Dyslipidemia remains a major, modifiable determinant of global stroke burden, accounting for more than one-fifth of ischemic strokes (IS) worldwide. Recent evidence has shifted emphasis from conventio Show more
Dyslipidemia remains a major, modifiable determinant of global stroke burden, accounting for more than one-fifth of ischemic strokes (IS) worldwide. Recent evidence has shifted emphasis from conventional lipid fractions to apolipoprotein B (ApoB)-containing lipoproteins, including lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)], which more accurately reflect atherogenic particle burden than low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) alone and are increasingly used for stroke risk stratification. While the principle "the faster and the lower, the better" underpins dyslipidemia management, evidence-based, subtype-specific lipid strategies in stroke remain limited. Intensive LDL-C reduction significantly lowers recurrent IS risk; however, uniform lipid targets are often applied without accounting for stroke etiology. High-intensity statins remain first-line therapy, with pleiotropic benefits extending beyond LDL-C reduction. For statin intolerance or suboptimal response, ezetimibe and PCSK9 inhibitors provide potent, bleeding-neutral LDL-C lowering. Inclisiran and bempedoic acid broaden therapeutic options, although stroke-specific efficacy data are still pending. Lp(a)-lowering agents, including pelacarsen, olpasiran, and lepodisiran, are under active evaluation and may address residual cardiovascular risk. For triglyceride lowering, recent randomized evidence supports icosapent ethyl for reducing IS risk. In intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), the optimal intensity and thresholds of lipid lowering remain uncertain, warranting individualized weighting of ischemic against hemorrhagic risk, particularly in patients with lobar ICH or suspected cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA). In such cases, hydrophilic statins, ezetimibe, or PCSK9 inhibitors may represent reasonable options. This review synthesizes current evidence and proposes a phenotype-guided, individualized framework for dyslipidemia management across stroke subtypes. Moving beyond uniform targets toward etiologic and genetically informed lipid modulation may improve post-stroke outcomes and refine individualized stroke prevention. Show less
Guidelines recommend low-dose colchicine for secondary prevention in cardiovascular disease, but uncertainty remains concerning its efficacy for stroke, efficacy in key subgroups and about uncommon bu Show more
Guidelines recommend low-dose colchicine for secondary prevention in cardiovascular disease, but uncertainty remains concerning its efficacy for stroke, efficacy in key subgroups and about uncommon but serious safety outcomes. In this trial-level meta-analysis, we searched bibliographic databases and trial registries form inception to May 16, 2024. We included randomised trials of colchicine for secondary prevention of ischaemic stroke and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE: ischaemic stroke, myocardial infarction, coronary revascularisation, or cardiovascular death). Secondary outcomes were serious safety outcomes and mortality. A fixed-effect inverse-variance model was used to generate a pooled estimate of relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42024540320. Six trials involving 14,934 patients with prior stroke or coronary disease were included. In all patients, colchicine compared with placebo or no colchicine reduced the risk for ischaemic stroke by 27% (132 [1.8%] events versus 186 [2.5%] events, RR 0.73 [95% CI 0.58-0.90]) and MACE by 27% (505 [6.8%] events versus 693 [9.4%] events, with RR 0.73 [0.65-0.81]). Efficacy was consistent in key subgroups (females versus males, age below versus above 70, with versus without diabetes, statin versus non-statin users). Colchicine was not associated with an increase in serious safety outcomes: hospitalisation for pneumonia (109 [1.5%] versus 106 [1.5%], RR 0.99 [0.76-1.30]), cancer (247 [3.5%] versus 255 [3.6%], RR 0.97 [0.82-1.15]), and gastro-intestinal events (153 [2.1%] versus 135 [1.9%]), RR 1.15 [0.91-1.44]. There was no difference in all-cause death (201 [2.7%] versus 181 [2.4%], RR 1.09 [0.89-1.33]), cardiovascular death (70 [0.9%] versus 80 [1.1%], RR 0.89 [0.65-1.23]), or non-cardiovascular death (131 [1.8%] versus 101 [1.4%], RR 1.26 [0.98-1.64]). In patients with prior stroke or coronary disease, colchicine reduced ischaemic stroke and MACE, with consistent treatment effect in key subgroups, and did not increase serious safety events or death. There was no funding source for this study. Show less