Low-dose aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular events in Japanese patients 60 years or older with atherosclerotic risk factors: a randomized clinical trial

Aspirin Efficacy in Primary Prevention: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

INTRODUCTION

The role of aspirin as a means of primary prevention remains controversial.

AIM

We have conducted a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the role of aspirin in primary prevention.

METHODS

Literature search was performed via PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for all related RCTs. All-cause mortality was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), myocardial infarction (MI), cardiovascular mortality, cerebrovascular events, and bleeding events. We used a random effects model to report the risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Our analysis included 17 RCTs (164,862 patients; 83,309 received aspirin and 81,744 received placebo). Our study did not demonstrate any significant reduction in all-cause mortality for patients treated with aspirin when compared with placebo (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.93-1.01; P = 0.13). Sensitivity analysis performed by excluding healthy elderly (≥ 65) showed significant reductions in all-cause mortality in the aspirin-treated patients (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.90-0.99; P = 0.01). There were no significant differences between both groups regarding cardiovascular mortality and cerebrovascular events (P > 0.05). However, aspirin-treated patients significantly reduced MACE and MI events (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.85-0.93; P < 0.001 and RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.78-0.98; P = 0.02, respectively), respectively. However, aspirin was associated with a significantly higher incidence of bleeding, including major bleeding and intracranial bleeding (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Aspirin use in primary prevention has resulted in a lower incidence of MACE and MI without significantly effecting cerebrovascular events. However, aspirin was associated with a higher bleeding risk. Use of aspirin as a means of primary prevention should be thoroughly discussed with patients and pursued based on the risk of cardiovascular disease while also considering bleeding risk.

Aspirin for primary prevention of stroke in individuals without cardiovascular disease-A meta-analysis

Background

The benefits of aspirin for primary prevention of stroke are uncertain.

Methods

We performed a cumulative meta-analysis of trials investigating aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease with a focus on stroke. We assessed the effects of aspirin on non-fatal stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, major gastrointestinal bleeding, and an analysis of net clinical effect, in populations without a history of clinical or subclinical cardiovascular disease.

Summary of review results

Among 11 trials (157,054 participants), aspirin was not associated with a statistically significant reduction in non-fatal stroke (odds ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.04) but was associated with an increased risk of hemorrhagic stroke (odds ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.56). Aspirin was not associated with a statistically significant reduction in all-cause mortality (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.03) or cardiovascular mortality (odds ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.03). Aspirin was associated with a reduction in non-fatal myocardial infarction (odds ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.94) and an increased risk of major gastrointestinal bleeding (odds ratio, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.43 to 2.35). Using equal weighting for non-fatal events and major bleeding, we observed no net clinical benefit with aspirin use for primary prevention.

Conclusion

Our meta-analysis reports no benefit of aspirin for primary stroke prevention.

Aspirin has potential benefits for primary prevention of cardiovascular outcomes in diabetes: updated literature-based and individual participant data meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials

Background

The clinical benefit of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in diabetes remains uncertain. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular outcomes and all-cause mortality events in people with diabetes, we conducted an updated meta-analysis of published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and a pooled analysis of individual participant data (IPD) from three trials.

Methods

Randomised controlled trials of aspirin compared with placebo (or no treatment) in participants with diabetes with no known CVD were identified from MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and manual search of bibliographies to January 2019. Relative risks with 95% confidence intervals were used as the summary measures of associations.

Results

We included 12 RCTs based on 34,227 participants with a median treatment duration of 5.0 years. Comparing aspirin use with no aspirin, there was a significant reduction in risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE)0.89 (0.83–0.95), with a number needed to treat (NNT)of 95 (95% CI 61 to 208) to prevent one MACE over 5 years average follow-up. Evidence was lacking of heterogeneity and publication bias among contributing trials for MACE. Aspirin use had no effect on other endpoints including all-cause mortality; however, there was a significant reduction in stroke for aspirin dosage ≤ 100 mg/day 0.75 (0.59–0.95). There were no significant effects of aspirin use on major bleeding and other bleeding events, though some of the estimates were imprecise. Pooled IPD from the three trials (2306 participants) showed no significant evidence of an effect of aspirin on any of the outcomes evaluated; however, aspirin reduced the risk of MACE in non-smokers 0.70 (0.51–0.96) with a NNT of 33 (95% CI 20 to 246) to prevent one MACE.

Conclusions

Aspirin has potential benefits in cardiovascular primary prevention in diabetes. The use of low dose aspirin may need to be individualised and based on each individual’s baseline CVD and bleeding risk.

Systematic review registration PROSPERO: CRD42019122326

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12933-019-0875-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Low-Dose Aspirin for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events in Elderly Japanese Patients with Atherosclerotic Risk Factors: Subanalysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial (JPPP-70)

INTRODUCTION

This post hoc subanalysis of the randomized Japanese Primary Prevention Project investigated whether once-daily low-dose aspirin versus no aspirin reduced the risk of cardiovascular events (CVEs) in patients aged ≥ 70 years with atherosclerotic risk factors.

METHODS

Patients aged < 70 years (young-old) or ≥ 70 years (old) with hypertension, dyslipidemia, or diabetes participated between 2005 and 2007. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive 100 mg enteric-coated aspirin once daily or no aspirin plus standard of care. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes plus nonfatal stroke and nonfatal myocardial infarction. The secondary outcome was a composite of the primary outcome plus transient ischemic attack, angina pectoris, and arteriosclerotic disease requiring medical or surgical intervention. Old (n = 7971) and young-old (n = 6493) patients were followed up for a median 5.02 years.

RESULTS

Aspirin did not reduce the risk of primary (hazard ratio [HR] 0.92 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.74-1.16]; P = 0.50) or secondary (0.85 [0.70-1.04]; P = 0.11) outcomes in patients aged ≥ 70 years. In old men with high-density lipoprotein < 40 mg/dL, treatment with low-dose aspirin was associated with a reduction in the incidence of the primary endpoint compared with the group not receiving aspirin (10/260 vs 22/250; HR 0.44 [95% CI 0.20-0.93]; P = 0.03). This subgroup was also found to contain significant larger proportions of patients with elevated body mass index, patients with diabetes mellitus, and smokers (P < 0.001). Old patients also showed differences in bleeding outcomes. Serious extracranial hemorrhage requiring transfusion or hospitalization occurred significantly more frequently in the aspirin-treated group than in the non-aspirin-treated group (35 [0.88%] vs 18 [0.45%]; HR 1.96 [1.11-3.46]; P = 0.020). Gastrointestinal hemorrhage occurred significantly more frequently in the aspirin-treated group than the non-aspirin-treated group (63 [1.58%] vs 18 [0.45%]; relative risk [RR] 3.5 [2.08-5.90]; P < 0.0001). Cerebral hemorrhage (intracranial hemorrhage) tended to occur more frequently in the aspirin-treated group than the non-aspirin-treated group (22 [0.55%] vs 11 [0.28%]; RR 2.01 [0.97-4.14]; P = 0.058). Cerebral hemorrhage occurred significantly more frequently in old patients than in young-old patients (33 [0.41%] vs 10 [0.15%]; HR 2.7 [1.34-5.53]; P = 0.0055). Gastrointestinal hemorrhage occurred in a slightly higher proportion of old patients compared with young-old patients (81 [1.02%] vs 53 [0.82%]; RR 1.2 [0.88-1.76]; P = 0.21).

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS

Aspirin did not reduce the risk of the primary or secondary outcomes in old patients. Aspirin treatment may have reduced CVEs within a high CVE risk elderly population subgroup. Aspirin treatment in such a group requires caution, because of the increased risk of intracranial hemorrhage, severe extracranial hemorrhage requiring hospitalization or transfusion, and gastrointestinal bleeding in old patients receiving aspirin therapy.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov [NCT00225849].

Clinician's Guide to the Updated ABCs of Cardiovascular Disease Prevention: A Review Part 1

Efforts to better control risk factors for cardiovascular disease and prevent the development of subsequent events are crucial to maintaining healthy populations. In today's busy practice environment and with the overwhelming pace of new research findings, ensuring appropriate emphasis and implementation of evidence-based preventive cardiovascular care can be challenging. The ABCDEF approach to cardiovascular disease prevention is intended to improve dissemination of contemporary best practices and facilitate the implementation of comprehensive preventive strategies for clinicians. This review serves as a succinct yet authoritative overview for internists and subspecialty cardiologists not otherwise focused on cardiovascular prevention. The goal of this 2-part series is to compile a state-of-the-art list of elements central to both primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease, using an ABCDEF checklist, with particular focus on recent society guideline updates. In Part 1 we highlight developments in cardiovascular risk assessment tools, summarize important recent aspirin trials, discuss prevention considerations in atrial fibrillation, and review guidelines for blood pressure categorization, goals, and therapy.

The rise and fall of aspirin in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease

Aspirin is one of the most frequently used drugs worldwide and is generally considered effective for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. By contrast, the role of aspirin in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease is controversial. Early trials evaluating aspirin for primary prevention, done before the turn of the millennium, suggested reductions in myocardial infarction and stroke (although not mortality), and an increased risk of bleeding. In an effort to balance the risks and benefits of aspirin, international guidelines on primary prevention of cardiovascular disease have typically recommended aspirin only when a substantial 10-year risk of cardiovascular events exists. However, in 2018, three large randomised clinical trials of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease showed little or no benefit and have even suggested net harm. In this narrative Review, we reappraise the role of aspirin in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, contextualising data from historical and contemporary trials.

Low-Dose Aspirin for the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Diabetic Individuals: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Control Trials and Trial Sequential Analysis

Background: Evidence of low-dose aspirin as the primary prevention strategy for cardiovascular disease (CVD) in diabetes are unclear. This study was designed to evaluate the effect of low-dose aspirin use for the primary prevention of CVD in diabetes. Methods: We collected randomized controlled trials of low-dose aspirin for the primary prevention of CVD in adults with diabetes lasting at least 12 months from Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to 10 November 2018. Two reviewers extracted data and appraised the reporting quality according to a predetermined protocol (CRD4201811830). This review was conducted using Cochrane standards, trial sequential analysis, and the Grading of Recommendation. The primary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE, including non-fatal myocardial infarction, ischemia stroke, and cardiovascular death) and an incidence of major hemorrhage (major intracranial hemorrhage and major gastrointestinal bleeding). Results: In this primary prevention (number = 29,814 participants) meta-analysis, low-dose aspirin use reduced the risk of MACE by 9% and increased the risk of major hemorrhage by 24%. The benefits were only observed in subjects of age ≥ 60 years while reducing the same risk of MACE. In efficacy, it reduced the risk of stroke but not myocardial infarction. No increase in all-cause mortality or cardiovascular death was observed. Conclusions: We suggested the use of low-dose aspirin as the primary prevention strategy for CVD in diabetes, particularly in an older population. The absolute benefits were largely counterbalanced by the bleeding hazard.

Aspirin for primary prevention: Is this the end of the road?

Aspirin is one of the oldest and most commonly used cardiovascular drugs. Despite there being high-quality evidence supporting the use of aspirin for patients with known cardiovascular disease, a definitive consensus regarding its use for patients at risk for cardiovascular disease (and without established cardiovascular disease) has never been reached. Many randomized control trials have produced conflicting results, and consequently, society guidelines have issued differring recommendations. Three major trials were published in 2018, which supplement the existing data on aspirin's role in primary prevention and provide further guidance on this contentious issue. This article reviews the history of aspirin through the last two decades, with special emphasis on these new trials.

Association of Daily Aspirin Therapy With Risk of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients With Chronic Hepatitis B

IMPORTANCE

Antiviral therapy cannot erase hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) risk in patients with chronic hepatitis B, and it is not indicated for most hepatitis B virus (HBV) carriers. Another effective way of reducing HCC risk needs to be developed. Aspirin may prevent cancer development, but clinical evidence in patients with HBV-related HCC remains limited.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the association of daily aspirin therapy with HBV-related HCC risk.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this Taiwan nationwide cohort study, we screened 204 507 patients with chronic hepatitis B for the period January 1, 1997, to December 31, 2012. After excluding patients with confounding conditions, 2123 patients who continuously received daily aspirin for 90 or more days (treated group) were randomly matched 1:4 with 8492 patients who had never received antiplatelet therapy (untreated group) by means of propensity scores, consisting of the follow-up index date, baseline characteristics, and potentially chemopreventive drug use during follow-up. Data were analyzed from August 1 to November 30, 2018.

EXPOSURES

Daily aspirin therapy during the study period.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Both cumulative incidence of and hazard ratios (HRs) for HCC development were analyzed after adjusting patient mortality as a competing risk event.

RESULTS

Of the 10 615 patients included in the analysis, 7690 (72.4%) were men; mean (SD) age was 58.8 (11.8) years. The cumulative incidence of HCC in the treated group was significantly lower than that in the untreated group in 5 years (5.20%; 95% CI, 4.11%-6.29% vs 7.87%; 95% CI, 7.15%-8.60%; P < .001). In the multivariable regression analysis, aspirin therapy was independently associated with a reduced HCC risk (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.58-0.86; P < .001). Sensitivity subgroup analyses also verified this association (all HRs <1.0). In addition, older age (HR, 1.01 per year; 95% CI, 1.00-1.02), male sex (HR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.43-2.14), and cirrhosis (HR, 2.89; 95% CI, 2.45-3.40) were independently associated with an increased HCC risk, but nucleos(t)ide analogue (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.41-0.71) or statin (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.42-0.90) use was correlated with a decreased HCC risk.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Daily aspirin therapy may be associated with a reduced risk of HBV-related HCC.

Prevention of atherothrombotic events in patients with diabetes mellitus: from antithrombotic therapies to new-generation glucose-lowering drugs

Diabetes mellitus is an important risk factor for a first cardiovascular event and for worse outcomes after a cardiovascular event has occurred. This situation might be caused, at least in part, by the prothrombotic status observed in patients with diabetes. Therefore, contemporary antithrombotic strategies, including more potent agents or drug combinations, might provide greater clinical benefit in patients with diabetes than in those without diabetes. In this Consensus Statement, our Working Group explores the mechanisms of platelet and coagulation activity, the current debate on antiplatelet therapy in primary cardiovascular disease prevention, and the benefit of various antithrombotic approaches in secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes. While acknowledging that current data are often derived from underpowered, observational studies or subgroup analyses of larger trials, we propose antithrombotic strategies for patients with diabetes in various cardiovascular settings (primary prevention, stable coronary artery disease, acute coronary syndromes, ischaemic stroke and transient ischaemic attack, peripheral artery disease, atrial fibrillation, and venous thromboembolism). Finally, we summarize the improvements in cardiovascular outcomes observed with the latest glucose-lowering drugs, and on the basis of the available evidence, we expand and integrate current guideline recommendations on antithrombotic strategies in patients with diabetes for both primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

Aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular outcomes in diabetes mellitus: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The safety and efficacy of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes mellitus remains controversial.

DESIGN

A meta-analysis to investigate the effects of aspirin for the prevention of cardiovascular disease in diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

Ten randomized controlled trials were selected using MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases until 27 September 2018. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and risk differences (RDs) reported as incident events per 1000 person-years were calculated.

RESULTS

In 33,679 patients, aspirin did not significantly reduce the risk of major adverse cardiovascular outcomes (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.87-1.00, P = 0.06; RD -0.68 incident cases per 1000 person-years (95% CI -1.54, 0.17)), cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83-1.09, P = 0.49; RD 0.11 incident cases per 1000 person-years (95% CI -0.80, 1.02)), myocardial infarction (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75-1.11, P = 0.36; RD -0.66 incident cases per 1000 person-years (95% CI -2.07, 0.75)), or stroke (RR 0.91, 95% C, 0.76-1.10, P = 0.33; RD -0.55 incident cases per 1000 person-years (95% CI -1.57, 0.47)). There was a significantly higher risk of total bleeding associated with aspirin (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.07-1.55, P = 0.01; RD 1.49 incident cases per 1000 person-years (95% CI 0.36, 2.61)).

CONCLUSION

The use of aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes mellitus increases the risk of total bleeding without reducing the risk of major adverse cardiovascular outcomes.

Association of Aspirin Use for Primary Prevention With Cardiovascular Events and Bleeding Events: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

The role for aspirin in cardiovascular primary prevention remains controversial, with potential benefits limited by an increased bleeding risk.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the association of aspirin use for primary prevention with cardiovascular events and bleeding.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed and Embase were searched on Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials from the earliest available date through November 1, 2018.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials enrolling at least 1000 participants with no known cardiovascular disease and a follow-up of at least 12 months were included. Included studies compared aspirin use with no aspirin (placebo or no treatment).

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data were screened and extracted independently by both investigators. Bayesian and frequentist meta-analyses were performed.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary cardiovascular outcome was a composite of cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke. The primary bleeding outcome was any major bleeding (defined by the individual studies).

RESULTS

A total of 13 trials randomizing 164 225 participants with 1 050 511 participant-years of follow-up were included. The median age of trial participants was 62 years (range, 53-74), 77 501 (47%) were men, 30 361 (19%) had diabetes, and the median baseline risk of the primary cardiovascular outcome was 9.2% (range, 2.6%-15.9%). Aspirin use was associated with significant reductions in the composite cardiovascular outcome compared with no aspirin (57.1 per 10 000 participant-years with aspirin and 61.4 per 10 000 participant-years with no aspirin) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89 [95% credible interval, 0.84-0.95]; absolute risk reduction, 0.38% [95% CI, 0.20%-0.55%]; number needed to treat, 265). Aspirin use was associated with an increased risk of major bleeding events compared with no aspirin (23.1 per 10 000 participant-years with aspirin and 16.4 per 10 000 participant-years with no aspirin) (HR, 1.43 [95% credible interval, 1.30-1.56]; absolute risk increase, 0.47% [95% CI, 0.34%-0.62%]; number needed to harm, 210).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The use of aspirin in individuals without cardiovascular disease was associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular events and an increased risk of major bleeding. This information may inform discussions with patients about aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular events and bleeding.

Design and rationale for the ASSOS study: Appropriateness of aspirin use in medical outpatients a multicenter and observational study

Objective:

The aim of this study was to describe the current status of aspirin use and the demographic characteristics of patients on aspirin for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular diseases.

Methods:

The Appropriateness of Aspirin Use in Medical Outpatients: A Multicenter, Observational Study (ASSOS) trial was a multicenter, cross-sectional, and observational study conducted in Turkey. The study was planned to include 5000 patients from 14 cities in Turkey. The data were collected at one visit, and the current clinical practice regarding aspirin use was evaluated (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT03387384).

Results:

The study enrolled all consecutive patients who were admitted to the outpatient cardiology clinics from March 2018 until June 2018. Patients should be at least 18 years old, have signed written informed consent, and on aspirin (80–325 mg) therapy within the last 30 days. Cardiologists from the hospital participates in the study. Patients were divided into 2 categories according to presence or absence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, namely secondary prevention group and primary prevention group, respectively. The appropriate use of aspirin in the primary and secondary prevention groups was assessed according to the European Society of Cardiology guidelines and US Preventive Services Task Force. The patients’ gastrointestinal bleeding risk factors and colorectal cancer risk were evaluated.

Conclusion:

The ASSOS registry will be the most comprehensive and largest study in Turkey evaluating the appropriateness of aspirin use. The results of this study help understand the potential misuse of aspirin in a real-world setting.

Update of Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients Without Known Cardiovascular Disease

Platelet activation and aggregation play a critical role in thrombosis, a fundamental pathophysiologic event responsible for the acute clinical manifestations of atherothrombotic events such as acute coronary syndrome, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke/transient ischemic attack and peripheral artery disease. Dual antiplatelet therapy (low-dose aspirin plus ADP-P2Y12 receptor blockers) has become the cornerstone of therapy for the management of acute and chronic coronary artery disease and the prevention of ischemic complications associated with percutaneous coronary intervention. However, dual antiplatelet therapy in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients without known cardiovascular disease did not significantly reduce the risk of cardiovascular events, such as myocardial infarction, stroke or death, but significantly increased the rate of bleeding. Furthermore, despite multiple randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of aspirin use in patients without known cardiovascular disease, its role in primary prevention is still unclear, especially in patients with a higher risk of cardiovascular disease (non-diabetic individuals with >2 risk factors for coronary artery disease, elderly >60 years with additional risk factors, and patients with diabetes). Currently, there are four ongoing randomized controlled trials aiming to fill the missing gap in the efficacy and safety of aspirin therapy for primary prevention in these patients. The current European and United States Guidelines agree that primary prevention of cardiovascular disease is essential, but there are some substantial differences in risk estimation and treatment strategies among patients without known cardiovascular disease. This short review is focused on these differences and practical treatment approach to these patients based on present European and United States recommendations.

Impact of acetylsalicylic acid on primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases: A meta-analysis of randomized trials

Numerous studies have investigated use of acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) for prevention of cardiovascular deaths. The vast majority of the work in this area has focused on secondary prevention. However, underuse of ASA still remains a major issue. Fewer studies have investigated the impact of ASA on primary prevention of cardiovascular death. A meta-analysis of individual participant data from six randomized studies, published in 2009, showed decrease in serious vascular events but at the cost of causing increased bleeding and hemorrhagic stroke. Recent studies have raised a number of key questions regarding the benefits and risks of using ASA for primary prevention.

Effect of Aspirin on All-Cause Mortality in the Healthy Elderly

BACKGROUND

In the primary analysis of the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) trial, now published in the Journal, we report that the daily use of aspirin did not provide a benefit with regard to the primary end point of disability-free survival among older adults. A numerically higher rate of the secondary end point of death from any cause was observed with aspirin than with placebo.

METHODS

From 2010 through 2014, we enrolled community-dwelling persons in Australia and the United States who were 70 years of age or older (or ≥65 years of age among blacks and Hispanics in the United States) and did not have cardiovascular disease, dementia, or disability. Participants were randomly assigned to receive 100 mg of enteric-coated aspirin or placebo. Deaths were classified according to the underlying cause by adjudicators who were unaware of trial-group assignments. Hazard ratios were calculated to compare mortality between the aspirin group and the placebo group, and post hoc exploratory analyses of specific causes of death were performed.

RESULTS

Of the 19,114 persons who were enrolled, 9525 were assigned to receive aspirin and 9589 to receive placebo. A total of 1052 deaths occurred during a median of 4.7 years of follow-up. The risk of death from any cause was 12.7 events per 1000 person-years in the aspirin group and 11.1 events per 1000 person-years in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01 to 1.29). Cancer was the major contributor to the higher mortality in the aspirin group, accounting for 1.6 excess deaths per 1000 person-years. Cancer-related death occurred in 3.1% of the participants in the aspirin group and in 2.3% of those in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.56).

CONCLUSIONS

Higher all-cause mortality was observed among apparently healthy older adults who received daily aspirin than among those who received placebo and was attributed primarily to cancer-related death. In the context of previous studies, this result was unexpected and should be interpreted with caution. (Funded by the National Institute on Aging and others; ASPREE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01038583 .).

Effect of Aspirin on Cardiovascular Events and Bleeding in the Healthy Elderly

BACKGROUND

Aspirin is a well-established therapy for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular events. However, its role in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease is unclear, especially in older persons, who have an increased risk.

METHODS

From 2010 through 2014, we enrolled community-dwelling men and women in Australia and the United States who were 70 years of age or older (or ≥65 years of age among blacks and Hispanics in the United States) and did not have cardiovascular disease, dementia, or disability. Participants were randomly assigned to receive 100 mg of enteric-coated aspirin or placebo. The primary end point was a composite of death, dementia, or persistent physical disability; results for this end point are reported in another article in the Journal. Secondary end points included major hemorrhage and cardiovascular disease (defined as fatal coronary heart disease, nonfatal myocardial infarction, fatal or nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure).

RESULTS

Of the 19,114 persons who were enrolled in the trial, 9525 were assigned to receive aspirin and 9589 to receive placebo. After a median of 4.7 years of follow-up, the rate of cardiovascular disease was 10.7 events per 1000 person-years in the aspirin group and 11.3 events per 1000 person-years in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.08). The rate of major hemorrhage was 8.6 events per 1000 person-years and 6.2 events per 1000 person-years, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.18 to 1.62; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of low-dose aspirin as a primary prevention strategy in older adults resulted in a significantly higher risk of major hemorrhage and did not result in a significantly lower risk of cardiovascular disease than placebo. (Funded by the National Institute on Aging and others; ASPREE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01038583 .).

Effects of Aspirin for Primary Prevention in Persons with Diabetes Mellitus

BACKGROUND

Diabetes mellitus is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events. Aspirin use reduces the risk of occlusive vascular events but increases the risk of bleeding; the balance of benefits and hazards for the prevention of first cardiovascular events in patients with diabetes is unclear.

METHODS

We randomly assigned adults who had diabetes but no evident cardiovascular disease to receive aspirin at a dose of 100 mg daily or matching placebo. The primary efficacy outcome was the first serious vascular event (i.e., myocardial infarction, stroke or transient ischemic attack, or death from any vascular cause, excluding any confirmed intracranial hemorrhage). The primary safety outcome was the first major bleeding event (i.e., intracranial hemorrhage, sight-threatening bleeding event in the eye, gastrointestinal bleeding, or other serious bleeding). Secondary outcomes included gastrointestinal tract cancer.

RESULTS

A total of 15,480 participants underwent randomization. During a mean follow-up of 7.4 years, serious vascular events occurred in a significantly lower percentage of participants in the aspirin group than in the placebo group (658 participants [8.5%] vs. 743 [9.6%]; rate ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 0.97; P=0.01). In contrast, major bleeding events occurred in 314 participants (4.1%) in the aspirin group, as compared with 245 (3.2%) in the placebo group (rate ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.52; P=0.003), with most of the excess being gastrointestinal bleeding and other extracranial bleeding. There was no significant difference between the aspirin group and the placebo group in the incidence of gastrointestinal tract cancer (157 participants [2.0%] and 158 [2.0%], respectively) or all cancers (897 [11.6%] and 887 [11.5%]); long-term follow-up for these outcomes is planned.

CONCLUSIONS

Aspirin use prevented serious vascular events in persons who had diabetes and no evident cardiovascular disease at trial entry, but it also caused major bleeding events. The absolute benefits were largely counterbalanced by the bleeding hazard. (Funded by the British Heart Foundation and others; ASCEND Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN60635500 ; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00135226 .).

Effect of Aspirin on Disability-free Survival in the Healthy Elderly

BACKGROUND

Information on the use of aspirin to increase healthy independent life span in older persons is limited. Whether 5 years of daily low-dose aspirin therapy would extend disability-free life in healthy seniors is unclear.

METHODS

From 2010 through 2014, we enrolled community-dwelling persons in Australia and the United States who were 70 years of age or older (or ≥65 years of age among blacks and Hispanics in the United States) and did not have cardiovascular disease, dementia, or physical disability. Participants were randomly assigned to receive 100 mg per day of enteric-coated aspirin or placebo orally. The primary end point was a composite of death, dementia, or persistent physical disability. Secondary end points reported in this article included the individual components of the primary end point and major hemorrhage.

RESULTS

A total of 19,114 persons with a median age of 74 years were enrolled, of whom 9525 were randomly assigned to receive aspirin and 9589 to receive placebo. A total of 56.4% of the participants were women, 8.7% were nonwhite, and 11.0% reported previous regular aspirin use. The trial was terminated at a median of 4.7 years of follow-up after a determination was made that there would be no benefit with continued aspirin use with regard to the primary end point. The rate of the composite of death, dementia, or persistent physical disability was 21.5 events per 1000 person-years in the aspirin group and 21.2 per 1000 person-years in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92 to 1.11; P=0.79). The rate of adherence to the assigned intervention was 62.1% in the aspirin group and 64.1% in the placebo group in the final year of trial participation. Differences between the aspirin group and the placebo group were not substantial with regard to the secondary individual end points of death from any cause (12.7 events per 1000 person-years in the aspirin group and 11.1 events per 1000 person-years in the placebo group), dementia, or persistent physical disability. The rate of major hemorrhage was higher in the aspirin group than in the placebo group (3.8% vs. 2.8%; hazard ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.18 to 1.62; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Aspirin use in healthy elderly persons did not prolong disability-free survival over a period of 5 years but led to a higher rate of major hemorrhage than placebo. (Funded by the National Institute on Aging and others; ASPREE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01038583 .).

Interactions between the Cyclooxygenase Metabolic Pathway and the Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone Systems: Their Effect on Cardiovascular Risk, from Theory to the Clinical Practice

Coronary artery disease (CAD) and stroke are the most common and serious long-term complications of hypertension. Acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) significantly reduces their incidence and cardiovascular mortality. The RAAS activation plays an important role in pathogenesis of CVD, resulting in increased vascular resistance, proliferation of vascular-smooth-muscle-cells, and cardiac hypertrophy. Drugs acting on the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) are demonstrated to reduce cardiovascular events in population with cardiovascular disease (CVD). The cyclooxygenase inhibitors limit the beneficial effect of RAAS-inhibitors, which in turn may be important in subjects with hypertension, CAD, and congestive heart failure. These observations apply to most of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and ASA at high doses. Nevertheless, there is no strong evidence confirming presence of similar effects of cardioprotective ASA doses. The benefit of combined therapy with low-doses of ASA is-in some cases-significantly higher than that of monotherapy. So far, the significance of ASA in optimizing the pharmacotherapy remains not fully established. A better understanding of its influence on the particular CVD should contribute to more precise identification of patients in whom benefits of ASA outweigh the complication risk. This brief review summarizes the data regarding usefulness and safety of the ASA combination with drugs acting directly on the RAAS.

Use of aspirin to reduce risk of initial vascular events in patients at moderate risk of cardiovascular disease (ARRIVE): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The use of aspirin in the primary prevention of cardiovascular events remains controversial. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of aspirin versus placebo in patients with a moderate estimated risk of a first cardiovascular event.

METHODS

ARRIVE is a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre study done in seven countries. Eligible patients were aged 55 years (men) or 60 years (women) and older and had an average cardiovascular risk, deemed to be moderate on the basis of the number of specific risk factors. We excluded patients at high risk of gastrointestinal bleeding or other bleeding, or diabetes. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with a computer-generated randomisation code to receive enteric-coated aspirin tablets (100 mg) or placebo tablets, once daily. Patients, investigators, and others involved in treatment or data analysis were masked to treatment allocation. The primary efficacy endpoint was a composite outcome of time to first occurrence of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, unstable angina, stroke, or transient ischaemic attack. Safety endpoints were haemorrhagic events and incidence of other adverse events, and were analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00501059.

FINDINGS

Between July 5, 2007, and Nov 15, 2016, 12 546 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive aspirin (n=6270) or placebo (n=6276) at 501 study sites. Median follow-up was 60 months. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the primary endpoint occurred in 269 (4·29%) patients in the aspirin group versus 281 (4·48%) patients in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·96; 95% CI 0·81-1·13; p=0·6038). Gastrointestinal bleeding events (mostly mild) occurred in 61 (0·97%) patients in the aspirin group versus 29 (0·46%) in the placebo group (HR 2·11; 95% CI 1·36-3·28; p=0·0007). The overall incidence rate of serious adverse events was similar in both treatment groups (n=1266 [20·19%] in the aspirin group vs n=1311 [20·89%] in the placebo group. The overall incidence of adverse events was similar in both treatment groups (n=5142 [82·01%] vs n=5129 [81·72%] in the placebo group). The overall incidence of treatment-related adverse events was low (n=1050 [16·75%] vs n=850 [13·54%] in the placebo group; p<0·0001). There were 321 documented deaths in the intention-to-treat population (n=160 [2·55%] vs n=161 [2·57%] of 6276 patients in the placebo group).

INTERPRETATION

The event rate was much lower than expected, which is probably reflective of contemporary risk management strategies, making the study more representative of a low-risk population. The role of aspirin in primary prevention among patients at moderate risk could therefore not be addressed. Nonetheless, the findings with respect to aspirin's effects are consistent with those observed in the previously published low-risk primary prevention studies.

FUNDING

Bayer.

Antithrombotic therapies for elderly patients: handling problems originating from their comorbidities

Compared with younger people, elderly people have higher risks for both thrombosis and bleeding. Furthermore, comorbidities frequently found in elderly patients complicate the management of antithrombotic therapy. Thus, when treating these patients, physicians often find it difficult to incorporate the principles of evidence-based medicine and must determine the best treatment option for each patient. Recently, in the fields of cerebrovascular and cardiovascular diseases, researchers have been rapidly accumulating new data regarding antithrombotic therapy, particularly in the areas of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). However, information related to elderly patients receiving antithrombotic therapy is still relatively limited. There are also more and more publications describing how antithrombotic therapy affects the pathogenesis of non-thrombotic diseases. Similarly, the number of reports concerning adherence to this therapy has been increasing lately. However, no review articles detailing these findings have yet been published. In actual clinical practice, antithrombotic therapy in the elderly is not a treatment strategy targeted to only one organ or disease. Rather, it requires an interdisciplinary approach aimed at maintaining the overall health of the patient. Thus, to assist physicians’ decision-making processes for elderly patients, an overview of recent findings related to the evidence regarding concomitant medications, the secondary benefits of antithrombotic therapy for patients with comorbidities, and evidence regarding medication adherence is provided.

Effects of aspirin on risks of vascular events and cancer according to bodyweight and dose: analysis of individual patient data from randomised trials

BACKGROUND

A one-dose-fits-all approach to use of aspirin has yielded only modest benefits in long-term prevention of cardiovascular events, possibly due to underdosing in patients of large body size and excess dosing in patients of small body size, which might also affect other outcomes.

METHODS

Using individual patient data, we analysed the modifying effects of bodyweight (10 kg bands) and height (10 cm bands) on the effects of low doses (≤100 mg) and higher doses (300-325 mg or ≥500 mg) of aspirin in randomised trials of aspirin in primary prevention of cardiovascular events. We stratified the findings by age, sex, and vascular risk factors, and validated them in trials of aspirin in secondary prevention of stroke. Additionally, we assessed whether any weight or height dependence was evident for the effect of aspirin on 20-year risk of colorectal cancer or any in-trial cancer.

RESULTS

Among ten eligible trials of aspirin in primary prevention (including 117 279 participants), bodyweight varied four-fold and trial median weight ranged from 60·0 kg to 81·2 kg (p<0·0001). The ability of 75-100 mg aspirin to reduce cardiovascular events decreased with increasing weight (pinteraction=0·0072), with benefit seen in people weighing 50-69 kg (hazard ratio [HR] 0·75 [95% CI 0·65-0·85]) but not in those weighing 70 kg or more (0·95 [0·86-1·04]; 1·09 [0·93-1·29] for vascular death). Furthermore, the case fatality of a first cardiovascular event was increased by low-dose aspirin in people weighing 70 kg or more (odds ratio 1·33 [95% CI 1·08-1·64], p=0·0082). Higher doses of aspirin (≥325 mg) had the opposite interaction with bodyweight (difference pinteraction=0·0013), reducing cardiovascular events only at higher weight (pinteraction=0·017). Findings were similar in men and women, in people with diabetes, in trials of aspirin in secondary prevention, and in relation to height (pinteraction=0·0025 for cardiovascular events). Aspirin-mediated reductions in long-term risk of colorectal cancer were also weight dependent (pinteraction=0·038). Stratification by body size also revealed harms due to excess dosing: risk of sudden death was increased by aspirin in people at low weight for dose (pinteraction=0·0018) and risk of all-cause death was increased in people weighing less than 50 kg who were receiving 75-100 mg aspirin (HR 1·52 [95% CI 1·04-2·21], p=0·031). In participants aged 70 years or older, the 3-year risk of cancer was also increased by aspirin (1·20 [1·03-1·47], p=0·02), particularly in those weighing less than 70 kg (1·31 [1·07-1·61], p=0·009) and consequently in women (1·44 [1·11-1·87], p=0·0069).

INTERPRETATION

Low doses of aspirin (75-100 mg) were only effective in preventing vascular events in patients weighing less than 70 kg, and had no benefit in the 80% of men and nearly 50% of all women weighing 70 kg or more. By contrast, higher doses of aspirin were only effective in patients weighing 70 kg or more. Given that aspirin's effects on other outcomes, including cancer, also showed interactions with body size, a one-dose-fits-all approach to aspirin is unlikely to be optimal, and a more tailored strategy is required.

FUNDING

Wellcome Trust and National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre.

Development of a standardized definition for clinically significant bleeding in the ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) trial

Background

Bleeding is the major risk of aspirin treatment, especially in the elderly. A consensus definition for clinically significant bleeding (CSB) in aspirin primary prevention trials is lacking in the literature.

Methods

This paper details the development, modification, application, and quality control of a definition for clinically significant bleeding in the ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) trial, a primary prevention trial of aspirin in 19,114 community-dwelling elderly men and women. In ASPREE a confirmed bleeding event needed to meet criteria both for substantiated bleeding and clinical significance. Substantiated bleeding was defined as: 1) observed bleeding, 2) a reasonable report of symptoms of bleeding, 3) medical, nursing or paramedical report, or 4) imaging evidence. Bleeding was defined as clinically significant if it: 1) required transfusion of red blood cells, 2) required admission to the hospital for >24 h, or prolonged a hospitalization, with bleeding as the principal reason, 3) required surgery to stop the bleeding, or 4) resulted in death. Bleeding sites were subclassified as upper gastrointestinal, lower gastrointestinal, intracranial (hemorrhagic stroke, subarachnoid hemorrhage, subdural hematoma, extradural hematoma, or other), or other sites. Potential events were retrieved from medical records, self-report or notification from treating doctors. Two reviewers adjudicated each event using electronic adjudication software, and discordant cases were reviewed by a third reviewer. Adjudication rules evolved to become more strictly defined as the trial progressed and decision rules were added to assist with frequent scenarios such as post-operative bleeding.

Conclusions

This paper provides a detailed methodologic description of the development of a standardized definition for clinically significant bleeding and provides a benchmark for development of a consensus definition for future aspirin primary prevention trials.

Trial registration

ASPREE is registered on the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number Register (ISRCTN83772183) and on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01038583).

ASCEND: A Study of Cardiovascular Events iN Diabetes: Characteristics of a randomized trial of aspirin and of omega-3 fatty acid supplementation in 15,480 people with diabetes

Objectives

The use of aspirin for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is firmly established, and the proportional reductions in heart attacks and strokes appear to be similar in people with and without diabetes. Uncertainty remains about the role of antiplatelet treatments for primary prevention of CVD, and guidelines vary in their recommendations. It has also been hypothesized that long-term aspirin can prevent gastro-intestinal and other cancers.

Observational studies suggest associations between higher intakes of omega-3 fatty acids (FA) and lower rates of CVD, but there is no large-scale randomized evidence to support using prophylactic omega-3 FA supplementation in primary prevention.

ASCEND is a randomized trial assessing whether 100 mg daily aspirin safely prevents CVD and cancer in patients with diabetes without known arterial disease. It is also assessing whether supplementation with 1 g omega-3 FA daily prevents CVD. This paper describes the methods and baseline characteristics of the randomized participants.

Methods and results

Between 2005 and 2011, using mail-based methods, 15,480 people with diabetes were randomized to aspirin versus placebo and, in a factorial design, to omega-3 FA supplementation versus placebo. Blood and urine samples were collected to allow baseline stratification by biochemical prognostic variables (e.g. HbA1c, blood lipids). Follow-up is for a median of at least 7 years.

Conclusions

Demonstrating that prophylactic aspirin safely reduces the risk of CVD or cancer in the primary prevention setting, or that omega-3 FA supplementation prevents CVD, would be relevant to hundreds of millions of people worldwide who are currently not receiving such therapies. The results of ASCEND will be reported in 2018.

Effects of daily aspirin on cancer incidence and mortality in the elderly Japanese

BACKGROUND

Long-term follow-up of studies to investigate preventive effects of aspirin on arterial thrombosis indicate that aspirin reduces the incidence and mortality of some cancers in Western populations.

OBJECTIVES

To explore the effects of aspirin on cancer incidence and mortality in the elderly Japanese.

PATIENTS/METHODS

Patients aged 60 to 85 years, presenting with hypertension, dyslipidemia, or diabetes mellitus (n = 14 601, 7297 in the aspirin group and 7304 in the no-aspirin group) participated the Japanese Primary Prevention Project (JPPP), a multicenter, open-label, randomized, parallel-group trial. A subanalysis of JPPP was performed to analyze the incidence of newly diagnosed cancer and death related to cancer.

RESULTS

The cumulative incidence of newly diagnosed cancer was 5.60% (4.65-6.64%) in the aspirin group and 4.14% (3.67-4.66%) in the no-aspirin group. The hazard ratio for newly diagnosed cancer was 1.24 (1.06-1.46), and the cancer incidence was significantly higher in the aspirin group. The cumulative cancer mortality was 1.96% (1.65-2.31%) in the aspirin group and 1.87% (1.56-2.22%) in the no-aspirin group, with no statistically significant difference. The Fine and Gray model suggested that the difference in the incidence of newly diagnosed cancer between the two groups decreased year by year.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose aspirin use did not reduce the cancer incidence or cancer mortality during a 5-year-average study period in the elderly Japanese. The cancer incidence in the aspirin group might decrease, however, to less than that in the no-aspirin group after the study period. Aspirin use might have led to earlier cancer diagnosis in our study.

Management of patients on antithrombotic agents undergoing emergency and elective endoscopy: joint Asian Pacific Association of Gastroenterology (APAGE) and Asian Pacific Society for Digestive Endoscopy (APSDE) practice guidelines

This Guideline is a joint official statement of the Asian Pacific Association of Gastroenterology (APAGE) and the Asian Pacific Society for Digestive Endoscopy (APSDE). It was developed in response to the increasing use of antithrombotic agents (antiplatelet agents and anticoagulants) in patients undergoing gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy in Asia. After reviewing current practice guidelines in Europe and the USA, the joint committee identified unmet needs, noticed inconsistencies, raised doubts about certain recommendations and recognised significant discrepancies in clinical practice between different regions. We developed this joint official statement based on a systematic review of the literature, critical appraisal of existing guidelines and expert consensus using a two-stage modified Delphi process. This joint APAGE-APSDE Practice Guideline is intended to be an educational tool that assists clinicians in improving care for patients on antithrombotics who require emergency or elective GI endoscopy in the Asian Pacific region.

Cardiovascular Screening and Primary Prevention in Older Adults

Evidence for preventive screening and therapeutic intervention for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease is limited for older adults. In this article, we review screening and prevention strategies, including lifestyle, modifiable risk factors, and medications, that may be considered in older adults, with a focus on those ≥75 years, accounting for age, frailty and functional status, medical conditions, and life expectancy.

Health relevance of the modification of low grade inflammation in ageing (inflammageing) and the role of nutrition

Ageing of the global population has become a public health concern with an important socio-economic dimension. Ageing is characterized by an increase in the concentration of inflammatory markers in the bloodstream, a phenomenon that has been termed "inflammageing". The inflammatory response is beneficial as an acute, transient reaction to harmful conditions, facilitating the defense, repair, turnover and adaptation of many tissues. However, chronic and low grade inflammation is likely to be detrimental for many tissues and for normal functions. We provide an overview of low grade inflammation (LGI) and determine the potential drivers and the effects of the "inflamed" phenotype observed in the elderly. We discuss the role of gut microbiota and immune system crosstalk and the gut-brain axis. Then, we focus on major health complications associated with LGI in the elderly, including mental health and wellbeing, metabolic abnormalities and infections. Finally, we discuss the possibility of manipulating LGI in the elderly by nutritional interventions. We provide an overview of the evidence that exists in the elderly for omega-3 fatty acid, probiotic, prebiotic, antioxidant and polyphenol interventions as a means to influence LGI. We conclude that slowing, controlling or reversing LGI is likely to be an important way to prevent, or reduce the severity of, age-related functional decline and the onset of conditions affecting health and well-being; that there is evidence to support specific dietary interventions as a strategy to control LGI; and that a continued research focus on this field is warranted.

Effectiveness and patient safety of platelet aggregation inhibitors in the prevention of cardiovascular disease and ischemic stroke in older adults - a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Platelet aggregation inhibitors (PAI) are among the most frequently prescribed drugs in older people, though evidence about risks and benefits of their use in older adults is scarce. The objectives of this systematic review are firstly to identify the risks and benefits of their use in the prevention and treatment of vascular events in older adults, and secondly to develop recommendations on discontinuing PAI in this population if risks outweigh benefits.

METHODS

Staged systematic review consisting of three searches. Searches 1 and 2 identified systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Search 3 included controlled intervention and observational studies from review-articles not included in searches 1 and 2. All articles were assessed by two independent reviewers regarding the type of study, age of participants, type of intervention, and clinically relevant outcomes. After data extraction and quality appraisal we developed recommendations to stop the prescribing of specific drugs in older adults following the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.

RESULTS

Overall, 2385 records were screened leading to an inclusion of 35 articles reporting on 22 systematic reviews and meta-analyses, 11 randomised controlled trials, and two observational studies. Mean ages ranged from 57.0 to 84.6 years. Ten studies included a subgroup analysis by age. Overall, based on the evaluated evidence, three recommendations were formulated. First, the use of acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in older people cannot be recommended due to an uncertainty in the risk-benefit ratio (weak recommendation; low quality of evidence). Secondly, the combination of ASA and clopidogrel in patients without specific indications should be avoided (strong recommendation; moderate quality of evidence). Lastly, to improve the effectiveness and reduce the risks of stroke prevention therapy in older people with atrial fibrillation (AF) and a CHA₂DS₂-VASc score of ≥ 2, the use of ASA for the primary prevention of stroke should be discontinued in preference for the use of oral anticoagulants (weak recommendation; low quality of evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of ASA for the primary prevention of CVD and the combination therapy of ASA and clopidogrel for the secondary prevention of vascular events in older people may not be justified. The use of oral anticoagulants instead of ASA in older people with atrial fibrillation may be recommended. Further high quality studies with older adults are needed.

Baseline Characteristics of Participants in the ASPREE (ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly) Study

BACKGROUND

There are no primary prevention trials of aspirin with relevant geriatric outcomes in elderly people. ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) is a placebo-controlled trial of low-dose aspirin that will determine whether 5 years of daily 100-mg enteric-coated aspirin extends disability-free and dementia-free life in a healthy elderly population and whether these benefits outweigh the risks.

METHODS

Set in primary care, this randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial has a composite primary endpoint of death, incident dementia or persistent physical disability. Participants aged 70+ years (non-minorities) or 65+ years (U.S. minorities) were free of cardiovascular disease, dementia, or physical disability and without a contraindication to, or indication for, aspirin. Baseline data include physical and lifestyle, personal and family medical history, hemoglobin, fasting glucose, creatinine, lipid panel, urinary albumin:creatinine ratio, cognition (3MS, HVLT-R, COWAT, SDMT), mood (CES-D-10), physical function (gait speed, grip strength), Katz activities of daily living and quality of life (SF-12).

RESULTS

Recruitment ended in December 2014 with 16,703 Australian and 2,411 U.S. participants, a median age of 74 (range 65-98) years and 56% women. Approximately 55% of the U.S. cohort were from minority groups; 9% of the total cohort. Proportions with hypertension, overweight, and chronic kidney disease were similar to age-matched populations from both countries although lower percentages had diabetes, dyslipidemia, and osteoarthritis.

DISCUSSION

Findings from ASPREE will be generalizable to a healthier older population in both countries and will assess whether the broad benefits of daily low-dose aspirin in prolonging independent life outweigh the risks.

How important is aspirin adherence when evaluating effectiveness of low-dose aspirin?

Low-dose aspirin (LDA) is advocated for women at high-risk of pre-eclampsia, providing a modest, 10%, reduction in risk. Cardiology meta-analyses demonstrate 18% reduction in serious vascular events with LDA. Non-responsiveness to aspirin (sometimes termed aspirin resistance) and variable clinical effectiveness are often attributed to suboptimal adherence. The aim of this review was to identify the scope of adherence assessments in RCTs evaluating aspirin effectiveness in cardiology and obstetrics and discuss the quality of information provided by current methods. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library, limited to humans and English language, for RCTs evaluating aspirin in cardiology; 14/03/13-13/03/16 and pregnancy 1957-13/03/16. Search terms; 'aspirin', 'acetylsalicylic acid' appearing adjacent to 'myocardial infarction' or 'pregnancy', 'pregnant', 'obstetric' were used. 38% (25/68) of obstetric and 32% (20/62) of cardiology RCTs assessed aspirin adherence and 24% (6/25) and 29% (6/21) of obstetric and cardiology RCTs, respectively, defined acceptable adherence. Semi-quantitative methods (pill counts, medication weighing) prevailed in obstetric RCTs (93%), qualitative methods (interviews, questionnaires) were more frequent in obstetrics (67%). Two obstetric RCTs quantified serum thromboxane B₂ and salicylic acid, but no quantitative methods were used in cardiology Aspirin has proven efficacy, but suboptimal adherence is widespread and difficult to accurately quantify. Little is currently known about aspirin adherence in pregnancy. RCTs evaluating aspirin effectiveness show over-reliance on qualitative adherence assessments vulnerable to inherent inaccuracies. Reliable adherence data is important to assess and optimise the clinical effectiveness of LDA. We propose that adherence should be formally assessed in future trials and that development of quantitative assessments may prove valuable for trial protocols.

Contemporary Primary Prevention Aspirin Use by Cardiovascular Disease Risk: Impact of US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations, 2007-2015: A Serial, Cross-sectional Study

BACKGROUND

No previous study has evaluated the impact of past US Preventive Services Task Force statements on primary prevention (PP) aspirin use in a primary care setting. The aim of this study was to evaluate temporal changes in PP aspirin use in a primary care population, stratifying patients by their 10-year global cardiovascular disease risk, in response to the 2009 statement.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This study estimated biannual aspirin use prevalence using electronic health record data from primary care clinics within the Fairview Health System (Minnesota) from 2007 to 2015. A total of 94 270 patient encounters had complete data to estimate a 10-year cardiovascular disease risk score using the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association global risk estimator. Patients were stratified into low- (<10%), intermediate- (10-20%), and high- (≥20%) risk groups. Over the 9-year period, PP aspirin use averaged 43%. When stratified by low, intermediate and high risk, average PP aspirin use was 41%, 63%, and 73%, respectively. Average PP aspirin use decreased after the publication of the 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement: from 45% to 40% in the low-risk group; from 66% to 62% in the intermediate-risk group; and from 76% to 73% in the high-risk group, before and after the guideline.

CONCLUSIONS

Publication of the 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation was not associated with an increase in aspirin use. High risk PP patients utilized aspirin at high rates. Patients at intermediate risk were less intensively treated, and patients at low risk used aspirin at relatively high rates. These data may inform future aspirin guideline dissemination.