Misuse of Aspirin and Associated Factors for the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease

The Prevalence of Potential Prescribing Omissions for Antiplatelets and Statins in Older Adults With Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease

Background The Screening Tool to Alert to Right Treatment (START) criteria for older adults was developed to recognize potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) of clinically indicated medications. According to these criteria, statins and antiplatelets should be prescribed for older adults with a documented history of coronary artery, cerebral, or peripheral vascular disease unless contraindicated. Aim This study aimed to investigate physicians' adherence to START criteria and identify the prevalence of PPO, considering the prescription of statins and antiplatelets in older patients with a history of coronary artery, cerebral, or peripheral vascular disease. Methods In this single-center, cohort, retrospective study, patients aged >65 years with a history of coronary artery, cerebral, or peripheral vascular disease were included. The prevalence of PPO for statins and antiplatelet therapy was identified. This study was guided by the screening Tool of Older Persons' Prescriptions (STOPP)/START criteria published in 2016. Results A total of 244 patients with a history of coronary, cerebral, or peripheral vascular disease were included in this study. Statin use was appropriately observed in 131/220 (59.5%) while antiplatelets were appropriately observed in 219/237 (92.4%). Therefore, the PPO for statins and antiplatelets was 40.5% and 7.6%, respectively. Conclusion The results of this study identified that the prevalence of PPO for statins and antiplatelets for older adults was high. We encourage prescribers to utilize tools such as Beer's criteria or STOPP/START, which may assist their decision in addition to their clinical judgment in weighing the benefit to the risk of starting or stopping antiplatelets or statins in older adult patients.

Aspirin in diabetic patients at primary prevention: insights of the VITAL cohort

PURPOSE

Aspirin use among patients with diabetes in primary prevention is still a matter of debate. We aimed to evaluate the potential cardiovascular risk benefit of aspirin in primary prevention, using data from a contemporary cohort.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of the VITAL cohort with > 20,000 individuals at primary prevention who were followed for a median of 5.3 years. The population was evaluated according to the baseline diabetes status, and then aspirin use was evaluated among diabetic patients. Cox regression models were used to estimate the risks of mortality and cardiovascular outcomes. The estimates were reported using adjusted hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI).

RESULTS

Diabetic patients (n = 3549; 13.7%) showed to increase the risk of all-cause mortality (HR 1.61, 95%CI 1.33-1.94), and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (HR 1.36 95%CI 1.11-1.68) than non-diabetic population. Diabetic patients taking aspirin were older, more frequently man, hypertensive, current users of statins, and current smokers compared with diabetic patients who did not use aspirin at baseline. There was no difference between diabetic aspirin users and non-users regarding all-cause mortality (HR 0.80, 95%CI 0.59, 1.10), MACE (HR 0.92, 95%CI 0.64, 1.33), coronary heart disease (HR 0.98, 95%CI 0.67, 1.43), or stroke (HR 0.87, 95%CI 0.48, 1.58).

CONCLUSIONS

The VITAL data confirmed diabetes as an important risk factor for cardiovascular events in a contemporary cohort but did not show cardiovascular benefits of aspirin in primary prevention among people with diabetes who were shown to be at higher risk of cardiovascular events.

A Cross-Sectional Study on the Prevalence of Self-Prescribed Aspirin Use for Prevention of Adverse Ischemic Vascular Events Among Moderate-Risk Individuals: A Single Center Study

Introduction Despite the overwhelming amount of evidence against the use of aspirin for primary prophylaxis of cardiovascular disease (CVD), the arguably unwarranted use of aspirin has increased over the years, which may or may not be based on any specific medical advice, and merely self-prescribed. Aim This study aimed to determine the prevalence of unwarranted aspirin use among moderate-risk individuals for the primary prevention of adverse vascular events in Saudi Arabia. Patient and method A cross-sectional study was conducted among 100 patients who presented to the emergency room (ER) due to suspected cardiac diseases. The data were collected from the patients who visited ER in King Fahad Hospital, Al-Hofuf, Saudi Arabia. Participants were asked about their socio-demographic characteristics, aspirin use habits, and their comorbidities. Results Of the 100 patients, 35% were aged more than 60 years old. The overall use of aspirin was 78%. The prevalence of aspirin use was significantly more common among the older age group (53.8%), those with associated chronic diseases, such as diabetes (59%) and hypertension (75.6%) and those with a previous history of hospitalization due to stroke or a cardiac event (66.7%). Conclusion The use of aspirin among patients who are at moderate risk of cardiovascular events was widely prevalent, but their unwarranted use was low. Older patients with chronic diseases who believed in its great benefit and tended to ignore its complications are the most common users of aspirin. More research is recommended to determine the prevalence and the factors associated with unwarranted use of aspirin in patients with CVD in our region.

Benefits and Risks Associated with Low-Dose Aspirin Use for the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Control Trials and Trial Sequential Analysis

BACKGROUND

The role of aspirin in cardiovascular primary prevention remains controversial. Moreover, evidence for the potential benefits of aspirin in patients with high cardiovascular risk remains limited.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to explore the role of low-dose aspirin in primary prevention.

METHODS

The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) from the date of inception to August 2021. The efficacy outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), myocardial infarction (MI), ischemic stroke (IS), all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality, whereas safety outcomes were major bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage, and gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Subgroup analyses were based on different cardiovascular risks and diabetes statuses. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the fixed- and random-effects models, and trial sequential analysis (TSA) was conducted to determine the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

A total of 10 RCTs fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The use of aspirin was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of MACE (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.84-0.93), MI (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.78-0.95), and IS (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.76-0.93); however, aspirin also increased the risk of safety outcomes, i.e. major bleeding (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.26-1.60), intracranial hemorrhage (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.11-1.59), and GI bleeding (RR 1.91, 95% CI 1.44-2.54). Subgroup analyses revealed that in the absence of a statistically significant interaction, a trend toward a net benefit of lower incidence of cardiovascular events (number needed to treat of MACE: high risk: 682 vs. low risk: 2191) and lesser risk of bleeding events (number needed to harm of major bleeding: high risk: 983 vs. low risk: 819) was seen in the subgroup of high cardiovascular risk. Meanwhile, the greater MACE reduction was also detected in the high-risk group of diabetes or nondiabetes patients. Furthermore, a post hoc subgroup analysis indicated a significant rate reduction in patients aged ≤ 70 years but not in patients aged > 70 years. TSA confirmed the benefit of aspirin for MACE up to a relative risk reduction of 10%.

CONCLUSION

The current study demonstrated that the cardiovascular benefits of low-dose aspirin were equally balanced by major bleeding events. In addition, the potential beneficial effects might be seen in the population ≤ 70 years of age with high cardiovascular risk and no increased risk of bleeding.