Effect of aspirin dose on mortality and cardiovascular events in people with diabetes: a meta-analysis

Effect of low-dose aspirin on health outcomes: An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

AIMS

This study aimed to use an umbrella review methodology to capture the range of outcomes that were associated with low-dose aspirin and to systematically assess the credibility of this evidence.

METHODS

Aspirin is associated with several health outcomes, but the overall benefit/risk balance related to aspirin use is unclear. We searched three major databases up to 15 August 2019 for meta-analyses of observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including low-dose aspirin compared to placebo or other treatments. Based on random-effects summary effect sizes, 95% prediction intervals, heterogeneity, small-study effects and excess significance, significant meta-analyses of observational studies were classified from convincing (class I) to weak (class IV). For meta-analyses of RCTs, outcomes with random effects P-value < .005 and a moderate/high GRADE assessment, were classified as strong evidence. From 6802 hits, 67 meta-analyses (156 outcomes) were eligible.

RESULTS

Observational data showed highly suggestive evidence for aspirin use and increased risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (RR = 2.28, 95% CI: 1.97-2.64). In RCTs of low-dose aspirin, we observed strong evidence for lower risk of CVD in people without CVD (RR = 0.83; 95% CI: 0.79-0.87) and in general population (RR = 0.83; 95% CI: 0.79-0.89), higher risk of major gastrointestinal (RR = 1.47; 95% CI: 1.26-1.72) and intracranial bleeding (RR = 1.34; 95% CI: 1.18-1.53), and of major bleedings in people without CVD (RR = 1.62; 95% CI: 1.26-2.08).

CONCLUSION

Compared to other active medications, low-dose aspirin had strong evidence for lower risk of bleeding, but also lower comparative efficacy. Low-dose aspirin significantly lowers CVD risk and increases risk of bleeding. Evidence for multiple other health outcomes is limited.

Type 2 Diabetes: How Much of an Autoimmune Disease?

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is characterized by a progressive status of chronic, low-grade inflammation (LGI) that accompanies the whole trajectory of the disease, from its inception to complication development. Accumulating evidence is disclosing a long list of possible "triggers" of inflammatory responses, many of which are promoted by unhealthy lifestyle choices and advanced age. Diabetic patients show an altered number and function of immune cells, of both innate and acquired immunity. Reactive autoantibodies against islet antigens can be detected in a subpopulation of patients, while emerging data are also suggesting an altered function of specific T lymphocyte populations, including T regulatory (Treg) cells. These observations led to the hypothesis that part of the inflammatory response mounting in T2D is attributable to an autoimmune phenomenon. Here, we review recent data supporting this framework, with a specific focus on both tissue resident and circulating Treg populations. We also propose that selective interception (or expansion) of T cell subsets could be an alternative avenue to dampen inappropriate inflammatory responses without compromising immune responses.

Potential of anti-inflammatory agents for treatment of atherosclerosis

Chronic inflammation is a central pathogenic mechanism of atherosclerosis induction and progression. Vascular inflammation is associated with accelerated onset of late atherosclerosis complications. Atherosclerosis-related inflammation is mediated by a complex cocktail of pro-inflammatory cytokines, chemokines, bioactive lipids, and adhesion molecules, and blocking the key pro-atherogenic inflammatory mechanisms can be beneficial for treatment of atherosclerosis. Therapeutic agents that specifically target some of the atherosclerosis-related inflammatory mechanisms have been evaluated in preclinical and clinical studies. The most promising anti-inflammatory compounds for treatment of atherosclerosis include non-specific anti-inflammatory drugs, phospholipase inhibitors, blockers of major inflammatory cytokines, leukotrienes, adhesion molecules, and pro-inflammatory signaling pathways, such as CCL2-CCR2 axis or p38 MAPK pathway. Ongoing studies attempt evaluating therapeutic utility of these anti-inflammatory drugs for treatment of atherosclerosis. The obtained results are important for our understanding of atherosclerosis-related inflammatory mechanisms and for designing randomized controlled studies assessing the effect of specific anti-inflammatory strategies on cardiovascular outcomes.

Aspirin Versus Clopidogrel for Type 2 Diabetic Patients with First-Ever Noncardioembolic Acute Ischemic Stroke: Ten-Year Survival Data from the Athens Stroke Outcome Project

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Diabetes mellitus is associated with an increased risk of stroke and poor outcome following a stroke event. We assessed the impact of discharge treatment with aspirin versus clopidogrel on the 10-year survival of patients with type 2 diabetes after a first-ever noncardioembolic acute ischemic stroke (AIS).

METHODS

This was a post hoc analysis of the Athens Stroke Outcome Project. Study outcomes included death, stroke recurrence, and a composite cardiovascular disease (CVD) end point (recurrent stroke, myocardial infarction, unstable angina, coronary revascularization, aortic aneurysm rupture, or sudden death). Kaplan-Meier survival curve and Cox regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 304 (93 women) diabetic patients receiving either aspirin (n = 197) or clopidogrel (n = 107) were studied. The 10-year survival was better in clopidogrel-treated patients than in aspirin-treated patients (19 deaths [17.7%] for clopidogrel versus 55 deaths [27.9%] for aspirin; log-rank test: 4.91, P = .027). Similarly, clopidogrel was associated with a favorable impact on recurrent stroke (12 events [11.2%] for clopidogrel versus 39 events [19.7%] for aspirin; log-rank test: 4.46, P = .035) and on the composite CVD end point (21 events [19.6%] for clopidogrel versus 54 events [27.4%] for aspirin; log-rank test: 4.17, P = .041). In the multivariable analysis, the beneficial effect of clopidogrel over aspirin on both primary and secondary end points was independent of age, gender, the presence of CVD or CVD risk factors, and stroke severity.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate a favorable effect of clopidogrel at discharge compared with aspirin in preventing death, recurrent stroke, and CVD events in diabetic patients with a first-ever noncardioembolic AIS.

Cardiovascular Disease in Women: Clinical Perspectives

Cardiovascular disease continues to be the leading cause of death among women in the United States, accounting for ≈1 of every 3 female deaths. Sex-specific data focused on cardiovascular disease have been increasing steadily, yet is not routinely collected nor translated into practice. This comprehensive review focuses on novel and unique aspects of cardiovascular health in women and sex differences as they relate to clinical practice in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of cardiovascular disease. This review also provides current approaches to the evaluation and treatment of acute coronary syndromes that are more prevalent in women, including myocardial infarction associated with nonobstructive coronary arteries, spontaneous coronary artery dissection, and stress-induced cardiomyopathy (Takotsubo Syndrome). Other cardiovascular disease entities with higher prevalence or unique considerations in women, such as heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, peripheral arterial disease, and abdominal aortic aneurysms, are also briefly reviewed. Finally, recommendations for cardiac rehabilitation are addressed.

Aspirin use is associated with lower indices of liver fibrosis among adults in the United States

BACKGROUND

Recent animal studies have shown that platelets directly activate hepatic stellate cells to promote liver fibrosis, whereas anti-platelet agents decrease liver fibrosis. It is unknown whether platelet inhibition by aspirin prevents liver fibrosis in humans.

AIM

To examine the association between aspirin use and liver fibrosis among adults with suspected chronic liver disease.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional analysis using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III. We identified 1856 individuals with suspected chronic liver disease (CLD). The degree of liver fibrosis was determined using four validated fibrosis indices and a composite index.

RESULTS

The use of aspirin was associated with a significantly lower composite liver fibrosis index calculated from FIB4, APRI, Forns and NFS [0.24 standard deviation (s.d.) units lower; 95% CI -0.42 to -0.06, P = 0.009]. The association of aspirin with lower fibrosis scores was significantly larger among those with suspected CLD compared to those without (-0.23 vs. -0.03 s.d. units; P interaction = 0.05). The negative association between aspirin use and lower fibrosis index was consistent across all four fibrosis indices (P = 0.002-0.08) in individuals with chronic viral hepatitis, suspected alcoholic liver disease and NASH. In comparison, no negative associations with liver fibrosis were seen with ibuprofen in parallel analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of aspirin was associated with significantly lower indices of liver fibrosis among US adults with suspected chronic liver diseases. Aspirin and other anti-platelet drugs warrant further investigation for the prevention and treatment of liver fibrosis.

Aspirin in the prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with diabetes

Diabetes imparts a substantial increased risk for cardiovascular disease-related mortality and morbidity. Because of this, current medical guidelines recommend prophylactic treatment with once-daily, low-dose aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular (CV) events in high-risk patients. However, only modest reductions in CV events and mortality have been observed with once-daily aspirin treatment in patients with diabetes, including patients with a previous CV event, perhaps because of disparity between aspirin pharmacokinetics and diabetes-related platelet abnormalities. Once-daily aspirin irreversibly inactivates platelets for only a short duration (acetylsalicylic acid half-life, approximately 15-20 minutes), after which time newly generated, active platelets enter the circulation and weaken aspirin's effect. Platelets from patients with diabetes are more reactive and are turned over more rapidly than platelets from normal individuals; the short inhibitory window provided by once-daily aspirin may therefore be insufficient to provide 24-h protection against CV events. Alternative conventional aspirin regimens (e.g. higher daily dose, twice-daily dosing, combination with clopidogrel) and newer formulations (e.g. 24-h, extended-release) have been proposed to overcome the apparent limited efficacy of conventional aspirin in patients with diabetes; however, tolerability concerns and limited clinical efficacy data need to be taken into account when considering the use of such regimens.

Aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease

Although aspirin has a well-established role in preventing adverse events in patients with known cardiovascular disease (CVD), its benefit in patients without a history of CVD remains under scrutiny. Current data have provided insight into the risks of aspirin use, particularly bleeding, compared with its benefits in primary CVD prevention. Although aspirin is inexpensive and widely available, especially in developing countries, there is lack of evidence that the benefits outweigh the adverse events with continuous aspirin use in primary CVD prevention. Therefore, the decision to initiate aspirin therapy should be an individual clinical judgment that weighs the absolute benefit in reducing the risk of a first cardiovascular event against the absolute risk of major bleeding, and tailored to the patient's CVD risk. This risk must be calculated, based on accurate and cost-benefit locally developed risk assessment tools, the most discriminating threshold be identified. Additionally, patients preferences should be taken into account when making the decision to initiate aspirin therapy in primary prevention of CVD or not. Physicians should continuously be trained to calculate their patients CVD risk, and concomitant strategies be emphasized.

Strategies for improving cardiovascular health in women with diabetes mellitus: a review of the evidence

Knowledge about cardiovascular (CV) disease in women with diabetes mellitus (DM) has changed substantially over the past 20 years. Coronary artery disease, strokes, and peripheral vascular disease affect women with DM at higher rates than the general population of women. Lifestyle therapies, such as dietary changes, physical activity, and smoking cessation, offer substantial benefits to women with DM. Of the pharmacotherapies, statins offer the most significant benefits but may not be well tolerated in some women. Aspirin may also benefit high-risk women. Other pharmacotherapies, such as fibrates, ezetimibe, niacin, fish oil, and hormone replacement therapy, remain unproven and, in some cases, potentially dangerous to women with DM. To reduce CV events, risks to women with DM must be better publicized and additional research must be done. Finally, advancements in health care delivery must target high-risk women with DM to lower risk factors and effectively improve cardiovascular health.

Drug delivery and therapeutic impact of extended-release acetylsalicylic acid

Current treatment guidelines recommend once-daily, low-dose acetylsalicylic acid (ASA; aspirin) for secondary prevention of cardiovascular events. However, the anti-thrombotic benefits of traditional ASA formulations may not extend over a 24-h period, especially in patients at high risk for a recurrent cardiovascular event. A next-generation, extended-release ASA formulation (ER-ASA) has been developed to provide 24-h anti-thrombotic coverage with once-daily dosing. The pharmacokinetics of ER-ASA indicates slower absorption and prolonged ASA release versus immediate-release ASA, with a favorable safety profile. ER-ASA minimizes systemic ASA absorption and provides sustained antiplatelet effects over a 24-h period.

Update on Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Light of Recent Evidence: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association and the American Diabetes Association

Cardiovascular disease risk factor control as primary prevention in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus has changed substantially in the past few years. The purpose of this scientific statement is to review the current literature and key clinical trials pertaining to blood pressure and blood glucose control, cholesterol management, aspirin therapy, and lifestyle modification. We present a synthesis of the recent literature, new guidelines, and clinical targets, including screening for kidney and subclinical cardiovascular disease for the contemporary management of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Update on Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Light of Recent Evidence: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association and the American Diabetes Association

Cardiovascular disease risk factor control as primary prevention in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus has changed substantially in the past few years. The purpose of this scientific statement is to review the current literature and key clinical trials pertaining to blood pressure and blood glucose control, cholesterol management, aspirin therapy, and lifestyle modification. We present a synthesis of the recent literature, new guidelines, and clinical targets, including screening for kidney and subclinical cardiovascular disease for the contemporary management of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

A systematic review of aspirin in primary prevention: is it time for a new approach?

Background and Objectives

While evidence in support of aspirin use in secondary prevention is well documented, the role of aspirin in primary prevention remains unclear. We conducted a systematic literature review to evaluate aspirin use in cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer primary prevention, and consider whether aspirin’s role is set to become more clearly defined based on past and prospective studies.

Data Sources

Utilizing PubMed, the reviewers identified appropriate Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms to establish CVD-based studies, cancer-based studies, and studies on adherence.

Study Eligibility Criteria

Date restrictions of May 31, 2008 to May 31, 2013 were applied to capture the most robust meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials. Websites of relevant EU and US scientific societies were used to identify the key guidelines for aspirin use in primary prevention of CVD, and ClinicalTrials.gov was used to establish future or ongoing trials.

Results

Evidence in support of aspirin prophylaxis is conflicting, though some meta-analyses have underlined potential benefit in reducing cardiovascular events. Despite this apparent benefit, bleeding risk with aspirin is consistently higher versus control, and remains a concern. A reduction of cancer incidence and mortality after a least 3 and 5 years treatment, respectively, is also apparent with aspirin.

Conclusion

Available data on aspirin in primary prevention suggest a modest benefit for patients at high risk of CVD, and a promising benefit for those at risk of cancer. Future studies should help to elucidate whether the benefit of aspirin outweighs risk in appropriate patient groups.

Guidelines for the primary prevention of stroke: a statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association

The aim of this updated statement is to provide comprehensive and timely evidence-based recommendations on the prevention of stroke among individuals who have not previously experienced a stroke or transient ischemic attack. Evidence-based recommendations are included for the control of risk factors, interventional approaches to atherosclerotic disease of the cervicocephalic circulation, and antithrombotic treatments for preventing thrombotic and thromboembolic stroke. Further recommendations are provided for genetic and pharmacogenetic testing and for the prevention of stroke in a variety of other specific circumstances, including sickle cell disease and patent foramen ovale.

Aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular events: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and subgroup analysis by sex and diabetes status

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the benefits and harms of aspirin for the primary prevention of CVD and determine whether the effects vary by sex and diabetes status.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of aspirin with placebo or control in people with no pre-existing CVD. Two investigators independently extracted data and assessed the study quality. Analyses were performed using Stata version 12.

RESULTS

Fourteen trials (107,686 participants) were eligible. Aspirin was associated with reductions in major cardiovascular events (risk ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.85-0.95), myocardial infarction (0.86; 0.75-0.93), ischemic stroke (0.86; 0.75-0.98) and all-cause mortality (0.94; 0.89-0.99). There were also increases in hemorrhagic stroke (1.34; 1.01-1.79) and major bleeding (1.55; 1.35-1.78) with aspirin. The number needed to treat to prevent 1 major cardiovascular event over a mean follow-up of 6.8 years was 284. By comparison, the numbers needed to harm to cause 1 major bleeding is 299. In subgroup analyses, pooled results demonstrated a reduction in myocardial infarction among men (0.71; 0.59-0.85) and ischemic stroke among women (0.77; 0.63-0.93). Aspirin use was associated with a reduction (0.65; 0.51-0.82) in myocardial infarction among diabetic men. In meta-regression analyses, the results suggested that aspirin therapy might be associated with a decrease in stroke among diabetic women and a decrease in MI among diabetic men and risk reductions achieved with low doses (75 mg/day) were as large as those obtained with higher doses (650 mg/day).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of low-dose aspirin was beneficial for primary prevention of CVD and the decision regarding an aspirin regimen should be made on an individual patient basis. The effects of aspirin therapy varied by sex and diabetes status. A clear benefit of aspirin in the primary prevention of CVD in people with diabetes needs more trials.

Diabetes and cardiovascular disease: from evidence to clinical practice - position statement 2014 of Brazilian Diabetes Society

There is a very well known correlation between diabetes and cardiovascular disease but many health care professionals are just concerned with glycemic control, ignoring the paramount importance of controlling other risk factors involved in the pathogenesis of serious cardiovascular diseases. This Position Statement from the Brazilian Diabetes Society was developed to promote increased awareness in relation to six crucial topics dealing with diabetes and cardiovascular disease: Glicemic Control, Cardiovascular Risk Stratification and Screening Coronary Artery Disease, Treatment of Dyslipidemia, Hypertension, Antiplatelet Therapy and Myocardial Revascularization. The issue of what would be the best algorithm for the use of statins in diabetic patients received a special attention and a new Brazilian algorithm was developed by our editorial committee. This document contains 38 recommendations which were classified by their levels of evidence (A, B, C and D). The Editorial Committee included 22 specialists with recognized expertise in diabetes and cardiology.

Aspirin in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer: a systematic review of the balance of evidence from reviews of randomized trials

Background

Aspirin has been recommended for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer, but overall benefits are unclear. We aimed to use novel methods to re-evaluate the balance of benefits and harms of aspirin using evidence from randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Methods and Findings

Data sources included ten electronic bibliographic databases, contact with experts, and scrutiny of reference lists of included studies. Searches were undertaken in September 2012 and restricted to publications since 2008. Of 2,572 potentially relevant papers 27 met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of control arms to estimate event rates, modelling of all-cause mortality and L'Abbé plots to estimate heterogeneity were undertaken. Absolute benefits and harms were low: 60-84 major CVD events and 34-36 colorectal cancer deaths per 100,000 person-years were averted, whereas 46-49 major bleeds and 68-117 gastrointestinal bleeds were incurred. Reductions in all-cause mortality were minor and uncertain (Hazard Ratio 0.96; 95% CI: 0.90-1.02 at 20 years, Relative Risk [RR] 0.94, 95% CI: 0.88-1.00 at 8 years); there was a non-significant change in total CVD (RR 0.85, 95% CI: 0.69-1.06) and change in total cancer mortality ranged from 0.76 (95% CI: 0.66-0.88) to 0.93 (95% CI: 0.84-1.03) depending on follow-up time and studies included. Risks were increased by 37% for gastrointestinal bleeds (RR 1.37, 95% CI: 1.15-1.62), 54%-66% for major bleeds (Rate Ratio from IPD analysis 1.54, 95% CI: 1.30-1.82, and RR 1.62, 95% CI: 1.31-2.00), and 32%-38% for haemorrhagic stroke (Rate Ratio from IPD analysis 1.32; 95% CI: 1.00-1.74; RR 1.38; 95% CI: 1.01-1.82).

Conclusions

Findings indicate small absolute effects of aspirin relative to the burden of these diseases. When aspirin is used for primary prevention of CVD the absolute harms exceed the benefits. Estimates of cancer benefit rely on selective retrospective re-analysis of RCTs and more information is needed.

Four-year incidence of diabetic retinopathy in a Spanish cohort: the MADIABETES study

Objective

To evaluate the incidence of diabetic retinopathy in patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, to identify the risk factors associated with the incidence of retinopathy and to develop a risk table to predict four-year retinopathy risk stratification for clinical use, from a four-year cohort study.

Design

The MADIABETES Study is a prospective cohort study of 3,443 outpatients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, sampled from 56 primary health care centers (131 general practitioners) in Madrid (Spain).

Results

The cumulative incidence of retinopathy at four-year follow-up was 8.07% (95% CI = 7.04–9.22) and the incidence density was 2.03 (95% CI = 1.75–2.33) cases per 1000 patient-months or 2.43 (95% CI = 2.10–2.80) cases per 100 patient-years. The highest adjusted hazard ratios of associated risk factors for incidence of diabetic retinopathy were LDL-C >190 mg/dl (HR = 7.91; 95% CI = 3.39–18.47), duration of diabetes longer than 22 years (HR = 2.00; 95% CI = 1.18–3.39), HbA1c>8% (HR = 1.90; 95% CI = 1.30–2.77), and aspirin use (HR = 1.65; 95% CI = 1.22–2.24). Microalbuminuria (HR = 1.17; 95% CI = 0.75–1.82) and being female (HR = 1.12; 95% CI = 0.84–1.49) showed a non-significant increase of diabetic retinopathy. The greatest risk is observed in females who had diabetes for more than 22 years, with microalbuminuria, HbA1c>8%, hypertension, LDL-Cholesterol >190 mg/dl and aspirin use.

Conclusions

After a four-year follow-up, the cumulative incidence of retinopathy was relatively low in comparison with other studies. Higher baseline HbA1c, aspirin use, higher LDL-Cholesterol levels, and longer duration of diabetes were the only statistically significant risk factors found for diabetic retinopathy incidence. This is the first study to demonstrate an association between aspirin use and diabetic retinopathy risk in a well-defined cohort of patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus at low risk of cardiovascular events. However, further studies with patients at high cardiovascular and metabolic risk are needed to clarify this issue.

Should diabetes still be considered a coronary artery disease equivalent?

Diabetes is well established as a cardiovascular risk factor and is currently regarded as a coronary artery disease equivalent. However, some recent data have contradicted the concept. We review the currently available data and usefulness or otherwise of this concept. While the concept of coronary artery disease equivalence has served to highlight the importance of diabetes as a risk factor, it has a number of problems. We propose that it would be more useful to consider diabetes as a myocardial infarction risk equivalent. This is not only more precise and in line with the literature but also conveys better the message that patients with diabetes and one or more previous myocardial infarction(s) are at even higher risk.