Cilostazol for intermittent claudication.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) affects between 4% and 12% of people aged 55 to 70 years, and 20% of people over 70 years. A common complaint is intermittent claudication (exercise-induced lower limb pain relieved by rest). These patients have a three- to six-fold increase in cardiovascular mortality.  Cilostazol is a drug licensed for the use of improving claudication distance and, if shown to reduce cardiovascular risk, could offer additional clinical benefits. This is an update of the review first published in 2007. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of cilostazol on initial and absolute claudication distances, mortality and vascular events in patients with stable intermittent claudication. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and AMED databases, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registries, on 9 November 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered double-blind, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of cilostazol versus placebo, or versus other drugs used to improve claudication distance in patients with stable intermittent claudication. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trials for selection and independently extracted data. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. We assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Certainty of the evidence was evaluated using GRADE. For dichotomous outcomes, we used odds ratios (ORs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and for continuous outcomes we used mean differences (MDs) and 95% CIs. We pooled data using a fixed-effect model, or a random-effects model when heterogeneity was identified. Primary outcomes were initial claudication distance (ICD) and quality of life (QoL). Secondary outcomes were absolute claudication distance (ACD), revascularisation, amputation, adverse events and cardiovascular events. MAIN RESULTS: We included 16 double-blind, RCTs (3972 participants) comparing cilostazol with placebo, of which five studies also compared cilostazol with pentoxifylline. Treatment duration ranged from six to 26 weeks. All participants had intermittent claudication secondary to PAD. Cilostazol dose ranged from 100 mg to 300 mg; pentoxifylline dose ranged from 800 mg to 1200 mg. The certainty of the evidence was downgraded by one level for all studies because publication bias was strongly suspected. Other reasons for downgrading were imprecision, inconsistency and selective reporting. Cilostazol versus placebo Participants taking cilostazol had a higher ICD compared with those taking placebo (MD 26.49 metres; 95% CI 18.93 to 34.05; 1722 participants; six studies; low-certainty evidence). We reported QoL measures descriptively due to insufficient statistical detail within the studies to combine the results; there was a possible indication in improvement of QoL in the cilostazol treatment groups (low-certainty evidence). Participants taking cilostazol had a higher ACD compared with those taking placebo (39.57 metres; 95% CI 21.80 to 57.33; 2360 participants; eight studies; very-low certainty evidence). The most commonly reported adverse events were headache, diarrhoea, abnormal stools, dizziness, pain and palpitations. Participants taking cilostazol had an increased odds of experiencing headache compared to participants taking placebo (OR 2.83; 95% CI 2.26 to 3.55; 2584 participants; eight studies; moderate-certainty evidence).Very few studies reported on other outcomes so conclusions on revascularisation, amputation, or cardiovascular events could not be made. Cilostazol versus pentoxifylline There was no difference detected between cilostazol and pentoxifylline for improving walking distance, both in terms of ICD (MD 20.0 metres, 95% CI -2.57 to 42.57; 417 participants; one study; low-certainty evidence); and ACD (MD 13.4 metres, 95% CI -43.50 to 70.36; 866 participants; two studies; very low-certainty evidence). One study reported on QoL; the study authors reported no difference in QoL between the treatment groups (very low-certainty evidence). No study reported on revascularisation, amputation or cardiovascular events. Cilostazol participants had an increased odds of experiencing headache compared with participants taking pentoxifylline at 24 weeks (OR 2.20, 95% CI 1.16 to 4.17; 982 participants; two studies; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Cilostazol has been shown to improve walking distance in people with intermittent claudication. However, participants taking cilostazol had higher odds of experiencing headache. There is insufficient evidence about the effectiveness of cilostazol for serious events such as amputation, revascularisation, and cardiovascular events. Despite the importance of QoL to patients, meta-analysis could not be undertaken because of differences in measures used and reporting. Very limited data indicated no difference between cilostazol and pentoxifylline for improving walking distance and data were too limited for any conclusions on other outcomes.

Cilostazol for intermittent claudication.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) affects between 4% and 12% of people aged 55 to 70 years, and 20% of people over 70 years. A common complaint is intermittent claudication, characterised by pain in the legs or buttocks that occurs with exercise and which subsides with rest. Compared with age-matched controls, people with intermittent claudication have a three- to six-fold increase in cardiovascular mortality. Symptoms of intermittent claudication, walking distance, and quality of life can be improved by risk factor modification, smoking cessation, and a structured exercise programme. Antiplatelet treatment is beneficial in patients with intermittent claudication for the reduction of vascular events but has not previously been shown to influence claudication distance. This is an update of a review first published in 2007. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of cilostazol (an antiplatelet treatment) on improving initial and absolute claudication distances, and in reducing mortality and vascular events in patients with stable intermittent claudication. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched October 2013) and CENTRAL (2013, Issue 9). SELECTION CRITERIA: Double-blind, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of cilostazol versus placebo, or versus other antiplatelet agents in patients with stable intermittent claudication. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trials for selection and independently extracted data. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. We performed the meta-analysis as a fixed-effect model with weighted mean differences (WMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous data, and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs for dichotomous data. MAIN RESULTS: We included fifteen double-blind, RCTs comparing cilostazol with placebo, or medications currently known to increase walking distance e.g. pentoxifylline. There were a total of 3718 randomised participants with treatment durations ranging from six to 26 weeks. All participants had intermittent claudication secondary to PAD. Comparisons included cilostazol twice daily, with dosages of 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg compared with placebo, and cilostazol 100 mg, twice daily, compared with pentoxifylline 400 mg, three times daily. The methodological quality of the trials was generally low, with the majority being at an unclear risk for selection bias, performance bias, detection bias and other bias. Attrition bias was generally low, but reporting bias was high or unclear in the majority of the studies. For eight studies data were compatible for comparison by meta-analysis, but data for seven studies were too heterogenous to be pooled. For the studies included in the meta-analysis, for initial claudication distance (ICD - the distance walked on a treadmill before the onset of calf pain) there was an improvement in the cilostazol group for the 100 mg and 50 mg twice daily, compared with placebo (WMD 31.41 metres, 95% CI 22.38 to 40.45 metres; P < 0.00001) and WMD 19.89 metres, 95% CI 9.44 to 30.34 metres; P = 0.0002), respectively. ICD was improved in the cilostazol group for the comparison of cilostazol 150 mg versus placebo and cilostazol 100 mg versus pentoxifylline, but only single studies were used for these analyses. Absolute claudication distance (ACD - the maximum distance walked on a treadmill) was significantly increased in participants taking cilostazol 100 mg and 50 mg twice daily, compared with placebo (WMD 43.12 metres, 95% CI 18.28 to 67.96 metres; P = 0.0007) and WMD 32.00 metres, 95% CI 14.17 to 49.83 metres; P = 0.0004), respectively. As with ICD, ACD was increased in participants taking cilostazol 150 mg versus placebo, but with only one study an association cannot be clearly determined. Two studies comparing cilostazol to pentoxifylline had opposing findings, resulting in an imprecise CI (WMD 13.42 metres (95% CI -43.51 to 70.35 metres; P = 0.64). Ankle brachial index (ABI) was lowered in the cilostazol 100 mg group compared with placebo (WMD 0.06, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.08; P < 0.00001). The single study evaluating ABI for the comparison of cilostazol versus pentoxifylline found no change in ABI.There was no association between treatment type and all-cause mortality for any of the treatment comparisons, but there were very few events, and therefore larger, adequately powered studies will be needed to assess if there is a relationship. Only one study evaluated individual cardiovascular events, and from this study there is no clear evidence of a difference between any of the treatment groups and risk of myocardial infarction or stroke. We evaluated adverse side effects, and in general cilostazol was associated with a higher odds of headache, diarrhoea, abnormal stool, dizziness and palpitations. We only reported quality of life measures descriptively as there was insufficient statistical detail within the studies to combine the results, although there was a possible indication in improvement of quality of life in the cilostazol treatment groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Cilostazol has been shown to be of benefit in improving walking distance in people with intermittent claudication secondary to PAD. Although there is an increase in adverse side effects, they are generally mild and treatable. There is currently insufficient data on whether taking cilostazol results in a reduction of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events or an improvement in quality of life. Future research into the effect of cilostazol on intermittent claudication should carefully consider comparability, sample size and homogeneity when designing a study.

Platelet function following acute cerebral ischemia.

BACKGROUND: Studies have previously identified increased levels of platelet activation following acute ischemic stroke. In order to evaluate new antiplatelet agents and their combinations, there is a need for accurate measures of platelet activation. METHODS: Blood was taken from 17 patients within 24 hours of an acute ischemic stroke, and then at 3, 7, 14 and 42 days. For comparison, a group of 18 stable arteriopaths had identical tests performed. Platelet aggregation was measured using a free platelet counting technique, and platelet surface P-selectin and monocyte platelet aggregates (MPAs) were measured using flow cytometry. Soluble P-selectin and D-dimers were measured by an enzyme linked immune assay. RESULTS: The initial level of MPAs was significantly raised in the stroke patients compared with the stable patients (p = 0.04, 14.2% vs. 9.3%); however, this difference was not significantly higher than later study points (14.2%, 10.1%, 9.3%, 11.9%, 11.3%; days 1, 3, 7, 14 and 42 respectively. Day 1 vs. day 7 p = 0.07 ANOVA). No changes in P-selectin or platelet aggregation were identified. D-dimer levels were significantly higher on day 7 than day 42 (p < 0.01), and fibrinogen levels were elevated on both days 3 and 14 compared with day 42. Fibrinogen levels were not elevated compared with stable patients. CONCLUSIONS: MPA levels are elevated following an acute ischemic stroke compared to stable patients, but no significant change was seen with other platelet markers. This study suggests MPAs are a more sensitive marker of platelet activation than either P-selectin or aggregation.

Soluble but not platelet P-selectin correlates with spontaneous platelet aggregation: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: P-selectin (PS) is a marker of platelet activation measured on the platelet surface as platelet PS (pPS) or in serum as soluble PS (sPS). Controversy remains over the exact relationship between sPS, pPS, and other markers such as spontaneous platelet aggregation (SPA). OBJECTIVE: To investigate correlations between pPS, sPS, and SPA in patients with peripheral arterial disease. METHODS: SPA, pPS, and sPS levels were measured in venous blood sampled from patients following intermittent claudication (n = 18) or an acute stroke (n = 18). RESULTS: SPA and sPS correlated significantly in the claudicants (Pearson correlation coefficient, r = 0.661; P = .0020) and stroke patients (r = 0.514; P = .020). No significant correlation was identified between pPS and SPA, or sPS and pPS. CONCLUSIONS: The 2 methods of assessing PS are not comparable. Although pPS is accepted as a platelet activation marker, sPS may be a better indicator of aggregation represented by SPA.