Generate an explanation for the given claim using the provided supporting material from the paragraph. Please consider the following points while generating an output. 1) The claim will always have supporting proof in the paragraph, and the paragraph will have a clear point of view supporting the claim. 2) There can be instances where direct correlation to the claim is not available. Make use of the sentences in the paragraph to provide a corresponding output supporting the claim. 3) The explanation should be at least one and at most twelve sentences long.
Q: Paragraph: Published in the online version of The Lancet Neurology, the study suggests that cilostazol could be a safer alternative to aspirin for post-stroke Chinese patients, who seem to be at higher risk of cerebral hemorrhage, according to previous studies. Anti-platelet drugs have an "anti-clotting" effect and long-term, low doses may prevent heart attacks and blood clot formation in people at high risk for developing blood clots. In the study, 719 patients around the age of 60 were divided into two groups, with the first given cilostazol and the second given aspirin for 12 to 18 months. Twelve patients in the cilostazol group suffered subsequent stroke, compared to 20 people in the aspirin group. Brain bleeding was detected in 1 patient in the cilostazol group versus 7 in the aspirin group. While the researchers said cilostazol appeared to be more effective and a safer alternative to aspirin for Chinese patients, they called for a larger clinical trial. Manufactured by Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., cilostazol is known by its brand name Pletal. Stroke is the second leading cause of death in China, with about 7 million people affected in the country. Claim: Cilostazol found may be safer than aspirin post-stroke.
A:
The anti-platelet drug cilostazol is as effective as aspirin at preventing recurrent stroke and appears to be linked to fewer bleeding events, a study in China has shown.