Are the current recommendations for the use of aspirin in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease applicable in low-income countries?

Assessing the global risk of cardiovascular disease among a group of university students: population-based cross-sectional study in Yaoundé, Cameroon

OBJECTIVE

To describe the global cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk distribution in a young adult-aged population living in Yaoundé, Cameroon and depict factors likely influencing this risk distribution.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study between May and July 2017.

SETTING

The University of Yaoundé I, Cameroon.

PARTICIPANTS

Any university student aged 18 years and above, with no known history of CVD, found at the campus during recruitment and who voluntarily agreed to be included in the study.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The global risk of CVD was measured with the non-laboratory-based INTERHEART Modifiable Risk Score.

RESULTS

A total of 949 participants (54% males) were recruited; the median age was 23 (IQR 21-26) years. The CVD risk varied between 2 and 21, with a median of 9 (IQR 7-12); 51.2% of students had a low risk of CVD, 43.7% had a moderate risk and 5.1% presented a high risk of CVD. The number of years since first registration at the university (β=0.08), history of sudden death among biological parents (β=1.28), history of hypertension among brothers/sisters (β=1.33), history of HIV infection (β=4.34), the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test-Consumption score (β=0.13), regular exposure to firewood smoke (β=1.29), eating foods/drinks with too much sugar ≥1 time/day (β=0.96), eating foods/snacks with too much oil ≥3 times/week (β=1.20) and eating dairy products≥1 time/day (β=0.61) were the independent factors likely influencing participants' global risk of CVD.

CONCLUSION

Almost 50% of participants had moderate or high risk of CVD. Specific interventions targeting major CVD risk factors should be put in place among young adults to prevent or reduce this upcoming overburdened picture of CVD.

Use of anti-inflammatory analgesics in sickle-cell disease

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been commonly used to treat pain in sickle-cell disease (SCD), but NSAID use is associated with renal, gastrointestinal and cardiovascular toxicities. Our objective was to evaluate the use of aspirin and non-aspirin NSAIDs in SCD.

COMMENT

Despite analgesic and anti-inflammatory benefits in SCD, non-aspirin NSAIDs are associated with renal, cardiovascular and gastrointestinal toxicities in this patient population. Aspirin may have less renal and cardiovascular toxicities. The different side effect profile of NSAIDs is related to the COX-1/COX-2 selectivity at their therapeutic doses. Individual risk factors and genetic biomarkers should be considered when selecting appropriate NSAIDs and their dose.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

NSAIDs have the potential to be an important component of pain regimens in SCD, but the use of NSAIDs should be individualized based on potential side effects and patient risk factors and the lowest effective dose should be prescribed with proper monitoring in patients with SCD.

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.