scholarly journals A Comparison of Contemporary versus Older Studies of Aspirin for Primary Prevention

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank Moriarty ◽  
Mark H. Ebell

AbstractObjectiveThis study compares the benefits and harms of aspirin for primary prevention before and after widespread use of statins and colorectal cancer screening.MethodsWe compared studies of aspirin for primary prevention that recruited patients from 2005 onward with previous individual patient meta-analyses that recruited patients from 1978 to 2002. Data for contemporary studies were synthesized using random-effects models. We report vascular (major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE], myocardial infarction [MI], stroke), bleeding, cancer, and mortality outcomes.ResultsThe IPD analyses of older studies included 95,456 patients for CV prevention and 25,270 for cancer mortality, while the four newer studies had 61,604 patients. Relative risks for vascular outcomes for older vs newer studies follow: MACE: 0.89 (95% CI 0.83-0.95) vs 0.93 (0.86-0.99); fatal hemorrhagic stroke: 1.73 (1.11-2.72) vs 1.06 (0.66-1.70); any ischemic stroke: 0.86 (0.74-1.00) vs 0.86 (0.75-0.98); any MI: 0.84 (0.77-0.92) vs 0.88 (0.77-1.00); and non-fatal MI: 0.79 (0.71-0.88) vs 0.94 (0.83-1.08). Cancer death was not significantly decreased in newer studies (RR 1.11, 0.92-1.34). Major hemorrhage was significantly increased for both older and newer studies (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.25-1.76 vs 1.37, 95% CI 1.24-1.53). There was no effect in either group on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, fatal stroke, or fatal MI.ConclusionsIn the modern era characterized by widespread statin use and cancer screening, aspirin does not reduce the risk of non-fatal MI or cancer death. There are no mortality benefits and a significant risk of major hemorrhage. Aspirin should no longer be recommended for primary prevention.Summary of current evidence and what this study addsWhat is already known about this subject?The cumulative evidence for aspirin suggests a role in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, and in reducing cancer incidence and mortality.However most of the trials of aspirin for primary prevention were set in Europe and the United States and recruited patients prior to the year 2000.The benefits and harms of aspirin should be considered separately in studies performed in the eras before and after widespread use of statins and colorectal cancer screening.What does this study add?This study provides the most detailed summary to date of cardiac, stroke, bleeding, mortality and cancer outcomes to date in the literature.In trials of aspirin for primary prevention from 2005 onwards, aspirin reduced major adverse cardiovascular events but significantly increased the risk of bleeding, with no benefit for mortality or,Unlike older studies, there was no reduction in cancer mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction.How does this impact on clinical practice?Our study suggests aspirin should not be recommended for primary prevention in the modern era.

Medical Care ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 54 (5) ◽  
pp. 466-473 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Frank Wharam ◽  
Fang Zhang ◽  
Bruce E. Landon ◽  
Robert LeCates ◽  
Stephen Soumerai ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 124 ◽  
pp. 91-97 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathalie Huguet ◽  
Heather Angier ◽  
Rebecca Rdesinski ◽  
Megan Hoopes ◽  
Miguel Marino ◽  
...  

BMC Medicine ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Georg Gelbenegger ◽  
Marek Postula ◽  
Ladislav Pecen ◽  
Sigrun Halvorsen ◽  
Maciej Lesiak ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The role of aspirin in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains unclear. We aimed to investigate the benefit-risk ratio of aspirin for primary prevention of CVD with a particular focus on subgroups. Methods Randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of aspirin for primary prevention of CVD versus control and including at least 1000 patients were eligible for this meta-analysis. The primary efficacy outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included cardiovascular mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and net clinical benefit. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding. Subgroup analyses involving sex, concomitant statin treatment, diabetes, and smoking were performed. Results Thirteen randomized controlled trials comprising 164,225 patients were included. The risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality was similar for aspirin and control groups (RR 0.98; 95% CI, 0.93–1.02; RR 0.99; 95% CI, 0.90–1.08; respectively). Aspirin reduced the relative risk (RRR) of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) by 9% (RR 0.91; 95% CI, 0.86–0.95), myocardial infarction by 14% (RR 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77–0.95), and ischemic stroke by 10% (RR 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82–0.99), but was associated with a 46% relative risk increase of major bleeding events (RR 1.46; 95% CI, 1.30–1.64) compared with controls. Aspirin use did not translate into a net clinical benefit adjusted for event-associated mortality risk (mean 0.034%; 95% CI, − 0.18 to 0.25%). There was an interaction for aspirin effect in three patient subgroups: (i) in patients under statin treatment, aspirin was associated with a 12% RRR of MACE (RR 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80–0.96), and this effect was lacking in the no-statin group; (ii) in non-smokers, aspirin was associated with a 10% RRR of MACE (RR 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82–0.99), and this effect was not present in smokers; and (iii) in males, aspirin use resulted in a 11% RRR of MACE (RR 0.89; 95% CI, 0.83–0.95), with a non-significant effect in females. Conclusions Aspirin use does not reduce all-cause or cardiovascular mortality and results in an insufficient benefit-risk ratio for CVD primary prevention. Non-smokers, patients treated with statins, and males had the greatest risk reduction of MACE across subgroups. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42019118474.


Drugs & Aging ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 20 (12) ◽  
pp. 897-903 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark R Nelson ◽  
Christopher M Reid ◽  
Lawrence J Beilin ◽  
Geoffrey A Donnan ◽  
Colin I Johnston ◽  
...  

2002 ◽  
Vol 177 (5) ◽  
pp. 278-279
Author(s):  
Annie Cooney ◽  
Neil J Donnelly ◽  
Melina Gattellari ◽  
Jeanette E Ward

2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (6) ◽  
pp. 948-954 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald W. Hadley ◽  
Jean F. Jenkins ◽  
Seth M. Steinberg ◽  
David Liewehr ◽  
Stephanie Moller ◽  
...  

Purpose Lynch syndrome poses multiple cancer risks, yet attention has focused on screening for colorectal cancer. Estimated risks for endometrial cancer equal risks for colorectal cancer. This study (1) evaluated women's perceived risks for cancers, (2) compared endometrial cancer screening and colonoscopy, and (3) identified predictors of screening before and after genetic testing. Patients and Methods Sixty-five adult women at 50% risk for carrying a cancer-predisposing mutation, without a history of endometrial cancer or hysterectomy, participated in genetic counseling and received unequivocal genetic test results for Lynch syndrome. Participants completed questionnaires before and after receipt of genetic results. Results Pretest, perceived risks for colon cancer were significantly higher than for extracolonic cancers (P < .0001). Use of colonoscopy was significantly higher (P = .006) than endometrial cancer screening. Post-test, carriers demonstrated a significant (P < .0001) increase in their perceived risk for extracolonic cancers and increased both colonoscopy (P = .79) and endometrial cancer screening (P = .11). Mutation status, age, perceived likelihood of carrying a mutation, and communication of test results to their physician independently predicted cancer screening at follow-up. Conclusion Women in families with Lynch syndrome are less aware of their risks for extracolonic cancers and undergo endometrial cancer screening significantly less often than colonoscopy before genetic counseling. Given the significantly increased risks for endometrial and ovarian cancers and the mortality associated with ovarian cancer, additional efforts to inform families of cancer risks and screening recommendations seem prudent. Physicians play a critical role in ensuring appropriate cancer screening in women with Lynch syndrome.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document