Objective: To analyze the clinical efficacy and safety of monotherapy and dual therapy in patients with early ischemic stroke. Methods: The study was conducted from August 2020 to August 2021, and 80 patients with early ischemic stroke who received treatment at our hospital during this period were selected as the study population. They were randomly divided into a control group and an observation group, with 40 patients in each group. The control group received conventional monotherapy, while the observation group received conventional dual therapy. The efficacy and safety indicators of the two groups were compared.Results: The treatment efficacy, functional recovery, blood indicators, and inflammation markers in the observation group were all superior to those in the control group (all, P<0.05); there was no significant difference in the drug safety profile between the two groups (P>0.05).Conclusion: The dual antiplatelet therapy is more ideal than monotherapy for treating patients with early ischemic stroke. It can further promote the recovery of neurological and cognitive function, improve hematological and inflammatory response indicators in patients, and the safety of this regimen is comparable to monotherapy.

Combination treatment, i.e., the use of two or more drugs for the same condition, is frequent in medicine if monotherapy yields an insufficient therapeutic response. We here review and challenge clinical study designs and formats of reporting outcomes for the evaluation of the benefit/risk ratio of combination treatment over monotherapy. We demonstrate that benefits of combination treatment at the group level over-estimate the probability of benefit at the single patient level based on outcome simulations under almost any imaginable setting. Based on these findings we propose that studies testing combination treatment should always report on percentages of responders to monotherapy and combination treatment. We provide equations that allow calculation of the percentage of patients truly benefitting from combination (responders to both monotherapies) and that of patients exposed to risk of harm from adverse effects without a reasonable expectation of individual benefit. These considerations are explained based on real clinical data, mostly from the field of functional urology (male lower urinary tract symptoms).