ArticleCurrent treatment options in cardiovascular medicine2009
Understanding the PRoFESS Study for Secondary Stroke Prevention.
Article in Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Antithrombotic therapy for stroke prevention in patients with heart failure.Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine · 2012Article
- Current therapeutic strategies to mitigate the eNOS dysfunction in ischaemic stroke.Cellular and molecular neurobiology · 2012Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Prevention Regimen for Effectively Avoiding Second Strokes (PRoFESS) trial is the largest secondary stroke prevention study completed to date. It compared extended-release dipyridamole plus aspirin (eDYP-ASA) versus clopidogrel and telmisartan versus antihypertensive regimens excluding angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). No statistical differences were found in either arm for the primary outcome of fatal or nonfatal stroke or prespecified secondary end points. eDYP-ASA also was associated with increases in major hemorrhagic events but not with statistical increases in combined rates of stroke recurrence or hemorrhage. Despite PRoFESS, the role of ARBs post stroke remains unclear, as concomitant angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor use in PRoFESS obscured whether just blood pressure lowering or renin-angiotensin system blockade is important. The resulting interpretation that eDYP-ASA is "not noninferior" has raised questions about how to interpret noninferiority analyses. Also, although the PRoFESS editorialists suggested that aspirin, the historical bystander control, was the "winner," a review of prior antiplatelet studies suggests that the benefits of aspirin, either as combination or monotherapy, are outweighed by its bleeding hazards. The benefits of clopidogrel or eDYP-ASA, compared with aspirin, are small but real, and both remain preferred agents in secondary stroke prevention.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.