This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on ISI (3)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Neurology, Other  • Alert me on articles by topic

Arch Neurol. 2000;57:306-308.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

SEEMINGLY SIMPLE questions about aspirin elude answers despite decades of study by clinical scientists. Soon, 35 years will have elapsed since the platelet-inhibiting properties of aspirin were reported,^1-2 25 years since its first trial in secondary disease prevention,³ and 10 years since the first negative report in primary stroke prevention.⁴ Thousands of patients have been randomized in primary and secondary stroke prevention studies, but important questions persist.

The original contribution by Hart et al⁵ in this issue of the ARCHIVES is a meta-analysis of the aspirin trials in asymptomatic individuals, 2 without known vascular disease and 3 involving high-risk individuals.

The conclusions: Aspirin is ineffective in primary prevention for males without symptoms or high risk of vascular disease, appears to be of value in asymptomatic patients at higher risk, and prevents stroke once symptoms develop. These conclusions are credible. Other therapies have also given greater benefit to those at highest . . . [Full Text of this Article]

RELATED ARTICLE

Aspirin for the Primary Prevention of Stroke and Other Major Vascular Events: Meta-analysis and Hypotheses
Robert G. Hart, Jonathan L. Halperin, Ruth McBride, Oscar Benavente, Malcolm Man-Son-Hing, and Richard A. Kronmal
Arch Neurol. 2000;57(3):326-332.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT