Attenzione: i dati modificati non sono ancora stati salvati. Per confermare inserimenti o cancellazioni di voci è necessario confermare con il tasto SALVA/INSERISCI in fondo alla pagina
IRIS
BACKGROUND: Patients with ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA)
are at high risk of recurrent stroke or other cardiovascular events. We compared
the selective thromboxane-prostaglandin receptor antagonist terutroban with
aspirin in the prevention of cerebral and cardiovascular ischaemic events in
patients with a recent non-cardioembolic cerebral ischaemic event.
METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, parallel-group trial was undertaken in
802 centres in 46 countries. Patients who had an ischaemic stroke in the previous
3 months or a TIA in the previous 8 days were randomly allocated with a central
interactive response system to 30 mg per day terutroban or 100 mg per day
aspirin. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The
primary efficacy endpoint was a composite of fatal or non-fatal ischaemic stroke,
fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction, or other vascular death (excluding
haemorrhagic death). We planned a sequential statistical analysis of
non-inferiority (margin 1·05) followed by analysis of superiority. Analysis was
by intention to treat. The study was stopped prematurely for futility on the
basis of the recommendation of the Data Monitoring Committee. This study is
registered, number ISRCTN66157730.
FINDINGS: 9562 patients were assigned to terutroban (9556 analysed) and 9558 to
aspirin (9544 analysed); mean follow-up was 28·3 months (SD 7·7). The primary
endpoint occurred in 1091 (11%) patients receiving terutroban and 1062 (11%)
receiving aspirin (hazard ratio [HR] 1·02, 95% CI 0·94-1·12). There was no
evidence of a difference between terutroban and aspirin for the secondary or
tertiary endpoints. We recorded some increase in minor bleedings with terutroban
compared with aspirin (1147 [12%] vs 1045 [11%]; HR 1·11, 95% CI 1·02-1·21), but
no significant differences in other safety endpoints.
INTERPRETATION: The trial did not meet the predefined criteria for
non-inferiority, but showed similar rates of the primary endpoint with terutroban
and aspirin, without safety advantages for terutroban. In a worldwide
perspective, aspirin remains the gold standard antiplatelet drug for secondary
stroke prevention in view of its efficacy, tolerance, and cost.
Terutroban versus aspirin in patients with cerebral ischaemic events (PERFORM): a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group trial / PERFORM Study, I., Collaborators, ., Abdel Masih, M.e., Ameriso, S., Barboza, A., Cirio, J.j., Crespo, E., Escaray, G.e., Esnaola, M.m., Estol, C., Ferrari, J., Fraiman, H.d., Garrote, M., Gatto, E., Giannaula, R.j., Gori, H., Herrera, G., Ioli, P., Losano, J.c., Povedano, G., et al.. - In: THE LANCET. - ISSN 0140-6736. - STAMPA. - 377:(2011), pp. 2013-2022. [10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60600-4]
Terutroban versus aspirin in patients with cerebral ischaemic events (PERFORM): a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group trial.
BACKGROUND: Patients with ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA)
are at high risk of recurrent stroke or other cardiovascular events. We compared
the selective thromboxane-prostaglandin receptor antagonist terutroban with
aspirin in the prevention of cerebral and cardiovascular ischaemic events in
patients with a recent non-cardioembolic cerebral ischaemic event.
METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, parallel-group trial was undertaken in
802 centres in 46 countries. Patients who had an ischaemic stroke in the previous
3 months or a TIA in the previous 8 days were randomly allocated with a central
interactive response system to 30 mg per day terutroban or 100 mg per day
aspirin. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The
primary efficacy endpoint was a composite of fatal or non-fatal ischaemic stroke,
fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction, or other vascular death (excluding
haemorrhagic death). We planned a sequential statistical analysis of
non-inferiority (margin 1·05) followed by analysis of superiority. Analysis was
by intention to treat. The study was stopped prematurely for futility on the
basis of the recommendation of the Data Monitoring Committee. This study is
registered, number ISRCTN66157730.
FINDINGS: 9562 patients were assigned to terutroban (9556 analysed) and 9558 to
aspirin (9544 analysed); mean follow-up was 28·3 months (SD 7·7). The primary
endpoint occurred in 1091 (11%) patients receiving terutroban and 1062 (11%)
receiving aspirin (hazard ratio [HR] 1·02, 95% CI 0·94-1·12). There was no
evidence of a difference between terutroban and aspirin for the secondary or
tertiary endpoints. We recorded some increase in minor bleedings with terutroban
compared with aspirin (1147 [12%] vs 1045 [11%]; HR 1·11, 95% CI 1·02-1·21), but
no significant differences in other safety endpoints.
INTERPRETATION: The trial did not meet the predefined criteria for
non-inferiority, but showed similar rates of the primary endpoint with terutroban
and aspirin, without safety advantages for terutroban. In a worldwide
perspective, aspirin remains the gold standard antiplatelet drug for secondary
stroke prevention in view of its efficacy, tolerance, and cost.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11566/74723
Attenzione
Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo
Citazioni
ND
201
168
social impact
Conferma cancellazione
Sei sicuro che questo prodotto debba essere cancellato?
simulazione ASN
Il report seguente simula gli indicatori relativi alla propria produzione scientifica in relazione alle soglie ASN 2023-2025 del proprio SC/SSD. Si ricorda che il superamento dei valori soglia (almeno 2 su 3) è requisito necessario ma non sufficiente al conseguimento dell'abilitazione. La simulazione si basa sui dati IRIS e sugli indicatori bibliometrici alla data indicata e non tiene conto di eventuali periodi di congedo obbligatorio, che in sede di domanda ASN danno diritto a incrementi percentuali dei valori. La simulazione può differire dall'esito di un’eventuale domanda ASN sia per errori di catalogazione e/o dati mancanti in IRIS, sia per la variabilità dei dati bibliometrici nel tempo. Si consideri che Anvur calcola i valori degli indicatori all'ultima data utile per la presentazione delle domande.
La presente simulazione è stata realizzata sulla base delle specifiche raccolte sul tavolo ER del Focus Group IRIS coordinato dall’Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia e delle regole riportate nel DM 589/2018 e allegata Tabella A. Cineca, l’Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia e il Focus Group IRIS non si assumono alcuna responsabilità in merito all’uso che il diretto interessato o terzi faranno della simulazione. Si specifica inoltre che la simulazione contiene calcoli effettuati con dati e algoritmi di pubblico dominio e deve quindi essere considerata come un mero ausilio al calcolo svolgibile manualmente o con strumenti equivalenti.