverse cardiovascular events (RR=0.67, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.81). Cilostazol did not significantly decrease mortality (RR=0.90, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.25) or increase the rate of good functional outcome (Modified Rankin Scale score of 0–1; RR=1.07, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.19). Cilostazol demonstrated favourable safety profile, significantly reducing the risk of intracranial haemorrhage (RR=0.46, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.68) and major haemorrhagic events (RR=0.49, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.70).

Conclusions

Cilostazol demonstrated superior efficacy and safety profiles compared with traditional antiplatelet regimens such as aspirin and clopidogrel for secondary stroke prevention but does not appear to affect functional outcomes. Future randomised trials can be conducted outside East Asia, or compare cilostazol with a wider range of antiplatelet agents.

Comparison of long-term efficacy and safety between cilostazol and clopidogrel in chronic ischemic stroke: a nationwide cohort study

Background:

Previous clinical trials showed a significant difference in efficacy and safety among antiplatelets in acute ischemic stroke (IS). The present study wished to compare the efficacy and safety head-to-head between cilostazol and clopidogrel in chronic IS.

Methods:

This open prospective cohort study recruited chronic IS patients with an index hospitalization between 2001 and 2013 from Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. In the 504,191 hospitalized patients, patients who had missing information and history of atrial fibrillation or rheumatic heart disease, received mechanical valve replacement or anticoagulants, expired during the index hospitalization, received follow-up ⩽6 months, or had recurrent stroke within 6 months after index stroke were excluded.

Results:

Among the 15,968 eligible patients, 502 patients who consistently received either cilostazol or clopidogrel from the 7th month after the index stroke were included for analysis after propensity score matching. The 3-year primary outcomes showed similar frequency of recurrent IS, all-cause mortality, and acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and similar frequency of intracerebral hemorrhage, gastrointestinal bleeding, and major bleeding between the cilostazol and clopidogrel groups. Subgroup analysis revealed that patients with a history of hypertension or gastrointestinal bleeding had a trend of having lower frequency of recurrent IS or major bleeding, respectively, in the cilostazol group.

Conclusion:

The present real-world study demonstrated no significant difference in efficacy and safety between cilostazol and clopidogrel in chronic IS. However, cilostazol might be better than clopidogrel in patients with a history of hypertension or gastrointestinal bleeding.

Cilostazol for Secondary Prevention of Stroke and Cognitive Decline: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Cilostazol, a phosphodiesterase 3' inhibitor, is used in Asia-Pacific countries for stroke prevention, but rarely used elsewhere. In addition to weak antiplatelet effects, it stabilizes endothelium, aids myelin repair and astrocyte-neuron energy transfer in laboratory models, effects that may be beneficial in preventing small vessel disease progression.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of unconfounded randomized controlled trials of cilostazol to prevent stroke, cognitive decline, or radiological small vessel disease lesion progression. Two reviewers searched for papers (January 1, 2019 to July 16, 2019) and extracted data. We calculated Peto odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs for recurrent ischemic, hemorrhagic stroke, death, adverse symptoms, with sensitivity analyses. The review is registered (CRD42018084742).

RESULTS

We included 20 randomized controlled trials (n=10 505), 18 in ischemic stroke (total n=10 449) and 2 in cognitive impairment (n=56); most were performed in Asia-Pacific countries. Cilostazol decreased recurrent ischemic stroke (17 trials, n=10 225, OR=0.68 [95% CI, 0.57-0.81]; P<0.0001), hemorrhagic stroke (16 trials, n=9736, OR=0.43 [95% CI, 0.29-0.64]; P=0.0001), deaths (OR=0.64 [95% CI, 0.49-0.83], P<0.0009), systemic bleeding (n=8387, OR=0.73 [95% CI, 0.54-0.99]; P=0.04), but increased headache and palpitations, compared with placebo, aspirin, or clopidogrel. Cilostazol reduced recurrent ischemic stroke more when given long (>6 months) versus short term without increasing hemorrhage, and in trials with larger proportions (>40%) of lacunar stroke. Data were insufficient to assess effects on cognition, imaging, functional outcomes, or tolerance.

CONCLUSIONS

Cilostazol appears effective for long-term secondary stroke prevention without increasing hemorrhage risk. However, most trials related to Asia-Pacific patients and more trials in Western countries should assess its effects on cognitive decline, functional outcome, and tolerance, particularly in lacunar stroke and other presentations of small vessel disease.

Cilostazol Mono and Combination Treatments in Ischemic Stroke: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background and Purpose- We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the efficacy and safety of cilostazol as a mono or combination (plus aspirin or clopidogrel) treatments compared to conventional single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT, mainly aspirin) for secondary stroke prevention. Methods- Randomized controlled trial studies were searched across multiple comprehensive databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane) for review. The primary outcome was recurrent stroke comprising ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke. Secondary outcomes included ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, myocardial infarction, and composite outcomes. We performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the identified reports, including 2 recently published randomized controlled trials. In addition, network meta-analysis was performed to compare the relative effects of mono versus combination cilostazol treatments. Results- Ten studies were included in this review, 5 of which were assigned to the cilostazol mono group (n=5429) and the other 5 to the combination group (n=2456). The relative risks of recurrent stroke, ischemic stroke, and composite outcomes with cilostazol mono as well as combination treatments were significantly lower than with SAPT without any significant heterogeneity. An indirect comparison of these 3 outcomes revealed the cilostazol combination approach to be superior. The cilostazol mono treatment diminished hemorrhagic stroke more significantly than SAPT and the cilostazol combination did not increase hemorrhagic stroke compared to SAPT. The outcomes from the 2 cilostazol regimens were comparable to SAPT in the case of myocardial infarction. Conclusions- Cilostazol is a more effective and safer treatment option than SAPT approaches using mainly aspirin. Cilostazol regimens can also be modified to clinical situations as this drug reduces recurrent and ischemic stroke more efficiently as a combination therapy but is more beneficial for hemorrhagic stroke as a monotherapy.

Aspirin plus dipyridamole has the highest surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA) values in terms of mortality, intracranial hemorrhage, and adverse event rate among 7 drug therapies in the treatment of cerebral infarction

BACKGROUND

The standardization for the clinical use of drug therapy for cerebral infarction (CI) has not yet determined in some aspects. In this paper, we discussed the efficacies of different drug therapies (aspirin, aspirin plus dipyridamole, aspirin plus clopidogrel, aspirin plus warfarin, cilostazol, warfarin, and ticlopidine) for CI.

METHODS

We searched databases of PubMed and Cochrane Library from the inception to April, 2017, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were enrolled in this study. The network meta-analysis integrated evidences of direct and indirect comparisons to assess odd ratios (OR) and surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA) value.

RESULTS

Thirteen eligible RCTs including 7 drug therapies were included into this network meta-analysis. The network meta-analysis results showed that CI patients who received aspirin plus dipyridamole presented lower mortality when compared with those received aspirin plus clopidogrel (OR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.18-0.99), indicating aspirin plus dipyridamole therapy had better efficacy for CI. As for intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), stroke recurrence, and adverse event (AE) rate, there were no significant differences of efficacy among 7 drug therapies. Besides, SUCRA values demonstrated that in the 7 drug therapies, aspirin plus dipyridamole therapy was more effective than others (mortality: 80.67%; ICH: 76.6%; AE rate: 90.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings revealed that aspirin plus dipyridamole therapy might be the optimum one for patients with CI, which could help to improve the survival of CI patients.

The Efficacy and Safety of 3 Types of Interventions for Stroke Prevention in Patients With Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Diseases: A Network Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The goal of this study was to compare the relative efficacy and safety of different types of interventions for stroke prevention in patients with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases.

METHODS

This network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted with a random effects model of Bayesian framework using Stata version 12.0. Odds ratios (ORs) and their credible intervals (CrIs) were applied for the efficacy and safety evaluation of various medical interventions, including aspirin, dipyridamole, ticlopidine, warfarin, and apixaban. In addition, the ranking of probability of every clinical outcome was estimated by comparing the surface under the cumulative ranking curve.

FINDINGS

Compared with dabigatran, both edoxaban and aspirin + warfarin exhibited a higher rate of all-cause stroke (OR, 2.84 [95% CrI, 1.17-6.97]; OR, 3.42 [95% CrI, 1.20-9.84]). With respect to intracranial hemorrhage, aspirin + clopidogrel yielded worse outcomes than 7 treatments, including placebo, apixaban, aspirin, aspirin + dipyridamole, cilostazol, clopidogrel, and dabigatran (OR, 2.21 [95% CrI, 1.45-3.40]; OR, 2.11 [95% CrI, 1.05-4.17]; OR, 1.53 [95% CrI, 1.11-2.15]; OR, 1.78 [95% CrI, 1.01-3.03]; OR, 4.17 [95% CrI, 1.37-14.28]; OR, 1.85 [95% CrI, 1.22-2.86]; and OR, 2.56 [95% CrI, 1.37-4.76]). In terms of ischemic stroke, dabigatran provided better efficacy than placebo, aspirin, and aspirin + dipyridamole (OR, 0.36 [95% CrI, 0.18-0.72]; OR, 0.43 [95% CrI, 0.21-0.84]; and OR, 0.41 [95% CrI, 0.17-0.94]). As for mortality, dabigatran resulted in a lower mortality compared with aspirin, aspirin + clopidogrel, edoxaban, and warfarin (OR, 0.48 [95% CrI, 0.23-0.97]; OR, 0.40 [95% CrI, 0.17-0.92]; OR, 0.27 [95% CrI, 0.10-0.72]; and OR, 0.52 [95% CrI, 0.28-0.92]).

IMPLICATIONS

There are still some limitations to our NMA research. For instance, the lack of direct evidence for some therapies resulted in inconsistencies, particularly for warfarin compared with placebo and clopidogrel under different end points. Moreover, the included randomized controlled trials for patients with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases are relatively broad, involving atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, and large-artery atherosclerosis stroke. Although further research is needed, dabigatran is highly recommended based on the present NAM for the treatment of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases due to the drug's efficacy and safety.

Comparative efficacy and safety of antiplatelet agents in cerebral ischemic disease: A network meta-analysis

We performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) to enhance the corresponding evidence of the relative efficacy and safety of different antiplatelet agents in cerebral ischemic disease. PubMed and EMBASE were searched systematically for relevant studies. Outcomes were compared using odds ratios and 95% credible intervals. Each agent was ranked according to the value of surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). Publication bias was evaluated by funnel plots, while consistency between direct and indirect comparison was analyzed by node-splitting and heat plots. Besides, the clustering technique was used to categorize similar agents. A number of 44 eligible studies with 148 578 patients were included in this NMA. In terms of efficacy (including mortality, recurrent stroke, and vascular event), all six interventions were better than placebo. clopidogrel (Clop) and aspirin (ASA)+Clop were the best two interventions from SUCRA. However, the performance of ASA+Clop declined significantly when considering safety (including myocardial infarction, all-cause withdrawal, and intracranial hemorrhage), especially worse in intracranial hemorrhage. In conclusion, Clop was potentially the most preferable treatment for preventing cerebral ischemic in terms of efficacy and safety. However, the addition of ASA was associated with a potential increase in intracranial hemorrhage, therefore, combination therapy of ASA and Clop should be introduced with caution although it may be more effective than the monotherapy of ASA.

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Nine Anti-Platelet Therapies for Patients with Ischemic Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack: a Mixed Treatment Comparisons

Anti-platelet treatments, an effective anti-thrombotic therapy, are widely used in non-cardioembolic ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA), including aspirin, cilostazol, clopidogrel, and other mono or dual therapies, while the optimal choice remains uncertain. All the literatures of 38 eligible randomized control trials were searched in PubMed, Embase, and China National Knowledge Internet (CNKI) without language limitation. And, nine anti-platelet therapies were assessed, including aspirin, clopidogrel, cilostazol, ticlopidine, triflusal, terutroban, sarpogrelate, dipyridamole plus aspirin, and clopidogrel plus aspirin. Additionally, we extract data of composite vascular events, major bleeding, ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, and all-cause death, as indicators of efficacy and safety. And among them, composite vascular events were the primary outcome. The binary outcomes were expressed as odds ratios (ORs) with corresponding 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). Both traditional meta-analysis and network meta-analysis were performed. Besides, for each outcome, the rank order was applied to reflect the superiority of every therapy compared with others, using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). A cluster analysis was also conducted. Through the network meta-analysis, the synthesized data shows that cilostazol performed best on composite vascular events compared with placebo (OR = 0.62, 95 % CI 0.46-0.83) and aspirin (OR = 0.71, 95 % CI 0.53-0.95). In terms of ischemic stroke, clopidogrel plus aspirin seems the optimal, and it has significant difference between placebo (OR = 0.53, 95 % CI 0.35-0.74) and aspirin (OR = 0.75, 95 % CI 0.61-0.95). Meanwhile, cilostazol is also the first rank in major bleeding, especially when it is in contrast to aspirin (OR = 0.13, 95 % CI 0.02-0.70) and clopidogrel plus aspirin (OR = 0.09, 95 % CI 0.01-0.50). There is no significant difference among these nine treatments and placebo, as to all-cause death and intracranial hemorrhage. According to the cluster analysis, cilostazol can be the best choice with comprehensive assessment of composite vascular events, ischemic stroke and major bleeding. Based on this network meta-analysis, cilostazol was recommended as the optimal choice with good performance in both efficacy and safety for patient with ischemic stroke or TIA among nine anti-platelet therapies.

Long-Term Antiplatelet Mono- and Dual Therapies After Ischemic Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack: Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The latest guidelines do not make clear recommendations on the selection of antiplatelet therapies for long-term secondary prevention of stroke. We aimed to integrate the available evidence to create hierarchies of the comparative efficacy and safety of long-term antiplatelet therapies after ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to compare 11 antiplatelet therapies in patients with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack. In December 2014, we searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library database for trials. The search identified 24 randomized controlled trials including a total of 85 667 patients with antiplatelet treatments for at least 1 year. Cilostazol significantly reduced stroke recurrence in comparison with aspirin (odds ratio 0.66, 95% credible interval 0.44 to 0.92) and dipyridamole (odds ratio 0.57, 95% credible interval 0.34 to 0.95), respectively. Cilostazol also significantly reduced intracranial hemorrhage compared with aspirin, clopidogrel, terutroban, ticlopidine, aspirin plus clopidogrel, and aspirin plus dipyridamole. Aspirin plus clopidogrel could not significantly reduce stroke recurrence compared with monotherapies but caused significantly more major bleeding than all monotherapies except terutroban. The pooled estimates did not change materially in the sensitivity analyses of the primary efficacy outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term monotherapy was a better choice than long-term dual therapy, and cilostazol had the best risk-benefit profile for long-term secondary prevention after stroke or transient ischemic attack. More randomized controlled trials in non-East Asian patients are needed to determine whether long-term use of cilostazol is the best option for the prevention of recurrent stroke.

Effects of cilostazol on the progression and regression of symptomatic intracranial artery stenosis: it reduces the risk of ischemic stroke

OBJECTIVE:

To assess the efficacy and safety of cilostazol on the progression and regression of symptomatic intracranial artery stenosis.

DATA RETRIVAL:

We searched the main databases for eligible trials including Medline (from 1966 to June 2014), Embase (from 1980 to June 2014), Cochrane Library (Issue 6, 2014), Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (from 1995 to June 2014), Current Controlled Trials (http://controlled-trials.com), Clinical Trials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov), and Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (http://www.chictr.org). All studies regarding prevention and treatment of symptomatic intracranial arterial stenosis by cilostazol were collected. The Mesh or text keywords were the English words: “cilostazol, phosphodiesterase 3 inhibitor, atherosclerosis, and ischemic stroke.” No restrictions were put on publications or publication language.

SELECTION CRITERIA:

Grade A or B randomized controlled trials were selected according to the quality of evaluation criteria from the Cochrane Collaboration, in which cilostazol and aspirin were used to evaluate the effects of cilostazol in the treatment of patients with symptomatic intracranial artery stenosis. The quality of study methodology was evaluated based on criteria described in Cochrane Reviewer's Handbook 5.0.1. RevMan 5.2 software was used for data analysis.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:

Clinical efficacy and safety of cilostazol in stopping progression and promoting regression of symptomatic intracranial artery stenosis were measured by magnetic resonance angiography and transcranial Doppler.

RESULTS:

Two randomized controlled trials with a total of 203 patients were included in this study. The results showed that while cilostazol was associated with a significantly reduced progression of intracranial artery stenosis (OR = 0.21, 95%CI: 0.09–0.47, P < 0.01), it had no beneficial effect on symptom regression (OR = 1.42, 95%CI: 0.80–2.51, P = 0.24). During the follow-up period, although some adverse effects developed, including headache, gastrointestinal disturbance, and dizziness, incidences of bleeding were lower than in aspirin-treated patients.

CONCLUSION:

Cilostazol may prevent the progression of symptomatic intracranial artery stenosis, which could reduce the incidence of ischemic stroke.

Efficacy and Safety of Cilostazol Therapy in Ischemic Stroke: A Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Antiplatelet therapy is recommended for patients who have experienced ischemic stroke. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of cilostazol with other antiplatelet therapies in patients with ischemic stroke.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials published in English from May 1999 to May 2013. Clinical outcomes were compared by pooled and meta-regression analyses.

RESULTS

Nine studies involving 6328 patients satisfied our inclusion criteria. Stroke recurrence (including hemorrhagic and ischemic) with cilostazol use was 5.3% (157) versus 8.3% (248) in control group (risk ratio .63 [.52-.76], 95% confidence interval [CI]). Poststroke intracranial hemorrhage was .5% (16) with cilostazol versus 1.6% (46) in control group (risk ratio .36 [.21-.63], 95% CI). Poststroke extracranial bleeding complications occurred in 2.4% (66) of the patients taking cilostazol versus 3.9% (108) in control group (risk ratio .62 [.46-.83], 95% CI). No significant difference in cerebrovascular events (nonfatal stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, and transient ischemic attack) was found between the cilostazol group (8.2%, 246) versus control group (12.0%, 360; risk ratio .71 [.50-1.01], 95% CI). In addition, the cilostazol therapy brought about a nonsignificant reduction of cardiac adverse events (heart failure, myocardial infarction, and angina pectoris) comparing with control groups, with 3.8% (99) of the cilostazol group versus 4.7% (123) of control group (risk ratio, .81 [.62-1.04], 95% CI).

CONCLUSIONS

Cilostazol, alone or in combination with aspirin, significantly reduces stroke recurrence, poststroke intracranial hemorrhage, and extracranial bleeding in patients with a prior ischemic stroke as compared with other antiplatelet therapies.

The efficacy and safety of cilostazol for the secondary prevention of ischemic stroke in acute and chronic phases in Asian population--an updated meta-analysis

Backgrounds

While previous meta-analysis have investigated the efficacy of cilostazol in the secondary prevention of ischemic stroke, they were criticized for their methodology, which confused the acute and chronic phases of stroke. We present a new systematic review, which differs from previous meta-analysis by distinguishing between the different phases of stroke, and includes two new randomized, controlled trials (RCTs).

Methods

All RCTs investigating the effect of cilostazol on secondary prevention of ischemic stroke were obtained. Outcomes were analyzed by Review Manager, including recurrence of cerebral infarction (ROCI), hemorrhage stroke or subarachnoid hemorrhage (HSSH), all-cause death (ACD), and modified Rankin Scale score (mRS). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) assessed the quality of the evidence.

Results

5491 patients from six studies were included in the current study. In secondary prevention of ischemic stroke in chronic phase, cilostazol was associated with a 47% reduction in ROCI (relative risk [RR] 0.53, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.34 to 0.81, p = 0.003), while no significant difference in HSSH and ACD compared with placebo; and 71% reduction in HSSH (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.56, p = 0.0002) compared with aspirin, but not in ROCI and ACD. In the secondary prevention of ischemic stroke in acute phase, cilostazol did not show any effect in the ROCI, HSSH, ACD and mRS compared to placebo or aspirin. The quality of the evidence from chronic phase was high or moderate, and those from acute phase were moderate or low when analyzed by GRADE approach.

Conclusion

Cilostazol provided a protective effect in the secondary prevention of the chronic phase of ischemic stroke.

Systematic study of cilostazol on secondary stroke prevention: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To study the efficacy and safety of cilostazol on ischemic stroke prevention and treatment, systematic reviews of related clinical randomized controlled trials were analyzed.

METHODS

We searched the main databases for eligible trials including literature from January 1966 to November 2012 in MEDLINE, reports from 1980 to November 2012 in EMBASE, and all the studies published in EBSCO, Springer, Ovid, and Cochrane library citations. We also searched for keywords, including cilostazol and aspirin. RewMan 5.0 software was used to conduct the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Our search yielded five eligible trials. The effects of cilostazol and aspirin on ischemic stroke prevention and treatment were almost equal (combined odds ratio (OR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.59, 1.04)). Additionally, both magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) and transcranial Doppler (TCD) examination showed that cilostazol could significantly decrease the incidence of intracranial artery stenosis exacerbation (MRA: combined OR 0.22, 95% CI (0.07, 0.68); TCD: combined OR 0.17, 95% CI (0.05, 0.51)). In terms of adverse reactions, there were slightly fewer incidences of major bleeding with cilostazol than with aspirin (combined OR 0.38, 95% CI (0.24, 0.60)), and there was no difference in the number of heart palpitations between cilostazol and aspirin. However, the incidence of gastrointestinal disorders, dizziness, and headaches caused by cilostazol was greater.

CONCLUSIONS

Cilostazol might be a more effective and safer alternative to aspirin for patients with ischemic stroke. Further studies are required to confirm whether cilostazol is a suitable therapeutic option for secondary stroke prevention in larger cohorts of patients with ischemic stroke.

Meta-analysis of cilostazol versus aspirin for the secondary prevention of stroke

Aspirin is the most widely prescribed antiplatelet agent for the secondary prevention of stroke. Cilostazol, an antiplatelet and vasodilating agent, has shown promise for the secondary prevention of stroke. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials using Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, and Excerpta Medica (EMBASE) was searched up to October 2012. Four trials, in 3,917 patients, comparing cilostazol with aspirin were identified. Compared with aspirin, cilostazol was associated with a 73% reduction in hemorrhagic stroke (relative risk [RR] 0.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.13 to 0.54, p = 0.0002), 28% reduction in the composite end point of stroke, myocardial infarction, or vascular death (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.89, p = 0.003), and 48% reduction in total hemorrhagic events (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.79, p = 0.002), with trend for lesser gastrointestinal bleeds (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.06, p = 0.08). In conclusion, compared with aspirin, cilostazol is associated with significantly less hemorrhagic stroke, the combined end point of stroke, myocardial infarction, and vascular death, and total hemorrhagic events, with numerically fewer gastrointestinal bleeds when used for the secondary prevention of stroke.

Platelet antiaggregants in stroke prevention

Antiplatelet agents are one of the main interventions for recurrent ischemic stroke prevention. Their time of use, dosage, and combination of therapy have different effects in terms of stroke risk reduction and adverse effects. This review provides an evidence-based update of the latest on antiplatelet therapy for stroke prevention.

Current therapies in ischemic stroke. Part A. Recent developments in acute stroke treatment and in stroke prevention

Stroke is the third leading cause of death with an increasing prevalence. In previous years many important achievements and new therapeutic strategies have been established. This article provides an overview on recent developments and is an update to the article of Green et al. that was published in 2004. As this article is a comprehensive review we divided it in two parts. In this Part A of our review, recent developments in acute stroke treatment and in stroke prevention are described. In Part B we will reflect on neuroprotection.

Effect of cilostazol administration on cerebral hemodynamics and rehabilitation outcomes in poststroke patients

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE

Cilostazol is an antiplatelet agent that inhibits phosphodiesterase III in platelets and the vascular endothelium. We assessed the effects of cilostazol on human cerebral hemodynamics and rehabilitation outcomes.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Prospective, consecutive, observational trial with pretreatment and posttreatment evaluations.

EXPERIMENTAL INTERVENTIONS

Cilostazol (200 mg/day) administered for 8 weeks.

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

Cerebral blood flow at rest, cerebrovascular reserve capacity, and rehabilitation outcomes (Brunnstrom stage, Barthel index score, modified Rankin Scale score, and Mini-Mental State Examination score) were measured in 104 poststroke patients with an average age ± standard deviation of 60.8 ± 9.2 years.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND RESULTS

The cerebral blood flow increased by 23.8% on the affected side of the brain and by 16.9% on the nonaffected side. The cerebrovascular reserve capacity increased by 19.0% on the affected side of the brain and by 13.3% on the nonaffected side. Improvements were observed in the Brunnstrom stage, Barthel index score, modified Rankin Scale score, and Mini-Mental State Examination score.

CONCLUSIONS

Cilostazol appeared to have beneficial effects in poststroke patients with cerebral ischemia and might improve cerebral circulation and rehabilitation outcome.