Intended for healthcare professionals

  1. Education
  2. Dual antiplatelet...
  3. Dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel for acute high risk transient ischaemic attack and minor ischaemic stroke: a clinical practice guideline
Practice Rapid Recommendations

Dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel for acute high risk transient ischaemic attack and minor ischaemic stroke: a clinical practice guideline

BMJ 2018; 363 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k5130 (Published 18 December 2018) Cite this as: BMJ 2018;363:k5130

Recommendation 1: Dual vs single antiplatelet therapy

or or Dual antiplatelet therapy Single agent therapy Aspirin and clopidogrel All identified trials compared with aspirin alone Patients that have experienced: High risk transient ischaemic attack (TIA) Minor ischaemic stroke Interventions compared Recommendation Population ASA CLOP + ASA A score of 3 or less on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS), and no persistent disabling neurological deficit 0 42 0 7 A score of 4 or more on the ABCD2 scale, which estimates the risk of recurrent stroke after a TIA

We recommend dual antiplatelet therapy over single agent therapy. Start as soon as possible after index event. Moredetails Strong All or nearly all informed people would likely want this option. Benefits outweigh harms for almost everyone. Weak Most people would likely want this option. Benefits outweigh harms for the majority, but not for everyone. Weak Most people would likely want this option. Benefits outweigh harms for the majority, but not for everyone. Strong All or nearly all informed people would likely want this option. Benefits outweigh harms for almost everyone.

Comparison of benefits and harms

Favours dual antiplatelets Favours single agent Evidence quality Events per 1000 people Within 90 days No important difference The panel found that this difference was not important for most patients, because the intervention effects were negligible and/or very imprecise, for example confidence intervals that include both important benefit and harm

63 19 fewer Non-fatal recurrent stroke High More 44

Risk of Bias No serious concerns Imprecision No serious concerns Indirectness No serious concerns Inconsistency No serious concerns Publication bias No serious concerns Dual antiplatelet therapy has a small but important benefit in reducing recurrent strokes High GRADE score, because of: GRADE certainty ratings The authors have a lot of confidence that the true effect is similar to the estimated effect The authors believe that the true effect is probably close to the estimated effect High The true effect might be markedly different from the estimated effect The true effect is probably markedly different from the estimated effect Moderate Low Very low

No important difference All cause mortality Moderate More 6 5

Risk of Bias No serious concerns Imprecision Serious Indirectness No serious concerns Inconsistency No serious concerns Publication bias No serious concerns Dual antiplatelet therapyprobably has little or no impacton all cause mortality Moderate GRADE score, because of: GRADE certainty ratings The authors have a lot of confidence that the true effect is similar to the estimated effect The authors believe that the true effect is probably close to the estimated effect High The true effect might be markedly different from the estimated effect The true effect is probably markedly different from the estimated effect Moderate Low Very low

Functional disability Moderate More 128 142 14 fewer

Measured by modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 2-5 (Non-fatal) Risk of Bias No serious concerns Imprecision Serious Indirectness No serious concerns Inconsistency No serious concerns Publication bias No serious concerns Dual antiplatelet therapy possibly has a small but important benefit on patient function Moderate GRADE score, because of: GRADE certainty ratings The authors have a lot of confidence that the true effect is similar to the estimated effect The authors believe that the true effect is probably close to the estimated effect High The true effect might be markedly different from the estimated effect The true effect is probably markedly different from the estimated effect Moderate Low Very low

13 fewer Poor quality of life Moderate More 55 68

Measured by EQ-5D index score of 0.5 or less Risk of Bias No serious concerns Imprecision Serious Indirectness No serious concerns Inconsistency No serious concerns Publication bias No serious concerns Dual antiplatelet therapyprobably has a small but importantbenefit on quality of life Moderate GRADE score, because of: GRADE certainty ratings The authors have a lot of confidence that the true effect is similar to the estimated effect The authors believe that the true effect is probably close to the estimated effect High The true effect might be markedly different from the estimated effect The true effect is probably markedly different from the estimated effect Moderate Low Very low

No important difference Recurrent TIA Moderate More 36 40

Risk of Bias No serious concerns Imprecision Serious Indirectness No serious concerns Inconsistency No serious concerns Publication bias No serious concerns Dual antiplatelet therapyprobably has little or no impacton recurrent TIA Moderate GRADE score, because of: GRADE certainty ratings The authors have a lot of confidence that the true effect is similar to the estimated effect The authors believe that the true effect is probably close to the estimated effect High The true effect might be markedly different from the estimated effect The true effect is probably markedly different from the estimated effect Moderate Low Very low

2 fewer Moderate or major bleeding Moderate More 5 3

Risk of Bias Serious Imprecision Serious Indirectness No serious concerns Inconsistency No serious concerns Publication bias No serious concerns Dual antiplatelet therapy probably results in a very small, possibly important increase inmoderate or major extracranial bleeding Moderate or major extracranial bleeding defined by individual study (nonfatal) Moderate GRADE score, because of: GRADE certainty ratings The authors have a lot of confidence that the true effect is similar to the estimated effect The authors believe that the true effect is probably close to the estimated effect High The true effect might be markedly different from the estimated effect The true effect is probably markedly different from the estimated effect Moderate Low Very low

7 fewer Minor bleeding High More 13 6

Mild or minor extracranial bleeding events Risk of Bias No serious concerns Imprecision No serious concerns Indirectness No serious concerns Inconsistency No serious concerns Publication bias No serious concerns Dual antiplatelet therapy results in a small and possibly important increase in mild extracranial bleeding High GRADE score, because of: GRADE certainty ratings The authors have a lot of confidence that the true effect is similar to the estimated effect The authors believe that the true effect is probably close to the estimated effect High The true effect might be markedly different from the estimated effect The true effect is probably markedly different from the estimated effect Moderate Low Very low
See patient decision aids
See all outcomes
Two different tablets taken once daily at same time Aspirin tablet should be swallowed whole, but clopidogrel tablet can be crushed or split A single aspirin tablet once daily Although dosing varied slightly in the included trials, for clopidogrel, most physicians and patients would probably prefer a loading dose of 300 mg rather than a higher dose. For aspirin, a daily dose between 75 mg and 81 mg represents a reasonable choice. Dosing The panel believes almost all patients place a high value on avoiding a recurrent stroke and a lower value on avoiding moderate or major bleeding. Values and preferences Key practical issues Dual antiplatelets Single agent

Recommendation 2: Duration of dual antiplatelet therapy

Interventions compared Recommendation Population or Shorter duration Longer duration Dual antiplatelet therapy for 10-21 days after TIA or minor stroke Dual antiplatelet therapy for 22-90 days after TIA or minor stroke Patients initiating dual antiplatelet therapy after TIA or minor ischaemic stroke ASA CLOP +

We recommend administering dual antiplatelet therapy for 10-21 days after the index event Moredetails Strong All or nearly all informed people would likely want this option. Benefits outweigh harms for almost everyone. Weak Most people would likely want this option. Benefits outweigh harms for the majority, but not for everyone. Weak Most people would likely want this option. Benefits outweigh harms for the majority, but not for everyone. Strong All or nearly all informed people would likely want this option. Benefits outweigh harms for almost everyone.

Comparison of benefits and harms

Favours 10-21 days Favours 22-90 days Evidence quality Events per 1000 people Within 90 days No important difference The panel found that this difference was not important for most patients, because the intervention effects were negligible and/or very imprecise, for example confidence intervals that include both important benefit and harm

No important difference 14 Ischaemic stroke Moderate More 10

Risk of Bias No serious concerns Imprecision No serious concerns Indirectness Serious Inconsistency No serious concerns Publication bias No serious concerns A longer duration of dual antiplatelet therapy probably does not result in an important reduction in risk of ischaemic stroke Moderate GRADE score, because of: GRADE certainty ratings The authors have a lot of confidence that the true effect is similar to the estimated effect The authors believe that the true effect is probably close to the estimated effect High The true effect might be markedly different from the estimated effect The true effect is probably markedly different from the estimated effect Moderate Low Very low

3 fewer Moderate or major bleeding High More 3 6

A longer duration of dual antiplatelet therapy increases the risk of moderate or major bleeding by a small amount Downgraded due to imprecision and upgraded due to a dose-response gradient High GRADE score, because of: GRADE certainty ratings The authors have a lot of confidence that the true effect is similar to the estimated effect The authors believe that the true effect is probably close to the estimated effect High The true effect might be markedly different from the estimated effect The true effect is probably markedly different from the estimated effect Moderate Low Very low
See patient decision aids
See all outcomes
Most patients should probably remain on single antiplatelet therapy indefinitely Switch to anticoagulation instead of antiplatelet therapy when stroke workup revealsan indication (such as atrial fibrillation or patent foramen ovale without plans for closure) Key practical issues All people taking dual antiplatelets

©BMJ Publishing Group Limited.

Disclaimer: This infographic is not a validated clinical decision aid. This information is provided without any representations, conditions or warranties that it is accurate or up to date. BMJ and its licensors assume no responsibility for any aspect of treatment administered with the aid of this information. Any reliance placed on this information is strictly at the user's own risk. For the full disclaimer wording see BMJ's terms and conditions: https://www.bmj.com/company/legal-information/

Find recommendations, evidence summaries and consultation decision aids for use in your practice

This article has a correction. Please see:

  1. Kameshwar Prasad, chair, stroke neurologist1,
  2. Reed Siemieniuk, general internist, methodologist23,
  3. Qiukui Hao, geriatrician24,
  4. Gordon Guyatt, general internist, methodologist25,
  5. Martin O’Donnell, stroke neurologist6,
  6. Lyubov Lytvyn, patient partnership liaison2,
  7. Anja Fog Heen, general internist7,
  8. Thomas Agoritsas, general internist, methodologist28,
  9. Per Olav Vandvik, general internist, methodologist79,
  10. Sankar Prasad Gorthi, stroke neurologist10,
  11. Loraine Fisch, stroke neurologis11,
  12. Mirza Jusufovic, stroke neurologist12,
  13. Jennifer Muller, patient partner1314,
  14. Brenda Booth, patient partner13,
  15. Eleanor Horton, patient partner15,
  16. Auxiliadora Fraiz, physiotherapist, nurse,
  17. Jillian Siemieniuk, nurse16,
  18. Awah Cletus Fobuzi, patient and carer partner17,
  19. Neelima Katragunta, vascular surgeon18,
  20. Bram Rochwerg, methods co-chair, critical care clinician25
  1. 1Department of Neurology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
  2. 2Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
  3. 3Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
  4. 4The Centre of Gerontology and Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
  5. 5Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
  6. 6Deparment of Medicine, NUI Galway, Galway, Ireland
  7. 7Department of Medicine, Innlandet Hospital Trust-division, Gjøvik, Norway
  8. 8Division of General Internal Medicine & Division of Clinical Epidemiology, University Hospitals of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
  9. 9Institute of Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
  10. 10Department of Neurology, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, India
  11. 11Division of Neurology, Stroke Centre, University Hospitals of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
  12. 12Department of Neurology, Oslo University Hospital Rikshospitalet, Oslo, Norway
  13. 13Stroke Foundation of Australia
  14. 14School of Public Health and Social Work, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia
  15. 15School of Nursing, Midwifery and Paramedicine, University of Sunshine Coast, Maroochydore, Australia
  16. 16Peter Lougheed Hospital, Calgary, Canada
  17. 17Cochrane Consumers Group
  18. 18Department of Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, California
  1. Correspondence to: B Rochwerg rochwerg{at}mcmaster.ca

Abstract

What is the role of dual antiplatelet therapy after high risk transient ischaemic attack or minor stroke? Specifically, does dual antiplatelet therapy with a combination of aspirin and clopidogrel lead to a greater reduction in recurrent stroke and death over the use of aspirin alone when given in the first 24 hours after a high risk transient ischaemic attack or minor ischaemic stroke? An expert panel produced a strong recommendation for initiating dual antiplatelet therapy within 24 hours of the onset of symptoms, and for continuing it for 10-21 days. Current practice is typically to use a single drug

What you need to know

  • People with high risk transient ischaemic attack or minor ischaemic stroke are at an increased risk of recurrent stroke and death

  • Aspirin and clopidogrel decrease this risk, even more so when used in combination

  • We make a strong recommendation for dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with clopidogrel and aspirin to be started within 24 hours in patients who have had a high risk transient ischaemic attack or minor stroke

  • We make a strong recommendation for DAPT to be continued for 10-21 days, at which point patients should continue with single antiplatelet therapy

  • DAPT is not to be used for major stroke because of the increased risk of intracranial bleeding in these patients

The recommendations in this clinical practice guideline are based on a linked systematic review1 triggered by a randomised controlled trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine in August 2018.2 This trial and the linked review found that dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with clopidogrel and aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) during the first 21 days after the index event reduced the risk of recurrent major ischaemic events compared with aspirin monotherapy.

This Rapid Recommendation aims to quickly and transparently translate evidence for working clinicians and their patients in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines and the GRADE system.345 A panel free of financial conflicts of interest, and including patients, drafted the recommendations. We have managed intellectual interests.

Box 1 shows all of the articles and evidence linked in this Rapid Recommendation package. The core infographic provides an overview of the absolute benefits and harms for DAPT compared with aspirin monotherapy.

Box 1

Linked articles in this BMJ Rapid Recommendations cluster

  • Prasad K, Siemieniuk R, Hao Q, et al. Dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel for acute high risk transient ischaemic attack and minor ischaemic stroke: a clinical practice guideline. BMJ 2018;363:j656:k5130. doi:10.1136/bmj.k5130

    • Summary of the results from the Rapid Recommendation process

  • Hao Q, Tampi M, O’Donnell M, Foroutan F, Siemieniuk RAC, Guyatt G. Clopidogrel plus aspirin versus aspirin alone for acute minor ischaemic stroke or high risk transient ischaemic attack: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2018;363:k5108. doi:10.1136/bmj.k5108

    • Review of all available randomised trials that assessed dual antiplatelet therapy (clopidogrel and aspirin) versus aspirin monotherapy after a high risk transient ischaemic attack or minor stroke

  • MAGICapp (www.magicapp.org)

    • Expanded version of the results with multilayered recommendations, evidence summaries, and decision aids for use on all devices

RETURN TO TEXT

Current practice

Single antiplatelet therapy with aspirin or clopidogrel is an effective intervention for both short and long term secondary prevention of stroke and transient ischaemic attack after an index event. Clinicians sometimes use alternatives of cilostazole or a combination of dipyridamole and aspirin, both referred to for this recommendation as single agent therapy.6789

Aspirin and clopidogrel have synergistic action to inhibit platelet aggregation. So it is plausible that the two drugs together may provide better secondary prevention of stroke than one. However, they are not in widespread use for various reasons:

  • They are not useful in the long term after stroke—Several large randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have examined if DAPT (aspirin and clopidogrel) is better at preventing recurrent stroke than single agent antiplatelet therapy. However, DAPT was no better than single agent therapy.1011

  • They are considered too risky after major stroke—Major strokes, as opposed to minor ones, are treated with single agent only because of the higher risk of haemorrhagic transformation.

  • The balance of benefit and harm is uncertain for short term use after minor stroke or high risk transient ischaemic attack—In the days and weeks after such an event there is an increased risk of a second ischaemic event. This uncertainty in the setting of acute transient ischaemic attacks and minor stroke could have been reduced by the recent RCT.

Table 1 outlines how international guidelines vary. A minority make a weak recommendation or suggestion for short term DAPT. It also shows some international variation in the single agents that are recommended in the long term. The NICE guideline favours clopidogrel over others, and combined aspirin and dipyridamole over aspirin, whereas most guidelines consider all three as equivalent options.

Table 1

Current recommendations for antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention of stroke

View this table:

The ABCD2 score and NIHSS score are typically used to help assess the severity of a transient ischaemic attack or stroke and can help to guide future care. Around 1 in 10 people go on to have a stroke after high risk transient ischaemic attack (box 2). The chance of a further stroke soon after minor stroke is less clear but is likely to be around 10-12% range.

Box 2

Assessment of severity of transient ischaemic attack and minor stroke and subsequent risk of stroke

Transient ischaemic attack

  • Severity assessed by ABCD2 score:

    • Age—1 point if ≥60 years

    • Blood pressure—1 point if ≥140/90 mm Hg

    • Clinically—1 point if speech disturbance only, 2 points if unilateral weakness

    • Duration—1 point if 10 minutes to 1 hour, 2 points if ≥1 hour

    • Diabetes—1 point if present

  • Subsequent risk of stroke based on ABCD2 score:

    • Score 1-3 (low)=1.2% at 7 days

    • Score 4-5 (moderate)=5.9% at 7 days

    • Score 6-7 (high)=11.7% at 7 days

Minor stroke

  • Severity defined as NIHSS score ≤3

  • Subsequent risk of stroke not well characterised but likely equal to that of a high risk transient ischaemic attack

  • NIHSS = National Institute of Health Stroke Scale.14 Scale ranges from 0 to 42, based on assessment of 15 measures of motor and sensory function, language and speech production, vision, level of consciousness and attention, and neglect. The elements are summed to provide an overall assessment of stroke severity. A score of 0 to 3 or 4 indicates mild stroke, 5-14 moderate, 15-24 moderately severe, and ≥25 severe.

RETURN TO TEXT

How this recommendation was created

This guideline was triggered by a randomised controlled trial that compared dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT, clopidogrel plus aspirin) with aspirin monotherapy given within 12-24 hours of symptom onset in patients with high-risk transient ischaemic attack or minor stroke.2 This added to a previous DAPT trial published in 2013.15 The Rapid Recommendations team thought that the results had the potential to change practice.

The scope of the recommendation and the patient-important outcomes were defined by an international guideline panel consisting of three patients with lived experience of stroke, one adult who cared for someone with a stroke, five stroke neurologists, one vascular surgeon, one health research methodologist, five general internists (four who are also methodologists), one nurse, one physiotherapist, and one critical care physician (who is also a methodologist) (see appendix 1 on bmj.com for details of panel members). The panel judged death, non-fatal stroke, major extracranial bleeding, functional ability, and quality of life as critical outcomes. Myocardial infarction, recurrent transient ischaemic attack, and minor extracranial bleeding were judged less important.

The panel requested a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs examining the benefits and harms of DAPT versus single agent antiplatelet in order to inform the recommendation. The panel then met online to discuss the evidence and to formulate recommendations. In our judgment no panel member had relevant financial conflicts of interest; intellectual and professional conflicts were minimised and transparently described (see appendix 1 on bmj.com).

The panel followed the BMJ Rapid Recommendations procedures for creating a trustworthy recommendation,2021 including using the GRADE approach to critically appraise the evidence and translate it to recommendations (see appendix 2 on bmj.com).4 The panel considered the benefits, harms and burdens of DAPT versus single antiplatelet therapy, the quality (certainty) of the evidence for each outcome, variations in patient values and preferences, as well as acceptability and feasibility.22 Following the GRADE based approach, recommendations can be strong or weak for or against a specific course of action.23 The recommendations take a patient-centred perspective that de-emphasises public health, societal, and health payer points of view. Healthcare systems can adapt these recommendations by including costs and other key issues of relevance, contextualised to national and local circumstances.

The evidence

The linked systematic review1 found three RCTs examining DAPT versus aspirin alone reporting on a total of 10 447 patients.21516 Figure 2 provides an overview of the RCTs and RCT participants. Overall, patients included in these trials were similar to those seen in everyday practice. Mean age varied from 62 to 68.1 years. In the FASTER trial 1/6 of the patients were older than 81 years; in CHANCE 1/4 of patients were over 72; and in POINT 1/4 were over 85. Just over half of participants (52.8-66.2%) were male.

Fig 2
Fig 2

Characteristics of patients and trials included in systematic review of the use of DAPT (clopidogrel plus aspirin) versus aspirin monotherapy given within 12-24 hours of symptom onset in patients with high risk transient ischaemic attack (TIA) or minor stroke

Compared with single antiplatelet therapy,

  • DAPT decreased all (ischaemic and haemorrhagic) non-fatal recurrent stroke (risk ratio 0.70 (95% confidence interval 0.61 to 0.80), high certainty)

  • DAPT led to small improvements in functional disability (moderate certainty) and quality of life (moderate certainty)

  • DAPT led to a small, possibly important increase in moderate or major extracranial bleeding (moderate certainty) (see main infographic).

The RCTs varied from 396 participants to 5170; the two largest trials contributed 10 051 patients. One trial was conducted in China,15 one in North America,16 and one, the POINT trial,2 in 269 study sites from 10 countries worldwide. The POINT trial2 included a diverse population and may therefore be more generalisable than the CHANCE trial, which included only Chinese patients.15 All trials defined minor stroke as a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of ≤3 at the time of randomisation (scores range from 0 to 42, with higher scores indicating greater deficits). The two large trials defined high risk transient ischaemic attacks as an ABCD2 score of ≥4 (see box 2 for details) at the time of randomisation.17 In all trials, patients had undergone computed tomography (CT) scan or magnetic resonanceimaging (MRI) to exclude the presence of cerebral haemorrhage or alternative explanations for their symptoms. Enrolment had to take place within 12-24 hours of onset of symptoms.

Understanding the recommendation

Absolute benefits and harms

The infographic provides an overview of the recommendation, the benefits and harms, and our certainty in the evidence. Estimates of baseline risk are generated from the control arm of the POINT trial because it was a multinational study and so the population was more diverse.

  • Overall, the panel was confident that DAPT, when started within 24 hours of symptom onset and used for 10-21 days:

    • Reduces non-fatal recurrent stroke (ischaemic and haemorrhagic) in the first 90 days by 1.9% (high quality evidence)

    • Reduces the incidence of moderate or severe functional disability by 1.4% (moderate quality evidence)

    • Reduces the incidence of poor quality of life by 1.3% (moderate quality evidence).

  • However, DAPT has little or no impact on:

    • All-cause mortality (moderate quality evidence)

    • Incidence of myocardial infarction or recurrent transient ischaemic attack (moderate quality evidence).

  • Furthermore, DAPT also has some harms:

    • A small (0.2%), possibly important increase in moderate to major extracranial bleeding events (moderate quality evidence)

    • A small increase in the risk of minor extracranial bleeding events by 0.7% (high quality evidence).

Patient-important functional disability was defined as modified Rankin scale score of ≥2 as defined by the panel (see table 2).

Table 2

Definitions of the modified Rankin scale

View this table:

Duration of DAPT with clopidogrel and aspirin

The panel was confident that DAPT given for 10-21 days compared with 22-90 days results in:

  • Absolute risk decrease of 0.4% in recurrent ischaemic stroke (moderate quality evidence of no benefit on stroke reduction with prolonged clopidogrel)

  • Absolute risk decrease of 0.3% in moderate to major bleeding events (high quality evidence).

The maximum benefit occurred in the first 10 days.

Values and preferences

The panel discussed how patients might weigh the benefit of reduced stroke with DAPT against its harm of increased bleeding. The panel believed that most patients would consider a stroke considerably worse than a bleed and so would choose DAPT over single agent therapy. There was no published evidence to support this from patients considering DAPT, but this view is consistent with a systematic review of values and preferences in decision making for antithrombotic therapy.18 In that scenario patients considered non-fatal stroke (thrombotic or haemorrhagic) to be two to three times worse than serious gastrointestinal bleeding.

The panel believed that all or almost all patients would choose 10-21 days of therapy rather than 22-90 days as shorter therapy is associated with equivalent benefit and less harm.

Practical issues

Figure 3 outlines the key practical considerations.

Fig 3
Fig 3

Practical issues about use of DAPT (clopidogrel plus aspirin) versus aspirin monotherapy for patients with high risk transient ischaemic attack or minor stroke

When should patients begin their DAPT?

If brain imaging is done within 24 hours of onset of symptoms, patients should begin DAPT as soon as the imaging results exclude intracranial haemorrhage or stroke-mimicking lesions. If a delay of 24 hours or more in imaging is suspected, then patients should begin DAPT as soon as a clinician makes a diagnosis of minor ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack, be the clinician a primary care doctor or stroke neurologist, and be the setting inpatient or outpatient. Such patients should have imaging as soon as possible.

How should patients respond if experiencing adverse effects of DAPT?

We are most confident of the stroke reduction with clopidogrel in the first seven days after commencement. If adverse effects are minor, patients may be well advised to continue until at least seven days.

Dosing of antiplatelets

There were no head to head comparisons in the studies to give clear guidance on what loading and maintenance dose to offer. However, the following considerations may be useful:

  • For clopidogrel—A loading dose of 300 mg and a dose of 75 mg thereafter seem reasonable because bleeding was marginally greater in the POINT trial,2 which used a higher loading dose (table 3)

  • For aspirin—A dose between 75 mg and 345 mg seems reasonable. The results of the trials do not offer particular insights. Some clinicians may prefer to prescribe at the low end of this range to minimise harm. However, other clinicians may wish to take into account recent evidence of dosing based on weight from studies in primary prevention of cardiovascular events and long term secondary prevention of stroke.19

Table 3

Clopidogrel and aspirin doses used in intervention arms of the trials included in the systematic review1

View this table:

The addition of a second agent, likely clopidogrel, adds to the immediate cost of treatment. This drug is, however, widely available and relatively inexpensive, and the duration of use is short. Moreover, the cost savings related to stroke reduction are likely to be as much or more than the costs of clopidogrel administration.

Uncertainties

The following remains uncertain for clinicians and patients:

  • What is the optimal starting dose of clopidogrel or aspirin? What is the optimal maintenance dose of both agents?

  • What are the benefits and risks of DAPT with clopidogrel and aspirin in patients with low risk transient ischaemic attack compared with aspirin alone?

  • What are the risks and benefits of DAPT in patients with moderate strokes (NIHSS score 3-10) with or without thrombolysis treatment?

  • What are the benefits and risks of DAPT with clopidogrel and aspirin compared with clopidogrel alone in this population?

Updates to this article

Table 4 shows evidence that has emerged since the publication of this article. As new evidence is published, a group will assess the new evidence and make a judgment on to what extent it is expected to alter the recommendation.

Table 4

New evidence which has emerged after initial publication

View this table:

Education into practice

  • For prevention of recurrent stroke in patients with recent transient ischaemic attacks or minor stroke, which antiplatelet or combination of antiplatelets do you prescribe?

  • How do you identify patients with transient ischaemic attacks as high risk or low risk?

  • How do you classify stroke as minor or major?

  • Based on this article, how do you think your personal practice might change? Is there anything that you would do differently for patients with high risk transient ischaemic attack or minor stroke?

How patients were involved in the creation of this article

Three people with lived experience of stroke, and one person with lived experience as a carer for a patient with stroke, were full panel members. They identified and rated outcomes, and led the discussion on values and preferences. The patient partners rated all included outcomes as important to them. Although these values may not be shared by all patients for all outcomes considered, the panel expected little variation in how much importance other patients would place on the critical outcomes of recurrent non-fatal stroke, moderate to major bleeding events, all-cause mortality, functional disability and quality of life.

Patients and carers were instrumental to this guideline in weighing the benefits and harms of DAPT. They clearly articulated the consistent view that avoiding recurrent stroke is paramount in those with transient ischaemic attack and minor stroke and that most would be willing to risk extracranial bleeding to achieve this.

We thank them for their time and valuable input.

Footnotes

  • Research, doi: 10.1136/bmj.k5108

  • This BMJ Rapid Recommendation article is one of a series that provides clinicians with trustworthy recommendations for potentially practice changing evidence. BMJ Rapid Recommendations represent a collaborative effort between the MAGIC group (http://magicproject.org/) and The BMJ. A summary is offered here and the full version including decision aids is on the MAGICapp (https://app.magicapp.org), for all devices in multilayered formats. Those reading and using these recommendations should consider individual patient circumstances, and their values and preferences and may want to use consultation decision aids in MAGICapp in language patients can easily understandto facilitate shared decision making. We encourage adaptation and contextualisation of our recommendations to local or other contexts. Those considering use or adaptation of content may go to MAGICapp to link or extract its content or contact The BMJ for permission to reuse content in this article.

  • Contributors: All panel members participated in the teleconferences and email discussions and met all authorship criteria.

  • Competing interests: All authors have completed the BMJ Rapid Recommendations interests disclosure form, and a description of all disclosures is reported in appendix 1 on bmj.com. As with all BMJ Rapid Recommendations, the executive team and The BMJ judged that no panel member had any financial conflict of interest. Professional and academic interests are minimised as much as possible, while maintaining necessary expertise on the panel to make fully informed decisions.

  • Funding: This guideline was not funded.

  • Transparency: K Prasad affirms that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the recommendation being reported; that no important aspects of the recommendation have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the recommendation as planned (and, if relevant, registered) have been explained.

  • Provenance and peer review: Commissioned; externally peer reviewed

References

  1. ↵
    1. Hao Q,
    2. Tampi M,
    3. O’Donnell M,
    4. Foroutan F,
    5. Siemieniuk RAC,
    6. Guyatt G
    . Clopidogrel plus aspirin versus aspirin alone for acute minor ischaemic stroke or high risk transient ischaemic attack: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ2018;363:k5108. doi:10.1136/bmj.k5108.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Johnston SC,
    2. Easton JD,
    3. Farrant M,
    4. et al.,
    5. Clinical Research Collaboration, Neurological Emergencies Treatment Trials Network, and the POINT Investigators
    . Clopidogrel and aspirin in acute ischemic stroke and high-risk TIA. N Engl J Med2018;379:215-25. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1800410 pmid:29766750
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Guidelines IoMCoSfDCP
    . Clinical practice guidelines we can trust. Washington DC.National Academies Press, 2011.
  4. ↵
    1. Guyatt GH,
    2. Oxman AD,
    3. Vist GE,
    4. et al.,
    5. GRADE Working Group
    . GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ2008;336:924-6. doi:10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD pmid:18436948
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Qaseem A,
    2. Forland F,
    3. Macbeth F,
    4. Ollenschläger G,
    5. Phillips S,
    6. van der Wees P,
    7. Board of Trustees of the Guidelines International Network
    . Guidelines International Network: toward international standards for clinical practice guidelines. Ann Intern Med2012;156:525-31. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-156-7-201204030-00009 pmid:22473437
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  6. ↵
    1. Powers WJ,
    2. Rabinstein AA,
    3. Ackerson T,
    4. et al.,
    5. American Heart Association Stroke Council
    . 2018 guidelines for the early management of patients with acute ischemic stroke: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke2018;49:e46-110. doi:10.1161/STR.0000000000000158 pmid:29367334
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    1. Wein T,
    2. Lindsay MP,
    3. Côté R,
    4. et al.,
    5. Heart and Stroke Foundation Canadian Stroke Best Practice Committees
    . Canadian stroke best practice recommendations: Secondary prevention of stroke, sixth edition practice guidelines, update 2017. Int J Stroke2018;13:420-43. doi:10.1177/1747493017743062 pmid:29171361
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    Australian Clinical Practice Guidelines. Clinical guidelines for stroke management 2017. 2017. www.clinicalguidelines.gov.au/portal/2585/clinical-guidelines-stroke-management-2017.
  9. ↵
    Royal College of Physicians. National clinical guideline for stroke 2016. 2016. www.rcplondon.ac.uk/guidelines-policy/stroke-guidelines.
  10. ↵
    1. Diener HC,
    2. Bogousslavsky J,
    3. Brass LM,
    4. et al.,
    5. MATCH investigators
    . Aspirin and clopidogrel compared with clopidogrel alone after recent ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack in high-risk patients (MATCH): randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet2004;364:331-7. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16721-4 pmid:15276392
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  11. ↵
    1. Bhatt DL,
    2. Fox KA,
    3. Hacke W,
    4. et al.,
    5. CHARISMA Investigators
    . Clopidogrel and aspirin versus aspirin alone for the prevention of atherothrombotic events. N Engl J Med2006;354:1706-17. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa060989 pmid:16531616
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  12. Stroke Foundation. Clinical guidelines for stroke management 2017. 2017. https://informme.org.au/en/Guidelines/Clinical-Guidelines-for-Stroke-Management-2017.
  13. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Stroke and transient ischaemic attack in over 16s: diagnosis and initial management (clinical guideline CG68). 2017. www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg68.
  14. ↵
    1. Kasner SE,
    2. Chalela JA,
    3. Luciano JM,
    4. et al
    . Reliability and validity of estimating the NIH stroke scale score from medical records. Stroke1999;30:1534-7. doi:10.1161/01.STR.30.8.1534 pmid:10436096
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. ↵
    1. Wang Y,
    2. Wang Y,
    3. Zhao X,
    4. et al.,
    5. CHANCE Investigators
    . Clopidogrel with aspirin in acute minor stroke or transient ischemic attack. N Engl J Med2013;369:11-9. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1215340 pmid:23803136
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  16. ↵
    1. Kennedy J,
    2. Hill MD,
    3. Ryckborst KJ,
    4. Eliasziw M,
    5. Demchuk AM,
    6. Buchan AM,
    7. FASTER Investigators
    . Fast assessment of stroke and transient ischaemic attack to prevent early recurrence (FASTER): a randomised controlled pilot trial. Lancet Neurol2007;6:961-9. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(07)70250-8 pmid:17931979
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  17. ↵
    1. Johnston SC,
    2. Rothwell PM,
    3. Nguyen-Huynh MN,
    4. et al
    . Validation and refinement of scores to predict very early stroke risk after transient ischaemic attack. Lancet2007;369:283-92. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60150-0 pmid:17258668
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  18. ↵
    1. MacLean S,
    2. Mulla S,
    3. Akl EA,
    4. et al
    . Patient values and preferences in decision making for antithrombotic therapy: a systematic review: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest2012;141(Suppl):e1S-23S. doi:10.1378/chest.11-2290 pmid:22315262
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  19. ↵
    1. Rothwell PM,
    2. Cook NR,
    3. Gaziano JM,
    4. et al
    . Effects of aspirin on risks of vascular events and cancer according to bodyweight and dose: analysis of individual patient data from randomised trials. Lancet2018;392:387-99. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31133-4 pmid:30017552
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Siemieniuk RA,
    2. Agoritsas T,
    3. Macdonald H,
    4. Guyatt GH,
    5. Brandt L,
    6. Vandvik PO
    . Introduction to BMJ Rapid Recommendations. BMJ2016;354:i5191. doi:10.1136/bmj.i5191 pmid:27680768
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    1. Vandvik PO,
    2. Otto CM,
    3. Siemieniuk RA,
    4. et al
    . Transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement for patients with severe, symptomatic, aortic stenosis at low to intermediate surgical risk: a clinical practice guideline. BMJ2016;354:i5085. doi:10.1136/bmj.i5085 pmid:27680583
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  22. ↵
    1. Andrews JC,
    2. Schünemann HJ,
    3. Oxman AD,
    4. et al
    . GRADE guidelines: 15. Going from evidence to recommendation-determinants of a recommendation’s direction and strength. J ClinEpidemiol2013;66:726-35.pmid:23570745
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Guyatt GH,
    2. Oxman AD,
    3. Kunz R,
    4. et al.,
    5. GRADE Working Group
    . Going from evidence to recommendations. BMJ2008;336:1049-51. doi:10.1136/bmj.39493.646875.AE pmid:18467413
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
View Abstract
Back to top