This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 35/11/2606    most recent 01.STR.0000145053.27085.66v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Amarenco, P. Articles by Donnan, G. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Amarenco, P. Articles by Donnan, G. A. Related Collections Acute coronary syndromes

(Stroke. 2004;35:2606.)
© 2004 American Heart Association, Inc.

Emerging Therapies

Should the MATCH Results Be Extrapolated to All Stroke Patients and Affect Ongoing Trials Evaluating Clopidogrel Plus Aspirin?

From the Bichat Hospital and Medical School (P.A.), Paris, France; and the University of Melbourne (G.A.D.), Australia.

Correspondence to Pr Pierre Amarenco, Department of Neurology and Stroke Centre, Bichat Hospital, 46 rue Henri Huchard, Paris, France 75018. E-mail amarenco@ccr.jussieu.fr

An extract of the first 250 words of the full text is provided, because this article has no abstract.

Aspirin alone reduces the risk of recurrent stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and vascular death by only 13%.¹ Clopidogrel was 8% better than aspirin in the CAPRIE trial and was safer with less gastrointestinal bleeding complications.² For these reasons, clinicians anticipated that the combination of clopidogrel and aspirin would be more effective than either drug alone with the hypothesis that bleeding complications would be only modestly increased. Accordingly, many stroke patients were switched to this combination of therapy, mainly in case of recurrent stroke while on a single antiplatelet agent and in patients with high vascular risk. The results of trials showing the efficacy and tolerance of such an approach after percutaneous coronary intervention was reassuring.³ However, the long-term major bleeding complication rate was unknown except in patients with unstable angina and non-Q wave MI,⁴ and the net benefit in stroke patients was hypothetical.⁵

The MATCH Trial
For this reason, the combination therapy had to be tested for safety and efficacy in a stroke population, and this was the purpose of the MATCH trial.⁶ MATCH was a secondary prevention trial in patients with ischemic stroke or brain infarction with transient ischemic attack within 3 months of randomization and with 1 of the following entry criteria: diabetes mellitus, past coronary heart disease, recurrent stroke on aspirin, peripheral arterial disease. Aspirin (A) was tested against placebo on the background of clopidogrel (C) in both arms. So it was C+A versus C.

As a consequence of the entry criteria stipulating the presence of multiple vascular risk factors, . . . [Full Text of this Article]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. Talelli and R. J. Greenwood Review: Recurrent stroke: where do we stand with the secondary prevention of noncardioembolic ischaemic strokes? Therapeutic Advances in Cardiovascular Disease, October 1, 2008; 2(5): 387 - 405. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Fisher Results of the Management of Atherothrombosis With Clopidogrel in High-Risk Patients Trial: Implications for the Neurologist Arch Neurol, January 1, 2006; 63(1): 20 - 24. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. S. Kirshner, J. Biller, and A. S. Callahan III Long-Term Therapy to Prevent Stroke J Am Board Fam Med, November 1, 2005; 18(6): 528 - 540. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P.H.A. Halkes and for the ESPRIT Study Group Oral Anticoagulation in Secondary Prevention After Cerebral Ischemia of Arterial Origin Stroke, May 1, 2005; 36(5): 933 - 933. [Full Text] [PDF]