Department of Neurology, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China; China National Clinical Research Center for Neurological Diseases, Beijing, China.
Dell Medical School, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.
Lancet Neurol. 2023 Jun;22(6):485-493. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(23)00113-8. Epub 2023 Apr 27.
Aspirin is recommended for secondary stroke prevention in patients with moderate-to-severe ischaemic stroke but can lead to gastrointestinal intolerance and bleeding. Indobufen is used as an alternative antiplatelet agent in some countries, despite an absence of large-scale clinical trials for this indication. We tested the hypothesis that indobufen is non-inferior to aspirin in reducing the risk of new stroke at 90 days in patients with moderate-to-severe ischaemic stroke.
We conducted a randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, active control, non-inferiority trial at 163 tertiary and district general hospitals in China. Eligible participants were aged 18-80 years with acute moderate-to-severe ischaemic stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score 4-18). We randomly assigned (1:1) participants within 72 h of the onset of symptoms to receive either indobufen (100 mg tablet twice per day) or aspirin (100 mg tablet once per day) for 90 days. The randomisation sequence was computer generated centrally and stratified by local participating centres. Masked local investigators assigned the random code to patients in ascending order and provided a treatment kit corresponding to the random code. The primary efficacy outcome was new stroke and the primary safety outcome was severe or moderate bleeding, both within 90 days. This primary efficacy outcome was assessed in all randomly assigned and consenting patients and in a per-protocol group (ie, all patients finishing the treatment without major violation of the trial protocol). Safety analyses were done in the safety-analysis population (ie, all patients who received at least one dose of the study drug and had a safety assessment available). We assessed the non-inferiority of indobufen versus aspirin using the one-sided upper limit of the 95% CI of the hazard ratio (HR) with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of 1·25. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03871517).
This trial took place between June 2, 2019, and Nov 28, 2021. Of 84 093 patients screened, 5438 patients were randomly assigned to receive either indobufen (n=2715) or aspirin (n=2723), all of whom were included in the primary analyses. Median age was 64·2 years (IQR 56·1-70·6); 1921 (35·3%) were women and 3517 (64·7%) were men. Stroke occurred within 90 days in 213 (7·9%) patients in the indobufen group versus 175 (6·4%) in the aspirin group (HR 1·23, 95% CI 1·01-1·50; p=0·44). Moderate or severe bleeding occurred in 18 (0·7%) patients in the indobufen group and in 28 (1·0%) in the aspirin group (0·63, 95% CI 0·35 to 1·15; p=0·13). Adverse events within 90 days occurred in 666 (24·5%) patients in the indobufen group and 679 (24·9%) patients in the aspirin group (p=0·73).
In patients with acute moderate-to-severe ischaemic stroke, indobufen was not non-inferior to aspirin because the upper limit of the 95% CI was greater than 1·25. Furthermore, indobufen seemed to be inferior to aspirin in reducing the risk of recurrent stroke at 90 days because the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than 1·00. Although moderate or severe bleeding did not differ between groups, these findings do not support the use of indobufen for secondary stroke prevention in patients with moderate-to-severe ischaemic stroke.
Hangzhou Zhongmei Huadong Pharmaceutical and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences.
For the Chinese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.
阿司匹林被推荐用于中度至重度缺血性卒中患者的二级卒中预防,但可导致胃肠道不耐受和出血。吲哚布芬在一些国家被用作替代抗血小板药物,尽管没有大规模的临床试验证明这一适应证。我们假设吲哚布芬在降低 90 天内新发卒中风险方面不劣于阿司匹林。
我们在中国 163 家三级和地区综合医院进行了一项随机、双盲、双模拟、阳性对照、非劣效性试验。符合条件的参与者年龄为 18-80 岁,患有急性中度至重度缺血性卒中(国立卫生研究院卒中量表评分为 4-18)。我们在症状发作后 72 小时内将参与者随机分配(1:1)接受吲哚布芬(每天两次 100mg 片剂)或阿司匹林(每天一次 100mg 片剂)治疗 90 天。随机序列由中央计算机生成,并按当地参与中心分层。有隐匿性的当地研究者按升序为患者分配随机代码,并提供与随机代码相对应的治疗套件。主要疗效结局是 90 天内的新发卒中,主要安全性结局是严重或中度出血。该主要疗效结局在所有随机分配和同意的患者以及方案人群中进行评估(即所有完成治疗且未严重违反试验方案的患者)。安全性分析在安全性分析人群中进行(即至少接受一剂研究药物且有安全性评估的所有患者)。我们使用预设的非劣效性边界 1.25 来评估吲哚布芬与阿司匹林的非劣效性。该试验在 ClinicalTrials.gov 注册(NCT03871517)。
本试验于 2019 年 6 月 2 日至 2021 年 11 月 28 日进行。在筛选的 84093 名患者中,有 5438 名患者被随机分配接受吲哚布芬(n=2715)或阿司匹林(n=2723)治疗,所有患者均纳入主要分析。中位年龄为 64.2 岁(IQR 56.1-70.6);1921 名(35.3%)为女性,3517 名(64.7%)为男性。吲哚布芬组 213 名(7.9%)患者在 90 天内发生卒中,阿司匹林组 175 名(6.4%)患者发生卒中(HR 1.23,95%CI 1.01-1.50;p=0.44)。吲哚布芬组 18 名(0.7%)患者发生中度或重度出血,阿司匹林组 28 名(1.0%)患者发生中度或重度出血(0.63,95%CI 0.35-1.15;p=0.13)。吲哚布芬组 666 名(24.5%)患者和阿司匹林组 679 名(24.9%)患者在 90 天内发生不良事件(p=0.73)。
在急性中度至重度缺血性卒中患者中,吲哚布芬并不劣于阿司匹林,因为 95%CI 的上限大于 1.25。此外,吲哚布芬似乎在降低 90 天内卒中复发风险方面劣于阿司匹林,因为 95%CI 的下限大于 1.00。尽管两组之间的中度或重度出血无差异,但这些结果不支持在中度至重度缺血性卒中患者中使用吲哚布芬进行二级卒中预防。
杭州中美华东制药和中国医学科学院医学科技创新基金。