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

Temporal trends in low-dose aspirin therapy for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in European adults with and without diabetes

AIMS

Aspirin therapy for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is controversial, and guideline recommendations have changed throughout the last decades. We report temporal trends in primary prevention aspirin use among persons with and without diabetes and describe characteristics of incident aspirin users.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Using Danish nationwide registries, we identified incident and prevalent aspirin users in a population of subjects ≥40 years without CVD eligible for primary preventive aspirin therapy from 2000 through 2020. Temporal trends in aspirin users with and without diabetes were assessed, as were CVD risk factors among incident users. A total of 522 680 individuals started aspirin therapy during the study period. The number of incident users peaked in 2002 (39 803 individuals, 1.78% of the eligible population) and was the lowest in 2019 (11 898 individuals, 0.49%), with similar trends for subjects with and without diabetes. The percentage of incident users with no CVD risk factors [diabetes, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a proxy for smoking)] decreased from 53.9% in 2000 to 30.9% in 2020. The temporal trends in prevalent aspirin users followed a unimodal curve, peaked at 7.7% in 2008, and was 3.3% in 2020. For subjects with diabetes, the peak was observed in 2009 at 38.5% decreasing to 17.1% in 2020.

CONCLUSION

Aspirin therapy for primary prevention of CVD has decreased over the last two decades. However, the drug remained used in individuals with and without diabetes, and a large proportion of individuals started on aspirin therapy had no CVD risk factors.

Novel Aspects Targeting Platelets in Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease—A Translational Perspective

Platelets are important cellular targets in cardiovascular disease. Based on insights from basic science, translational approaches and clinical studies, a distinguished anti-platelet drug treatment regimen for cardiovascular patients could be established. Furthermore, platelets are increasingly considered as cells mediating effects “beyond thrombosis”, including vascular inflammation, tissue remodeling and healing of vascular and tissue lesions. This review has its focus on the functions and interactions of platelets with potential translational and clinical relevance. The role of platelets for the development of atherosclerosis and therapeutic modalities for primary and secondary prevention of atherosclerotic disease are addressed. Furthermore, novel therapeutic options for inhibiting platelet function and the use of platelets in regenerative medicine are considered.

Resumption of Antiplatelet Therapy after Major Bleeding

Major bleeding is a common threat in patients requiring antiplatelet therapy. Timing and intensity with regard to resumption of antiplatelet therapy represent a major challenge in clinical practice. Knowledge of the patient's bleeding risk, defining transient/treatable and permanent/untreatable risk factors for bleeding, and weighing these against thrombotic risk are key to successful prevention of major adverse events. Shared decision-making involving various disciplines is essential to determine the optimal strategy. The present article addresses clinically relevant questions focusing on the most life-threatening or frequently occurring bleeding events, such as intracranial hemorrhage and gastrointestinal bleeding, and discusses the evidence for antiplatelet therapy resumption using individual risk assessment in high-risk cardiovascular disease patients.

The resolution of the Expert Council on current issues of the use of acetylsalicylic acid for the purpose of primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases in the light of new scientific data and updated clinical guidelines

Expert Council: Drapkina O. M., Vavilova T. V., Karpov Yu. A., Kobalava Zh. D., Lomakin N. V., Martynov A. I., Roitman E. V., Sychev D. A.Scientific communities: the Russian Society for the Prevention of Non-Communicable Diseases (ROPNIZ), the Russian Scientific Medical Society of Therapists (RNMOT), the Russian Antithrombotic Forum (RAF), the National Association for Thrombosis and Hemostasis (NATH).

Acetylsalicylic Acid (Aspirin) for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events in Patients with Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Evidence regarding using acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) for the prevention of cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) is inconsistent. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis.

METHODS

A literature search was performed (January 1990 to February 2022) and publications meeting the inclusion criteria were reviewed, and a meta-analysis was performed using RevMan software. The primary outcome was a composite of CV death, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, individual components of the primary outcome and major bleeding.

RESULTS

The study cohort comprised 33525 diabetic patients from 9 randomized controlled trials. The primary outcome was significantly lower for aspirin vs. placebo (7.9 vs. 8.6, RR (risk ratio) 0.92, 95% CI (confidence interval) 0.86-0.99). All-cause mortality (10 vs. 10.3%, RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.90-1.03), CV death (4.4 vs. 4.7%, RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.83-1.04), non-fatal MI (4.6 vs. 4.8% RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.83- 1.15) and stroke (3.2 vs. 3.5%, RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.75-1.06) were similar between the two treatment groups. Major bleeding was significantly higher for aspirin compared with placebo (3.4 vs. 2.8%, RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.01-1.39).

CONCLUSION

Aspirin use in patients with DM reduces the composite endpoint of CV death, non-fatal MI and stroke compared with a placebo. However, routine use of aspirin for primary prevention among diabetic patients cannot be advised due to the increased risk of major bleeding. These findings suggest careful risk assessment of individual patients.

[Cardiovascular preventive recommendations. PAPPS 2022 thematic updates. Working groups of the PAPPS]

The recommendations of the semFYC's Program for Preventive Activities and Health Promotion (PAPPS) for the prevention of cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are presented. The following sections are included: epidemiological review, where the current morbidity and mortality of CVD in Spain and its evolution as well as the main risk factors are described; cardiovascular (CV) risk and recommendations for the calculation of CV risk; main risk factors such as arterial hypertension, dyslipidemia and diabetes mellitus, describing the method for their diagnosis, therapeutic objectives and recommendations for lifestyle measures and pharmacological treatment; indications for antiplatelet therapy, and recommendations for screening of atrial fibrillation, and recommendations for management of chronic conditions. The quality of testing and the strength of the recommendation are included in the main recommendations.

Managing thrombotic risk in patients with diabetes

It is well known that diabetes is a prominent risk factor for cardiovascular (CV) events. The level of CV risk depends on the type and duration of diabetes, age and additional co-morbidities. Diabetes is an independent risk factor for atrial fibrillation (AF) and is frequently observed in patients with AF, which further increases their risk of stroke associated with this cardiac arrhythmia. Nearly one third of patients with diabetes globally have CV disease (CVD). Additionally, co-morbid AF and coronary artery disease are more frequently observed in patients with diabetes than the general population, further increasing the already high CV risk of these patients. To protect against thromboembolic events in patients with diabetes and AF or established CVD, guidelines recommend optimal CV risk factor control, including oral anticoagulation treatment. However, patients with diabetes exist in a prothrombotic and inflammatory state. Greater clinical benefit may therefore be seen with the use of stronger antithrombotic agents or innovative drug combinations in high-risk patients with diabetes, such as those who have concomitant AF or established CVD. In this review, we discuss CV risk management strategies in patients with diabetes and concomitant vascular disease, stroke prevention regimens in patients with diabetes and AF and how worsening renal function in these patients may complicate these approaches. Accumulating evidence from clinical trials and real-world evidence show a benefit to the administration of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in patients with diabetes and AF.

Cilostazol treatment for preventing adverse cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes and coronary atherosclerosis: Long-term follow-up of the ESCAPE study

BACKGROUND

Previously, in the ESCAPE study, a randomized controlled trial, we found that 12 months of cilostazol administration significantly decreased coronary artery stenosis and the noncalcified plaque component compared with aspirin. The goal of the current study was to evaluate the effect of cilostazol treatment on cardiovascular events up to 7 years after the end of the original study.

METHODS

After the end of the ESCAPE study with patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and mild to moderate coronary artery stenosis, we decided to extend the ESCAPE study to investigate the long-term effect of cilostazol and aspirin, named the ESCAPE-extension study. The study participants had been investigated for cardiovascular events for up to 7 years, bringing the total follow-up time to a median of 5.2 years (interquartile range 3.6-6.7 years). Adverse events were also investigated.

RESULTS

Among 100 participants from the original study, 88 were included in this extension study. Cilostazol treatment reduced the incidence of cardiovascular events in the patients with T2DM when compared with aspirin for a 5.2-year median follow-up (hazard ratio 0.24; 95% CI, 0.07-0.83). The cardiovascular benefit of cilostazol therapy was maintained along with age, sex, systolic blood pressure, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and coronary artery calcium score. No serious adverse events in the cilostazol group were noted in the follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

In this ESCAPE-extension study, cilostazol treatment proved its efficacy in reducing cardiovascular events compared with aspirin in diabetic patients with subclinical coronary artery disease, suggesting the beneficial role of cilostazol in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

Implications of the heterogeneity between guideline recommendations for the use of low dose aspirin in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease

The most recent primary cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention clinical guidelines used in Europe, Italy, the USA, China, and South Korea differ in aspects of their approach to CVD risk assessment and reduction. Low dose aspirin use is recommended in certain high-risk patients by most but not all the countries. Assessment of traditional risk factors and which prediction models are commonly used differ between countries. The assessments and tools may not, however, identify all patients at high risk but without manifest CVD. The use of coronary artery calcium (CAC) score to guide decisions regarding primary prevention aspirin therapy is recommended only by the US primary prevention guidelines and the 2021 European Society of Cardiology guidelines. A more consistent and comprehensive global approach to CVD risk estimation in individual patients could help to personalize primary CVD prevention. Wider detection of subclinical atherosclerosis, together with structured assessment and effective mitigation of bleeding risk, may appropriately target patients likely to gain net benefit from low dose aspirin therapy.

2022 Prevention of chronic non-communicable diseases in Of the Russian Federation. National guidelines

.

Aspirin for Primary Cardiovascular Prevention in Patients with Diabetes: Uncertainties and Opportunities

The use of the antiplatelet agent aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) was previously routinely recommended for the primary prevention of cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with diabetes, but recent large-scale randomized trials have failed to demonstrate a sizeable net clinical benefit with a once-daily, low-dose (81–100 mg) regimen in this population. Previous pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies have suggested that the aspirin formulation (enteric-coated) and dosing schedule (once daily) studied in randomized trials for primary prevention of CV events defining contemporary clinical practice may not leverage the full potential of the drug, particularly in patients with diabetes. Indeed, the diabetic platelets bear characteristics that increase their thrombotic potential and alter their pharmacologic response to the drug. Consequently, the appropriateness of studying a uniform aspirin regimen in landmark primary prevention trials needs to be revisited. In this review, we present the evidence showing that diabetes not only increases baseline platelet reactivity, but also alters platelet response to aspirin through different mechanisms including a faster platelet turnover rate. Obesity, which is frequently associated with diabetes, also impacts its pharmacokinetics via an increase in distribution volume. Small-scale pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies have suggested that the relative aspirin resistance phenotype observed in patients with diabetes may be reversed with a twice-daily dosing schedule, and with nonenteric-coated aspirin formulations. Properly powered randomized controlled trials investigating the efficacy and safety of aspirin dosing schedules and formulations tailored to the population of patients with diabetes are urgently required to optimize patient care.

Decrements in health-related quality of life associated with adverse events in people with diabetes

AIM

To estimate the decrements in health-related quality of life (QoL) associated with a range of adverse events to inform assessments of the effects of diabetes treatments on QoL in contemporary clinical practice.

METHODS

Participants' QoL utility measures were derived from the five-level EuroQoL five-dimensional (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaires completed by 11 683 ASCEND participants (76% of 15 480 recruited). EQ-5D utility decrements associated with cardiovascular (myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization, transient ischaemic attack [TIA], ischaemic stroke, heart failure), bleeding (gastrointestinal [GI] bleed, intracranial haemorrhage, other major bleed), cancer (GI tract cancer, non-GI tract cancer), and microvascular events (end-stage renal disease [ESRD], amputation) were estimated using a linear regression model following adjustment for participants' sociodemographic and clinical risk factors.

RESULTS

Amputation was associated with the largest EQ-5D utility decrement (-0.206), followed by heart failure (-0.185), intracranial haemorrhage (-0.164), GI bleed (-0.091), other major bleed (-0.096), ischaemic stroke (-0.061), TIA (-0.057), and non-GI tract cancer (-0.026). We were unable to detect decrements in EQ-5D utility associated with myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization, GI tract cancer, or ESRD. EQ-5D utility was lower at older age, independent of other factors.

CONCLUSION

These estimated decrements in QoL associated with cardiovascular, bleeding, cancer, and other adverse events can inform assessments of the overall value of treatments in patients with diabetes.

Role of diabetes in stroke: Recent advances in pathophysiology and clinical management

The increasing prevalence of diabetes and stroke is a major global public health concern. Specifically, acute stroke patients, with pre-existing diabetes, pose a clinical challenge. It is established that diabetes is associated with a worse prognosis after acute stroke and the various biological factors that mediate poor recovery profiles in diabetic patients is unknown. The level of association and impact of diabetes, in the setting of reperfusion therapy, is yet to be determined. This article presents a comprehensive overview of the current knowledge of the role of diabetes in stroke, therapeutic strategies for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease and/or stroke in diabetes, and various therapeutic considerations that may apply during pre-stroke, acute, sub-acute and post-stroke stages. The early diagnosis of diabetes as a comorbidity for stroke, as well as tailored post-stroke management of diabetes, is pivotal to our efforts to limit the burden. Increasing awareness and involvement of neurologists in the management of diabetes and other cardiovascular risk factors is desirable towards improving stroke prevention and efficacy of reperfusion therapy in acute stroke patients with diabetes.

Low-doses aspirin in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes: Meta-analysis stratified by baseline cardiovascular risk

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The aim of this meta-analysis was to analyze the risks and benefits of low-dose aspirin in patients with T2D without cardiovascular conditions according to the baseline cardiovascular risk.

METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis including randomized clinical trials that evaluated the use of low-dose aspirin (75-100 mg/day) versus placebo/usual care in patients with T2D. Studies were classified as low, moderate and high risk based on the number of events in the placebo/control arms or by cardiovascular risk score when reported. The incidence of MACE, cardiovascular mortality and bleeding were evaluated.

RESULTS

Ten eligible trials (34069 patients) were considered eligible for the analyses. According to the stratified analysis, low-dose aspirin use was associated with reduced risk for MACE in the moderate/high-risk group (OR: 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.97; I² = 0%) but not in the low-risk group (OR: 0.89; 95% CI, 0.77-1.01; I² = 0%). Likewise, low-dose aspirin use was associated with more bleeding in the low-risk group, showing a non-significant trend in the moderate/high-risk group. There was no reduction in cardiovascular mortality in either group. Beyond the different findings in each stratum, the differences between the subgroups were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that low-dose aspirin in patients with T2D reduces MACE and increases bleeding. Based on the within-subgroups results, the baseline cardiovascular risk does not modify the effect of aspirin therapy. However, few studies were included and the comparison between subgroups showed a trend in favor to the highest risk group, these results should be confirmed in future studies.

Appraising the contemporary role of aspirin for primary and secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular events

INTRODUCTION

Although the role of aspirin for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) has been disputed, its use in secondary ASCVD prevention is well established. Recent trials of primary prevention do not suggest a significant net benefit with aspirin, whereas accruing evidence supports adopting aspirin-free strategies in the context of potent P2Y₁₂ inhibition for the secondary prevention of selected patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

AREAS COVERED

This updated review aims at summarizing and appraising the pharmacological characteristics and the contemporary role of aspirin for the primary and secondary prevention of ASCVD.

EXPERT OPINION

Recent trials and metanalyses in the context of primary prevention highlighted a modest reduction in ischemic events with aspirin use, counterbalanced by a significant increase in bleeding events. However, ongoing studies on cancer prevention could modify the current paradigm of the unfavorable benefit-risk ratio of aspirin in patients with no overt ASCVD. Conversely, aspirin use is crucial for secondary ASCVD prevention, both in chronic and acute coronary syndromes. Nevertheless, after a brief period of dual antiplatelet therapy, patients at high bleeding risk may benefit from discontinuation of aspirin if a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor is used, hence reducing the bleeding risk with no rebound in thrombotic events.

A randomised controlled trial to assess the antithrombotic effects of aspirin in type 1 diabetes: role of dosing and glycaemic control

Background

The enhanced thrombotic milieu in diabetes contributes to increased risk of vascular events. Aspirin, a key antiplatelet agent, has inconsistent effects on outcomes in diabetes and the best dosing regimen remains unclear. This work investigated effects of aspirin dose and interaction with glycaemia on both the cellular and protein components of thrombosis.

Methods

A total of 48 participants with type 1 diabetes and 48 healthy controls were randomised to receive aspirin 75 or 300 mg once-daily (OD) in an open-label crossover study. Light transmittance aggregometry and fibrin clot studies were performed before and at the end of each treatment period.

Results

Aspirin demonstrated reduced inhibition of collagen-induced platelet aggregation (PA) in participants with diabetes compared with controls, although the higher dose showed better efficacy. Higher aspirin dose facilitated clot lysis in controls but not individuals with diabetes. Collagen-induced PA correlated with glycaemic control, those in the top HbA1c tertile having a lesser inhibitory effect of aspirin. Threshold analysis suggested HbA1c levels of > 65 mmol/mol and > 70 mmol/mol were associated with poor aspirin response to 75 and 300 mg daily doses, respectively. Higher HbA1c was also associated with longer fibrin clot lysis time.

Conclusions

Patients with diabetes respond differently to the antiplatelet and profibrinolytic effects of aspirin compared with controls. In particular, those with elevated HbA1c have reduced inhibition of PA with aspirin. Our findings indicate that reducing glucose levels improves the anti-thrombotic action of aspirin in diabetes, which may have future clinical implications.

Trial registration

EudraCT, 2008-007875-26, https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search?query=2008-007875-26.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12933-021-01427-y.

Aspirin prescribing pattern and guidelines-adherence evaluation for primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases at a teaching hospital

The present study investigates the aspirin prescribing pattern and guidelines-adherence evaluation for primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases at a teaching hospital. A total of 816 patients were included in the study, the patients who received aspirin aged 60-69 (29.65%), followed by patients aged 50-59 years old (29.53%) and 70-79 years old (22.91%). Demographic information shown that the majority of the patients were males (58.55%). The BMI revealed that 85.78% of patients were obese. The majority of the patients have diabetes 78.67%, hypertension 74.38%, and dyslipidemia 65.68%. The mean systolic blood pressure was 136 ± 7.4 and diastolic blood pressure was 74.9 ± 5.2. After applying aspirin candidacy calculation, only 6% patients were highly recommended to be on aspirin, 49% patients had reasonable recommendation of aspirin, 27% patients use aspirin based on "may be considered" recommendation, and 23% patients were on aspirin with no indication or recommendation. The study highlights the importance of following the international recommendations in aspirin prescribing, and flags the inappropriate use and prescribing by our healthcare providers. The current study encourages further investigation to be carried out which should include patient and clinician education, to well understand and alleviate the inequalities in aspirin use and adherence. Further studies are also warranted to understand of the prescribing pattern and to provide solutions to avoid aspirin associated complications.

Coronary Artery Calcium Score Predicts Long-Term Cardiovascular Outcomes in Asymptomatic Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

Aims: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is no longer regarded as a coronary risk equivalent, and heterogeneity of cardiovascular risk exists, suggesting that further risk stratification should be mandatory. This study aimed to determine the prevalence and clinical predictors of coronary artery calcium (CAC) score, and evaluate the CAC score as a predictor of cardiovascular outcome in a large asymptomatic T2DM cohort.

Methods: A total of 2,162 T2DM patients were recruited from a Diabetes Shared Care Network and the CAC score was measured. Cardiovascular outcomes were obtained for 1,928 patients after a follow-up of 8.4 years. Multiple regression analysis and Cox proportional hazard regression were applied to identify clinical predictors of CAC and calculate the incidence and hazard ratios (HRs) for all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events by CAC category.

Results: Of the recruited patients, 96.8% had one or more risk factors. The distribution of CAC scores was as follows: CAC=0 in 24.2% of the patients, 0 ＜CAC ≤ 100 in 41.5%, 100 ＜CAC ≤ 400 in 20.3%, CAC ＞400 in 14.7%. The multivariable predictor of increased CAC included age (years) (odds ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.06–1.08), male sex (1.82; 1.54–2.17), duration (years) of T2DM (1.07; 1.05–1.09), and multiple risk factors (1.94; 1.28–2.95). Increasing severity of CAC was associated with higher all-cause or cardiac mortality and higher incident cardiovascular events. The HRs for cardiac death or major cardiac events in CAC ＞400 vs CAC=0 were 8.67 and 10.52, respectively ( p ＜0.001)

Conclusion: CAC scoring provides better prognostication of cardiovascular outcome than traditional risk factors in asymptomatic T2DM patients, and may allow identifying a high-risk subset for enhancing primary prevention.

Antithrombotic therapy in diabetes: which, when, and for how long?

Cardiovascular disease remains the main cause of mortality in individuals with diabetes mellitus (DM) and also results in significant morbidity. Premature and more aggressive atherosclerotic disease, coupled with an enhanced thrombotic environment, contributes to the high vascular risk in individuals with DM. This prothrombotic milieu is due to increased platelet activity together with impaired fibrinolysis secondary to quantitative and qualitative changes in coagulation factors. However, management strategies to reduce thrombosis risk remain largely similar in individuals with and without DM. The current review covers the latest in the field of antithrombotic management in DM. The role of primary vascular prevention is discussed together with options for secondary prevention following an ischaemic event in different clinical scenarios including coronary, cerebrovascular, and peripheral artery diseases. Antiplatelet therapy combinations as well as combination of antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents are examined in both the acute phase and long term, including management of individuals with sinus rhythm and those with atrial fibrillation. The difficulties in tailoring therapy according to the variable atherothrombotic risk in different individuals are emphasized, in addition to the varying risk within an individual secondary to DM duration, presence of complications and predisposition to bleeding events. This review provides the reader with an up-to-date guide for antithrombotic management of individuals with DM and highlights gaps in knowledge that represent areas for future research, aiming to improve clinical outcome in this high-risk population.

Diabetes and Thrombosis: A Central Role for Vascular Oxidative Stress

Diabetes mellitus is the fifth most common cause of death worldwide. Due to its chronic nature, diabetes is a debilitating disease for the patient and a relevant cost for the national health system. Type 2 diabetes mellitus is the most common form of diabetes mellitus (90% of cases) and is characteristically multifactorial, with both genetic and environmental causes. Diabetes patients display a significant increase in the risk of developing cardiovascular disease compared to the rest of the population. This is associated with increased blood clotting, which results in circulatory complications and vascular damage. Platelets are circulating cells within the vascular system that contribute to hemostasis. Their increased tendency to activate and form thrombi has been observed in diabetes mellitus patients (i.e., platelet hyperactivity). The oxidative damage of platelets and the function of pro-oxidant enzymes such as the NADPH oxidases appear central to diabetes-dependent platelet hyperactivity. In addition to platelet hyperactivity, endothelial cell damage and alterations of the coagulation response also participate in the vascular damage associated with diabetes. Here, we present an updated interpretation of the molecular mechanisms underlying vascular damage in diabetes, including current therapeutic options for its control.

The Use of Aspirin in Contemporary Primary Prevention of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Diseases Revisited: The Increasing Need and Call for a Personalized Therapeutic Approach

The use of aspirin has been widely accepted for the secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) in all patient populations, as the benefits linked to the reduction of clinical events outweigh the risk of major bleeding. However, despite the undisputable, though modest, potential of aspirin to reduce atherothrombotic events, its overall efficacy and safety in primary ASCVD prevention remains debatable, despite being used for this purpose for decades. The net clinical benefit of aspirin was brought into question by three recent large contemporary randomized controlled trials evaluating its role in various primary prevention populations (individuals with diabetes [ASCEND], an elderly population [ASPREE], and middle-aged adults at high estimated cardiovascular risk [ARRIVE]) and numerous large meta-analyses published during the past year. As a result, the usual generalized recommendations for the use of aspirin in patients with estimated intermediate to high ASCVD risk but without overt ASCVD have already been removed from most international guidelines. Since the primary prevention framework encompasses heterogenous groups of subjects with variable absolute ASCVD risk, a more individualized approach based on the best possible estimated ratio between the potential health benefits from fewer atherothrombotic events and harms because of potential increases in major bleeding is warranted in clinical practice. With this compromise, clinicians can better decide on the personalized use of aspirin in patients at high risk of major adverse cardiovascular events.

Aspirin in Primary Prevention: What Changed? A Critical Appraisal of Current Evidence

Aspirin has been the mainstay of both secondary and primary prevention of cardiovascular disease for half a century. In 2018, 3 trials showed a modest reduction in cardiovascular outcomes that appeared counterbalanced by the risk of clinically significant bleeding. The latest ACC/AHA primary prevention guidelines downgraded their recommendation for aspirin use in primary prevention to that of physician preference. Despite the consistent and robust evidence previously supporting the use of aspirin in cardiovascular disease prevention, little discussion has been given to mechanisms or analytic explanations for this revision of recommendations. In this review, we explore 3 possible mechanisms that may have contributed to the alteration of our perception of aspirin's role in primary prevention. These include changes in the population potentially using aspirin in primary prevention, changes in cardiovascular disease and its presentation, and changes in aspirin itself. Here we present a translational look at knowledge gaps that should be addressed to better guide contemporary aspirin use in primary prevention. In conclusion, based on these considerations, the current recommendations might be improved by recalibration of the cardiovascular risk threshold above which aspirin should be recommended for primary prevention, including the incorporation of newer risk assessment modalities such as calcium scoring. A second enhancement would be developing a bleeding risk calculator to support clinicians' assessment of risk vs benefit. The use of enteric-coated aspirin vs noncoated aspirin should also be reassessed.

Antithrombotic Therapy for Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk Mitigation in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease and Diabetes Mellitus

Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) are characterized by enhanced thrombotic risk attributed to multiple mechanisms including hyperreactive platelets, hypercoagulable status, and endothelial dysfunction. As such, they are more prone to atherosclerotic cardiovascular events than patients without DM, both before and after coronary artery disease (CAD) is established. In patients with DM without established CAD, primary prevention with aspirin is not routinely advocated because of its increased risk of major bleeding that largely offsets its ischemic benefit. In patients with DM with established CAD, secondary prevention with antiplatelet drugs is an asset of pharmacological strategies aimed at reducing the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular events and their adverse prognostic consequences. Such antithrombotic strategies include single antiplatelet therapy (eg, with aspirin or a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor), dual antiplatelet therapy (eg, aspirin combined with a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor), and dual-pathway inhibition (eg, aspirin combined with the vascular dose of the direct oral anticoagulant rivaroxaban) for patients with chronic ischemic heart disease, acute coronary syndromes, and those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Because of their increased risk of thrombotic complications, patients with DM commonly achieve enhanced absolute benefit from more potent antithrombotic approaches compared with those without DM, which most often occurs at the expense of increased bleeding. Nevertheless, studies have shown that when excluding individuals at high risk for bleeding, the net clinical benefit favors the use of intensified long-term antithrombotic therapy in patients with DM and CAD. Several studies are ongoing to establish the role of novel antithrombotic strategies and drug formulations in maximizing the net benefit of antithrombotic therapy for patients with DM. The scope of this review article is to provide an overview of current and evolving antithrombotic strategies for primary and secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular events in patients with CAD and DM.

Do Women with Diabetes Need More Intensive Action for Cardiovascular Reduction than Men with Diabetes?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This narrative review makes the case for greater efforts to reduce cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in women with diabetes.

RECENT FINDINGS

In a recent meta-analysis including five CVOTs of diabetes medications with 46,606 subjects, women (vs men) with type 2 diabetes had a higher relative risk for stroke (RR 1.28; 95% CI 1.09, 1.50) and heart failure (1.30; 1.21, 1.40). Prior studies found higher "within-gender" RR for CVD mortality in women with diabetes although men have an absolute higher risk. Women with prior gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) have a 2-fold higher CVD risk than the background population. Worse CVD and CVD risk factor management in women, as well as lower female therapy adherence, contribute further to these disparities. The mechanism behind this excess risk includes biological, hormonal, socioeconomic, clinical, and behavioral factors that still require further investigation. The need for more intensive CVD reduction in women now includes more attention to screening for both incident diabetes and CVD risk factors among high-risk women.

The effectiveness of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and acetaminophen in reduce the risk of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis? A meta-analysis

To test the hypothesis that aspirin, non-aspirin nonsteroidal anti-infammatory drugs (NA-NSAIDs), or acetaminophen can reduce the risk of ALS, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of related previous studies. A comprehensive search was conducted on the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and SCOPUS databases. It included studies published up to 29 February 2020 that fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Aspirin, acetaminophen and NA-NSAIDs use information, between the ALS and control groups, was collected for the meta-analysis. Rates of aspirin, NA-NSAID, and acetaminophen use in ALS group, compared with control group were investigated. In the results, only three studies that relate the risk of ALS to aspirin, NA-NSAIDs and acetaminophen use satisfied the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. Regarding aspirin, the studies did not show any statistically significant difference in aspirin use between the ALS and control groups (Odds ratio, 1.04 [95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.21]). NA-NSAIDs and acetaminophen use, however, did show up statistically significant differences in between the ALS and control groups. (Odds ratio, 0.82 [95% confidence interval, 0.73-0.91]) and (Odds ratio, 0.80 [95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.93]). However, our study has some limitations. Firstly, we only included a small number of studies. Secondly, the included studies did not control for past medical history, which may have confounded their results, and in turn, could have caused bias in our study. Thirdly, in this meta-analysis, the ALS patients were not subdivided into sporadic or familial type. Lastly, the studies also did not consider the types of NSAIDs and dosages used of each drug. For more convincing evidence regarding the effectiveness of aspirin, NA-NSAIDs and acetaminophen to reduce the risk of ALS occurrence, more qualified prospective studies are required. In conclusion, the use of NA-NSAIDs and acetaminophen is associated with a decreased risk for the development of ALS. In contrast, aspirin did not have any effect on the reduction of the risk of ALS occurrence.

Computing and interpreting the Number Needed to Treat for Cardiovascular Outcomes Trials : Perspective on GLP-1 RA and SGLT-2i therapies

The recent results of Cardiovascular Outcomes Trials (CVOTs) in type 2 diabetes have clearly established the cardiovascular (CV) safety or even the benefit of two therapeutic classes, Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) and Sodium-Glucose Co-Transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i). Publication of the latest CVOTs for these therapeutic classes also led to an update of ESC guidelines and ADA/EASD consensus report in 2019, which considers using GLP-1 RA or SGLT-2i with proven cardiovascular benefit early in the management of type 2 diabetic patient with established cardiovascular disease (CVD) or at high risk of atherosclerotic CVD. The main beneficial results of these time-to event studies are supported by conventional statistical measures attesting the effectiveness of GLP-1 RA or SGLT2i on cardiovascular events (absolute risk, absolute risk difference, relative risk, relative risk reduction, odds ratio, hazard ratio). In addition, another measure whose clinical meaning appears to be easier, the Number Needed to Treat (NNT), is often mentioned while discussing the results of CVOTs, in order to estimating the clinical utility of each drug or sometimes trying to establish a power ranking. While the value of the measure is admittedly of interest, the subtleties of its computation in time-to-event studies are little known. We provide in this article a clear and practical explanation on NNT computation methods that should be used in order to estimate its value, according to the type of study design and variables available to describe the event of interest, in any randomized controlled trial. More specifically, a focus is made on time-to-event studies of which CVOTs are part, first to describe in detail an appropriate and adjusted method of NNT computation and second to help properly interpreting NNTs with the example of CVOTs conducted with GLP-1 RA and SGLT-2i. We particularly discuss the risk of misunderstanding of NNT values in CVOTs when some specific parameters inherent in each study are not taken into account, and the following risk of erroneous comparison between NNTs across studies. The present paper highlights the importance of understanding rightfully NNTs from CVOTs and their clinical impact to get the full picture of a drug’s effectiveness.

Perioperative management of antiplatelet therapy in noncardiac surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Perioperative management of antiplatelet agents (APAs) in the setting of noncardiac surgery is a controversial topic of balancing bleeding versus thrombotic risks.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent data do not support a clear association between continuation or discontinuation of APAs and rates of ischemic events, bleeding complications, and mortality up to 6 months after surgery. Clinical factors, such as indication and urgency of the operation, time since stent placement, invasiveness of the procedure, preoperative cardiac optimization, underlying functional status, as well as perioperative control of supply-demand mismatch and bleeding may be more responsible for adverse outcome than antiplatelet management.

SUMMARY

Perioperative management of antiplatelet therapy (APT) should be individually tailored based on consensus among the anesthesiologist, cardiologist, surgeon, and patient to minimize both ischemic/thrombotic and bleeding risks. Where possible, surgery should be delayed for a minimum of 1 month but ideally for 3-6 months from the index cardiac event. If bleeding risk is acceptable, dual APT (DAPT) should be continued perioperatively; otherwise P2Y12 inhibitor therapy should be discontinued for the minimum amount of time possible and aspirin monotherapy continued. If bleeding risk is prohibitive, both aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitor therapy should be interrupted and bridging therapy may be considered in patients with high thrombotic risk.

Antiplatelet therapies in diabetes

Cardiovascular complications remain the main cause of mortality and morbidity in diabetes. This is related to advanced vascular pathology in this population, together with an enhanced thrombotic environment. The increased risk in thrombosis is secondary to platelet hyper-reactivity and increased levels and/or altered activity of coagulation factors. The current review is focused on the role of antiplatelet agents in modulating the thrombotic milieu in diabetes and improving vascular outcome in this high-risk population. We review the latest evidence for the use of aspirin in primary vascular prevention together with long-term treatment with this agent for secondary prevention. We also discuss the effects of the various P2Y₁₂ inhibitors, including clopidogrel, prasugrel and ticagrelor, on both short- and long-term secondary vascular prevention. Moreover, we briefly review antiplatelet therapies in special groups of people including those intolerant to aspirin, individuals with peripheral vascular disease and those with cerebrovascular pathology. The overall aim of this review is to provide the healthcare professional with a pragmatic guide for the management of thrombotic risk using established antiplatelet therapies to improve vascular outcome in persons with diabetes.

[Choosing Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients with Coronary Heart Disease and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: How to Reduce the Risk of Death]

This review presents prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) in patients with ischemic heart disease (IHD), risk factors in common, and a considerable worsening of prognosis in their combination. The authors addressed pathophysiological mechanisms of platelet dysfunction and negative changes in the coagulation system in IHD patients with type 2 DM, which predetermine activation of the prothrombotic pathway of hemostasis formation. Difficulties in optimal selection of antithrombotic therapy were demonstrated for both patients with type 2 DM without a history of cardiovascular diseases and IHD patients with type 2 DM. The authors paid attention to the fact that results of randomized clinical studies (RCS) that included patients with type 2 DM and acute coronary syndrome or after coronary revascularization cannot be extrapolated to the entire population of patients with stable IHD. At present, the preferable choice of antithrombotic therapy for patients with type 2 DM and stable IHD is a combination of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice a day and acetylsalicylic acid 100 mg/day. This combination provides a maximal clinical benefit compared to other strategies presented in RCS.

The Second Gaddum Lecture: its origins and outcomes

Fifty years ago, the BJP published the Second Gaddum Lecture, given by John Vane to the British Pharmacological Society. This article assesses the origins of the experiments described in the Lecture, linking them directly to Gaddum's use of bioassay, a defining feature of pharmacology. The outcomes of those experiments are also assessed, tracking those results that have survived the past five decades. Two of the major advances in cardiovascular medicine, the ACE inhibitors, as anti-hypertensives, and low-dose aspirin, to prevent thrombosis were initiated by the work in this Lecture. Physiologically significant outcomes include a new non-respiratory function of the lung, based on the metabolism of endogenous vasoactive substrates in the pulmonary circulation and the recognition of the endothelium as a highly interactive component of blood vessels. The present state of the art in pharmacology, physiology and medicine owes much to the work described in the Second Gaddum Lecture.

Sex Difference in Effects of Low-Dose Aspirin on Prevention of Dementia in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Long-term Follow-up Study of a Randomized Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate and compare the efficacy of long-term use of low-dose aspirin for the prevention of dementia in men and women.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This study is a follow-up cohort study of the Japanese Primary Prevention of Atherosclerosis With Aspirin for Diabetes (JPAD) trial, which was a randomized, open-label, standard care-controlled trial examining the effects of low-dose aspirin on cardiovascular events. We followed up 2,536 Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) enrolled in the JPAD trial from 2002 to 2017. The primary outcome of this post hoc analysis was the incidence of dementia, which was defined by the prescription of antidementia drugs or admission due to dementia.

RESULTS

Among the originally enrolled patients, 2,121 (84%) retained their original allocation. During a median follow-up of 11.4 years, 128 patients developed dementia. The overall effect of low-dose aspirin on the prevention of dementia adjusted for age, sex, and other established risk factors was not significant (hazard ratio [HR] 0.82, 95% CI 0.58-1.16). However, a significant reduction was seen in the risk of dementia in women (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.36-0.95), but not in men (HR 1.27, 95% CI 0.75-2.13) (P _interaction = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term use of low-dose aspirin may reduce the risk for dementia in women with T2D.

Aspirin, clopidogrel and prasugrel monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a double-blind randomised controlled trial of the effects on thrombotic markers and microRNA levels

BACKGROUND

Despite increased atherothrombotic risk in type 2 diabetes mellitus, (T2DM) the best preventative antithrombotic strategy remains undetermined. We defined the effects of three antiplatelet agents on functional readout and biomarker kinetics in platelet activation and coagulation in patients with T2DM.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

56 patients with T2DM were randomised to antiplatelet monotherapy with aspirin 75 mg once daily (OD), clopidogrel 75 mg OD or prasugrel 10 mg OD during three periods of a crossover study. Platelet aggregation (PA) was determined by light-transmittance aggregometry and P-selectin expression by flow cytometry. Markers of fibrin clot dynamics, inflammation and coagulation were measured. Plasma levels of 14 miRNA were assessed by quantitative polymerase chain reactions.

RESULTS

Of the 56 patients, 24 (43%) were receiving aspirin for primary prevention of ischaemic events and 32 (57%) for secondary prevention. Prasugrel was the strongest inhibitor of ADP-induced PA (mean ± SD maximum response to 20μmol/L ADP 77.6 ± 8.4% [aspirin] vs. 57.7 ± 17.6% [clopidogrel] vs. 34.1 ± 14.1% [prasugrel], p < 0.001), P-selectin expression (30 μmol/L ADP; 45.1 ± 21.4% vs. 27.1 ± 19.0% vs. 14.1 ± 14.9%, p < 0.001) and collagen-induced PA (2 μg/mL; 62.1 ± 19.4% vs. 72.3 ± 18.2% vs. 60.2 ± 18.5%, p < 0.001). Fibrin clot dynamics and levels of coagulation and inflammatory proteins were similar. Lower levels of miR-24 (p = 0.004), miR-191 (p = 0.019), miR-197 (p = 0.009) and miR-223 (p = 0.014) were demonstrated during prasugrel-therapy vs. aspirin. Circulating miR-197 was lower in those cardiovascular disease during therapy with aspirin (p = 0.039) or prasugrel (p = 0.0083).

CONCLUSIONS

Prasugrel monotherapy in T2DM provided potent platelet inhibition and reduced levels of a number of platelet-associated miRNAs. miR-197 is a potential marker of cardiovascular disease in this population. Clinical outcome studies investigating prasugrel monotherapy are warranted in individuals with T2DM. Trial registration EudraCT, 2009-011907-22. Registered 15 March 2010, https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2009-011907-22/GB.

Aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: a meta-analysis with a particular focus on subgroups

BACKGROUND

The role of aspirin in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains unclear. We aimed to investigate the benefit-risk ratio of aspirin for primary prevention of CVD with a particular focus on subgroups.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of aspirin for primary prevention of CVD versus control and including at least 1000 patients were eligible for this meta-analysis. The primary efficacy outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included cardiovascular mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and net clinical benefit. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding. Subgroup analyses involving sex, concomitant statin treatment, diabetes, and smoking were performed.

RESULTS

Thirteen randomized controlled trials comprising 164,225 patients were included. The risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality was similar for aspirin and control groups (RR 0.98; 95% CI, 0.93-1.02; RR 0.99; 95% CI, 0.90-1.08; respectively). Aspirin reduced the relative risk (RRR) of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) by 9% (RR 0.91; 95% CI, 0.86-0.95), myocardial infarction by 14% (RR 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77-0.95), and ischemic stroke by 10% (RR 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82-0.99), but was associated with a 46% relative risk increase of major bleeding events (RR 1.46; 95% CI, 1.30-1.64) compared with controls. Aspirin use did not translate into a net clinical benefit adjusted for event-associated mortality risk (mean 0.034%; 95% CI, - 0.18 to 0.25%). There was an interaction for aspirin effect in three patient subgroups: (i) in patients under statin treatment, aspirin was associated with a 12% RRR of MACE (RR 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.96), and this effect was lacking in the no-statin group; (ii) in non-smokers, aspirin was associated with a 10% RRR of MACE (RR 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82-0.99), and this effect was not present in smokers; and (iii) in males, aspirin use resulted in a 11% RRR of MACE (RR 0.89; 95% CI, 0.83-0.95), with a non-significant effect in females.

CONCLUSIONS

Aspirin use does not reduce all-cause or cardiovascular mortality and results in an insufficient benefit-risk ratio for CVD primary prevention. Non-smokers, patients treated with statins, and males had the greatest risk reduction of MACE across subgroups.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019118474.