NOTE SULLE 'PROPOSTE DI MODIFICA AL COMMENTO DELLA NOTA 9 DELLA CUF RELATIVA ALLA PRESCRIZIONE DI TICLOPIDINA

Translated title of the contribution: Ticlopidine vs aspirin as an antiplatelet agent

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

In the new Italian drug reimbursement scheme, aspirin is completely reimbursed, while ticlopidine is only 50% reimbursed, and only for patients with a documented allergy to aspirin. This situation has been recently criticized by a group of well known haematologists, who claim that, on the basis of the available evidence, ticlopidine should be considered a more effective prophylactic agent than aspirin after ischemic stroke (Tass study) and in patients with intermittent claudication (Stims study). They also maintain that ticlopidine should be considered first choice for patients with peptic ulcer. These assumptions are disputed in this article. First, the results of the Antiplatelet Trialists' Collaboration meta-analysis are considered, to conclude that no antiplatelet agent has been consistently shown to be more effective than aspirin. Then, attention is given to some incoherences of the Tass study (ticlopidine reduced only non cardiovascular deaths) and of the Stims study (no advantage of ticlopidine over placebo in terms of cerebrovascular events). Lastly, the results of the Tass study are used again to remind that ticlopidine determined more adverse events and drop-outs than aspirin. The higher safety of ticlopidine on the stomach (33% of gastric side effects vs 40% for aspirin) should be read bearing in mind that aspirin was used at a dose (1,300 mg daily) much higher than currently prescribed.

Original languageItalian
Pages (from-to)199-203
Number of pages5
JournalRicerca e Pratica
Issue number65
Publication statusPublished - 1995

Fingerprint

Ticlopidine
Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors
Aspirin
Stomach
Intermittent Claudication
Peptic Ulcer
Meta-Analysis
Hypersensitivity
Stroke
Placebos
Safety
Pharmaceutical Preparations

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pharmacology

Cite this

@article{a6ada01ad8a545338f0ffba8962da49e,
title = "NOTE SULLE 'PROPOSTE DI MODIFICA AL COMMENTO DELLA NOTA 9 DELLA CUF RELATIVA ALLA PRESCRIZIONE DI TICLOPIDINA",
abstract = "In the new Italian drug reimbursement scheme, aspirin is completely reimbursed, while ticlopidine is only 50{\%} reimbursed, and only for patients with a documented allergy to aspirin. This situation has been recently criticized by a group of well known haematologists, who claim that, on the basis of the available evidence, ticlopidine should be considered a more effective prophylactic agent than aspirin after ischemic stroke (Tass study) and in patients with intermittent claudication (Stims study). They also maintain that ticlopidine should be considered first choice for patients with peptic ulcer. These assumptions are disputed in this article. First, the results of the Antiplatelet Trialists' Collaboration meta-analysis are considered, to conclude that no antiplatelet agent has been consistently shown to be more effective than aspirin. Then, attention is given to some incoherences of the Tass study (ticlopidine reduced only non cardiovascular deaths) and of the Stims study (no advantage of ticlopidine over placebo in terms of cerebrovascular events). Lastly, the results of the Tass study are used again to remind that ticlopidine determined more adverse events and drop-outs than aspirin. The higher safety of ticlopidine on the stomach (33{\%} of gastric side effects vs 40{\%} for aspirin) should be read bearing in mind that aspirin was used at a dose (1,300 mg daily) much higher than currently prescribed.",
author = "V. Bertele",
year = "1995",
language = "Italian",
pages = "199--203",
journal = "Ricerca e Pratica",
issn = "1120-379X",
publisher = "Il Pensiero Scientifico Editore s.r.l.",
number = "65",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - NOTE SULLE 'PROPOSTE DI MODIFICA AL COMMENTO DELLA NOTA 9 DELLA CUF RELATIVA ALLA PRESCRIZIONE DI TICLOPIDINA

AU - Bertele, V.

PY - 1995

Y1 - 1995

N2 - In the new Italian drug reimbursement scheme, aspirin is completely reimbursed, while ticlopidine is only 50% reimbursed, and only for patients with a documented allergy to aspirin. This situation has been recently criticized by a group of well known haematologists, who claim that, on the basis of the available evidence, ticlopidine should be considered a more effective prophylactic agent than aspirin after ischemic stroke (Tass study) and in patients with intermittent claudication (Stims study). They also maintain that ticlopidine should be considered first choice for patients with peptic ulcer. These assumptions are disputed in this article. First, the results of the Antiplatelet Trialists' Collaboration meta-analysis are considered, to conclude that no antiplatelet agent has been consistently shown to be more effective than aspirin. Then, attention is given to some incoherences of the Tass study (ticlopidine reduced only non cardiovascular deaths) and of the Stims study (no advantage of ticlopidine over placebo in terms of cerebrovascular events). Lastly, the results of the Tass study are used again to remind that ticlopidine determined more adverse events and drop-outs than aspirin. The higher safety of ticlopidine on the stomach (33% of gastric side effects vs 40% for aspirin) should be read bearing in mind that aspirin was used at a dose (1,300 mg daily) much higher than currently prescribed.

AB - In the new Italian drug reimbursement scheme, aspirin is completely reimbursed, while ticlopidine is only 50% reimbursed, and only for patients with a documented allergy to aspirin. This situation has been recently criticized by a group of well known haematologists, who claim that, on the basis of the available evidence, ticlopidine should be considered a more effective prophylactic agent than aspirin after ischemic stroke (Tass study) and in patients with intermittent claudication (Stims study). They also maintain that ticlopidine should be considered first choice for patients with peptic ulcer. These assumptions are disputed in this article. First, the results of the Antiplatelet Trialists' Collaboration meta-analysis are considered, to conclude that no antiplatelet agent has been consistently shown to be more effective than aspirin. Then, attention is given to some incoherences of the Tass study (ticlopidine reduced only non cardiovascular deaths) and of the Stims study (no advantage of ticlopidine over placebo in terms of cerebrovascular events). Lastly, the results of the Tass study are used again to remind that ticlopidine determined more adverse events and drop-outs than aspirin. The higher safety of ticlopidine on the stomach (33% of gastric side effects vs 40% for aspirin) should be read bearing in mind that aspirin was used at a dose (1,300 mg daily) much higher than currently prescribed.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0029593457&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0029593457&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Articolo

AN - SCOPUS:0029593457

SP - 199

EP - 203

JO - Ricerca e Pratica

JF - Ricerca e Pratica

SN - 1120-379X

IS - 65

ER -