Preventing cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes: use of aspirin for primary prevention

Interventions for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: umbrella review of systematic reviews

Background

Cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of death globally. The aim of this overview of systematic reviews was to compare the effectiveness of different pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

Methods

A structured search of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects archive was conducted to find systematic reviews that reported the effect of various pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease from inception to March 2021. References of included studies were also checked. The included systematic reviews' methodological quality was assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 instrument (range, 0-16). The outcomes of each included review's meta-analysis were extracted and described narratively.

Results

This study analysed 95 systematic reviews, including 41 on non-pharmacological interventions and 54 on pharmacological interventions for cardiovascular health. The majority of the reviews focused on lipid-lowering interventions (n = 25) and antiplatelet medications (n = 21), followed by nutritional supplements, dietary interventions, physical activity, health promotion and other interventions. Only 1 of the 10 reviews addressing cardiovascular mortality showed a potential benefit, while the others found no effect. Antiplatelets were found to have a beneficial effect on all-cause mortality in 2 out of 12 meta-analyses and on major cardiovascular disease events in 8 out of 17 reviews. Lipid-lowering interventions showed beneficial effects on cardiovascular disease mortality, all-cause mortality and major cardiovascular disease events in varying numbers of the reviews. Glucose-lowering medications demonstrated significant benefits for major cardiovascular events, coronary heart disease events and mortality. However, the combination of dietary interventions, physical activities, nutritional supplements and polypills showed little or no significant benefit for major cardiovascular outcomes or mortality.

Future work and limitations

More research is needed to determine whether the effect of treatment varies depending on population characteristics. The findings of this review should be interpreted with caution because the majority of studies of non-pharmacological interventions compare primary prevention with usual care, which may include recommended pharmacological treatment in higher-risk patients (e.g. statins and/or antihypertensive medications, etc.). In addition, randomised controlled trial evidence may be better suited to the study of pharmacological interventions than dietary and lifestyle interventions.

Conclusions

This umbrella review captured the variability in different interventions on randomised controlled trial evidence on interventions for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and identified areas that may benefit from further research. Specifically, this review focused on randomised controlled trial evidence on interventions for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Researchers may use these findings as a resource to direct new intervention studies and network meta-analyses to compare the efficacy of various interventions based on these findings.

Funding

This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme as award number 17/148/05.

Is there a cardiovascular protective effect of aspirin in chronic kidney disease patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the cardiovascular prevention effect of aspirin among patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted in Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane library (up to March 2019) without language limitations. Randomized control trials (RCT) and observational studies that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were included. Two reviewers independently extracted data, and evaluated study quality using modified Jadad score for RCTs and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational study. A meta-analysis was conducted in the Stata 15.0 software using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model.

RESULTS

1768 references were identified from literature searching. Four RCTs and four cohort studies that reported the cardiovascular prevention outcome of aspirin in CKD patients (38,341 participants) were included in this review. The pooled data revealed that aspirin had no significant prevention effect on cardiovascular events among CKD patients (RR = 0.96, 95% CI, 0.59-1.13). There was also no significant reduction in cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality. Although we found no significant increased risk in major bleeding events, there was a statistically significant increased risk of minor bleeding events (RR = 2.57, 95% CI, 1.60-4.13) and renal events (RR = 1.30, 95% CI, 1.02-1.65) for aspirin use.

CONCLUSION

Our review indicated that aspirin use in CKD patients had no prevention effect on cardiovascular events and no statistically significant reduction in risk of cardiovascular or all-cause mortality, with a significant increased risk of minor bleeding and renal events.

Aspirin for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease and Renal Disease Progression in Chronic Kidney Disease Patients: a Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial (AASER Study)

BACKGROUND

Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at high risk for developing cardiovascular events. However, limited evidence is available regarding the use of aspirin in CKD patients to decrease cardiovascular risk and to slow renal disease progression.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, multicenter, open-label randomized controlled trial.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

One hundred eleven patients with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) 15-60 ml/min/1.73 m² without previous cardiovascular events.

INTERVENTION

Aspirin treatment (100 mg/day) (n = 50) or usual therapy (n = 61). Mean follow-up time was 64.8 ± 16.4 months.

OUTCOMES

The primary endpoint was composed of cardiovascular death, acute coronary syndrome (nonfatal MI, coronary revascularization, or unstable angina pectoris), cerebrovascular disease, heart failure, or nonfatal peripheral arterial disease. Secondary endpoints were fatal and nonfatal coronary events, renal events (defined as doubling of serum creatinine, ≥ 50% decrease in eGFR, or renal replacement therapy), and bleeding episodes.

RESULTS

During follow-up, 17 and 5 participants suffered from a primary endpoint in the control and aspirin groups, respectively. Aspirin did not significantly reduce primary composite endpoint (HR, 0.396 (0.146-1.076), p = 0.069. Eight patients suffered from a fatal or nonfatal coronary event in the control group compared to no patients in the aspirin group. Aspirin significantly reduced the risk of coronary events (log-rank, 5.997; p = 0.014). Seventeen patients in the control group reached the renal outcome in comparison with 3 patients in the aspirin group. Aspirin treatment decreased renal disease progression in a model adjusted for age, baseline kidney function, and diabetes mellitus (HR, 0.272; 95% CI, 0.077-0.955; p = 0.043) but did not when adjusted for albuminuria. No differences were found in minor bleeding episodes between groups and no major bleeding was registered.

LIMITATIONS

Small sample size and open-label trial.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term treatment with low-dose aspirin did not reduce the composite primary endpoint; however, there were reductions in secondary endpoints with fewer coronary events and renal outcomes. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01709994.

Effects of a Carob-Pod-Derived Sweetener on Glucose Metabolism

BACKGROUND

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have a higher incidence of cardiovascular (CV) events. The ingestion of high-glycemic index (GI) diets, specially sweetened beverage consumption, has been associated with the development of T2DM and CV disease.

OBJECTIVE

We investigated the effects of the intake of a sweetened beverage, obtained from natural carbohydrates containing pinitol (PEB) compared to a sucrose-enriched beverage (SEB) in the context of impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) and diabetes.

METHODS

The study was divided in three different phases: (1) a discovery phase where the plasma proteomic profile was investigated by 2-DE (two-dimensional electrophoresis) followed by mass spectrometry (matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight-MALDI-TOF/TOF) in healthy and IGT volunteers; (2) a verification phase where the potential mechanisms behind the observed protein changes were investigated in the discovery cohort and in an additional group of T2DM volunteers; and (3) the results were validated in a proof-of-concept interventional study in an animal model of diabetic rats with complementary methodologies.

RESULTS

Six weeks of pinitol-enriched beverage (PEB) intake induced a significant increase in two proteins involved in the insulin secretion pathway, insulin-like growth factor acid labile subunit (IGF1BP-ALS; 1.3-fold increase; P = 0.200) and complement C4A (1.83-fold increase; P = 0.007) in IGT subjects but not in healthy volunteers. Changes in C4A were also found in the serum samples of Zucker diabetic fatty (ZDF) rats after four weeks of PEB intake compared to basal levels (P = 0.042). In addition, an increased expression of the glucose transporter-2 (GLUT2) gene was observed in the jejunum (P = 0.003) of inositol-supplemented rats when compared to sucrose supplementation. This change was correlated with the observed change in C4A (P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that the substitution of a common sugar source, such as sucrose, by a naturally-based, pinitol-enriched beverage induces changes in the insulin secretion pathway that could help to reduce blood glucose levels by protecting β-cells and by stimulating the insulin secretion pathway. This mechanism of action could have a relevant role in the prevention of insulin resistance and diabetes progression.