Comparative safety and tolerability of clopidogrel and aspirin: results from CAPRIE. CAPRIE Steering Committee and Investigators. Clopidogrel versus aspirin in patients at risk of ischaemic events.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to provide a comprehensive comparison of the long term safety and tolerability of clopidogrel, a new adenosine diphosphate (ADP) receptor antagonist that inhibits platelet activation induced by ADP, and aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study population comprised 19,185 patients with symptomatic atherosclerosis manifested as recent ischaemic stroke, recent myocardial infarction or symptomatic peripheral arterial disease. Patients were randomised to receive clopidogrel 75 mg/day or aspirin 325 mg/day for a minimum of 1 year and a maximum of 3 years. RESULTS: Compared with aspirin, clopidogrel reduced the combined risk of ischaemic stroke, myocardial infarction or vascular death by 8.7% (p = 0.043). The incidence of early permanent discontinuations of the study drug due to adverse events was almost identical in both treatment groups (11.94% for clopidogrel vs 11.92% for aspirin). Reported neutropenia was similar in the clopidogrel and aspirin groups (0.10 vs 0.17%, respectively) with corresponding rates (0.05 vs 0.04%, respectively) for severe neutropenia. Thrombocytopenia was identical in the clopidogrel and aspirin groups (0.26%), with the rates of severe thrombocytopenia being 0.19 vs 0.10%, respectively. None of these observed differences was statistically significant. The overall incidence of haemorrhagic events did not differ statistically significantly between treatment groups (9.27% for clopidogrel vs 9.28% for aspirin; p = 0.98). There was a trend towards a lower incidence of intracranial haemorrhage in the clopidogrel group (0.31%) compared with the aspirin group (0.42%). Any reported gastrointestinal haemorrhage was significantly less frequent with clopidogrel (1.99%) than with aspirin (2.66%) p < 0.002]. The corresponding data for severe gastrointestinal bleeding were 0.49 vs 0.71%; p < 0.05. Overall, there were significantly fewer gastrointestinal adverse events with clopidogrel than with aspirin (27.1 vs 29.8%; p < 0.001), with less abdominal pain, dyspepsia, constipation, or peptic, gastric, or duodenal ulceration with clopidogrel. Diarrhoea was significantly more common in the clopidogrel group (4.46 vs 3.36%; p < 0.001), although the incidence of severe diarrhoea (0.23 vs 0.11%) was low and was not significantly different between groups. There were significantly more patients with rash in the clopidogrel group (6.0%) compared with the aspirin group (4.6%) p < 0.001]. However, these events were generally mild and transient in nature. CONCLUSION: Given the favourable benefit/risk ratio, clopidogrel represents a clinically important advance in the treatment of patients with manifest atherosclerotic disease.