Randomised trial of prophylactic daily aspirin in British male doctors

Deprescribing of preventive medications in palliative care patients living with multiple long-term conditions in their final 12 months of life: A retrospective cohort Clinical Practice Research Datalink study

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the patterns and trends associated with deprescribing of preventive medications in the final 12 months of life in palliative patients living with multiple long-term conditions using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

PARTICIPANTS

All patients with a medcode/readcode for palliative care assigned to their profile with a medcode/readcode for a cardiometabolic condition. All patients were on therapeutic interventions for their condition/s.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

the trends of medication deprescribing of preventive medications in the final twelve months of life in those known to be end-of-life.

RESULTS

Preventive medication deprescribing was only observed in a very small cohort of patients. The findings were consistent across all six medication groups tested. Deprescribing was observed in a range of 2-60 patients with the most deprescribing efforts being associated with antihypertensive medications (n = 177), and antiplatelet medications (n = 70), and antihyperglycaemic medications (n = 10).

CONCLUSIONS

Deprescribing practices are not commonplace in patients with a known end-of-life designation with low patient numbers (range 2-60) undergoing the intervention, thus potentially reducing the quality of life in these patients final twelve months of life. CPRD ID: #22_002253, linkage request 2914.

Aspirin in primary prevention: Undue reliance on an uninformative trial led to misinformed clinical guidelines

Best practices for design, conduct, analysis, and interpretation of randomized controlled trials should adhere to rigorous statistical principles. The reliable detection of small effects of treatment should be based on results reported from the primary pre-specified endpoints of large-scale randomized trials designed a priori to test relevant hypotheses. Inference about treatment should not be based on undue reliance on individual small trials, meta-analyses of small trials, subgroups, or post hoc analyses. Failure to follow these principles can lead to conclusions inconsistent with the totality of evidence and to inappropriate recommendations made by guideline committees. The American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Task Force published guidelines to restrict aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease to patients below 70 years of age, and the United States Preventive Services Task Force to below 60 years. These guidelines were both unduly influenced by the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly trial, the results of which were uninformative; they did not provide evidence that aspirin showed no benefit in these age groups. We present several major methodological pitfalls in interpreting the results from the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly trial of aspirin in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. We believe that undue reliance on this uninformative trial has led to misinformed guidelines. Furthermore, given the totality of evidence, we believe that general guidelines for aspirin in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease are unwarranted. Prescription should be based on an assessment of an individual's benefit to risk; age should be only one component of that assessment.

Do antithrombotic drugs have a role in migraine prevention? A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To explore the available evidence on the role of antithrombotics as migraine preventive medication.

BACKGROUND

In clinical practice, the use of antithrombotic drugs in individuals with migraine is sometimes considered, especially in the case of frequent auras, association with patent foramen ovale, or prothrombotic states. This paper systematically reviews evidence on antithrombotic agents' efficacy for migraine prevention.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search on PubMed and Scopus including observational and interventional studies focused on antiplatelets or anticoagulants as preventive treatments for migraine. The search included studies published until June 30th, 2024. Ongoing trials on Clinicaltrials.org were also explored. Quality assessment used the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB-2) tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) for observational studies. The protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO identifier CRD42024501531).

RESULTS

Out of 1854 records, we found 12 RCTs and 8 observational studies investigating the impact of antithrombotic drugs in migraine prevention. Due to heterogeneity of data, a meta-analysis was not feasible. RCTs tested acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) alone (seven), ASA in combination with other preventive treatments (two), clopidogrel (one), dual antiplatelet treatment (one), and vitamin K antagonists (one). Observational studies tested ASA (three), vitamin K antagonists (three), and clopidogrel (two). No clear evidence of efficacy was found for the overall population of individuals with migraine. Limited evidence from old RCTs-not specifically addressing the role of antithrombotic drugs for migraine prevention-and observational studies showed a potential improvement of migraine with the use of antiplatelet agents, mostly ASA, in special populations, including males, individuals with migraine with aura, and those with patent foramen ovale.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence supporting the effectiveness of antithrombotic drugs as a preventive treatment for patients with migraine is insufficient. As preliminary data show potential improvements in special populations in whom those agents act indirectly by ameliorating vascular function, RCTs are worth conducting.

Why Consider Aspirin for the Treatment of Vestibular Schwannoma? A Brief Review and Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study Proposal

Objective

The primary objective of this study is to review the evidence for aspirin use to prevent the growth of vestibular schwannomas (VS) and to propose a prospective trial to determine the progression-free survival of VS patients after up to 42 months of treatment with aspirin. Secondary study objectives are to determine the effect of aspirin on VS growth, hearing function, serum biomarker levels, and the quality of life, as well as to determine the tolerability of aspirin treatment and whether serum biomarker and salicylate levels predict the response to aspirin.

Study Design

Literature review.

Setting

Six academic and private medical centers.

Methods

Review of recent English literature regarding prophylactic aspirin use for VS.

Results

The retrospective reviews on the utility of aspirin to prevent VS growth are inconclusive. Eighty-four patients have been enrolled in a prospective double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial thus far to determine the effect of aspirin on VS.

Conclusions

Completion of a robust study design is necessary. The current aspirin dose has been well tolerated, with minimal adverse events to date.

Level of Evidence

Review of retrospective studies: Level 4; Proposed randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded clinical trial: Level 2.

Aspirin: latest evidence and developments

Aspirin is a foundation drug of the pharmaceutical industry originally derived as an analgesic/anti-inflammatory agent but serendipitously discovered to have use as a prophylactic drug for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Its modern-day utility in this latter role relies on its efficacy/safety balance in a contemporary population where, at least in high-income countries, age-standardised incident rates for MACE are falling, and where there are now competing therapeutic agents. Its future may be determined by its potential role as a chemoprophylactic or adjunct agent for cancer or other disease states. It therefore will continue to be the subject of further clinical research.

Exploring the Protective Role of Aspirin Use in Mitigating Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Metastasis: A Nationwide Analysis (2016 to 2020)

Despite advancements in treatment strategies, the mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC) remains high. Evidence suggests that aspirin (ASA) may have a protective effect on CRC incidence and metastasis through various mechanisms. The 2016 to 2020 National Inpatient Sample was used to identify adult patients (age above 18 y) with the principal diagnosis of CRC. Patients were stratified into 2 groups based on ASA use. The outcomes studied were in-hospital mortality and rates of total, gastrointestinal (GI), non-GI, and lymphoid metastasis. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of ASA use on outcomes after adjusting for patient demographics, comorbidities, and the Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (ECI). Of the 814,270 patients, 88,620 (10.8%) used ASA, with the majority being aged above 65 years (78%), male (57%), white (77.6%), and had Medicare insurance (74.5%). There was a higher prevalence of Diabetes mellitus, Hypertension, Chronic pulmonary disease, Coronary artery disease, Chronic kidney disease, Chronic heart failure, Obesity, and Smoking among aspirin users than among non-ASA users. Patients who used ASA had a lower prevalence of total (47.3% vs. 32.5%, P<0.001), GI (22.2% vs. 32.4%, P<0.001), non-GI (9.9% vs. 15.3%, P<0.001), and lymphoid (9.3% vs. 10.9%, P<0.001) metastasis compared with those who did not use ASA. After adjusting for confounding factors, patients with ASA use had lower odds of total (aOR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.72-0.78, P<0.001), GI (aOR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.71-0.77, P<0.001), non-GI (aOR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.68-0.77, P<0.1), and statistically insignificant odds of lymphoid (aOR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.90-1.00, P=0.098) metastasis. The use of ASA is associated with a decrease in the prevalence of metastasis among individuals diagnosed with CRC, but additional studies are required to elucidate the mechanism and duration of therapy needed to be effective.

Aspirin in Primary Prevention: Looking for Those Who Enjoy It

Based on a wealth of evidence, aspirin is one of the cornerstones of secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. However, despite several studies showing efficacy also in primary prevention, an unopposed excess risk of bleeding leading to a very thin safety margin is evident in subjects without a clear acute cardiovascular event. Overall, the variability in recommendations from different scientific societies for aspirin use in primary prevention is a classic example of failure of simple risk stratification models based on competing risks (atherothrombosis vs. bleeding), perceived to be opposed but intertwined at the pathophysiological level. Notably, cardiovascular risk is dynamic in nature and cannot be accurately captured by scores, which do not always consider risk enhancers. Furthermore, the widespread use of other potent medications in primary prevention, such as lipid-lowering and anti-hypertensive drugs, might be reducing the benefit of aspirin in recent trials. Some authors, drawing from specific pathophysiological data, have suggested that specific subgroups might benefit more from aspirin. This includes patients with diabetes and those with obesity; sex-based differences are considered as well. Moreover, molecular analysis of platelet reactivity has been proposed. A beneficial effect of aspirin has also been demonstrated for the prevention of cancer, especially colorectal. This review explores evidence and controversies concerning the use of aspirin in primary prevention, considering new perspectives in order to provide a comprehensive individualized approach.

The pharmacology of antiplatelet agents for primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention of ischemic stroke

INTRODUCTION

Ischemic etiology accounts for two thirds of all strokes in which platelet activation and aggregation play a major role. A variety of antiplatelet therapies have been tested for primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention, with certain patient subtypes benefiting more than others from a specific regimen.

AREAS COVERED

This review aims at synthetizing current evidence on pharmacology of antiplatelet agents approved for primary, secondary, and tertiary stroke prevention and their application among possible patient subtypes that may benefit more from their administration.

EXPERT OPINION

Management of ischemic stroke has largely evolved over the past decades. A better understanding of stroke pathophysiology has allowed to identify patients who can benefit most from antiplatelet therapies, with varying degrees of benefit depending on whether these agents are being used for primary, secondary, or tertiary prevention. Importantly, the antiplatelet treatment regimens currently available have expanded and no longer limited to aspirin but include other drugs such as P2Y12 and phosphodiesterase inhibitors, also used in combination, as well as precision medicine approaches using genetic testing aiming at optimizing the safety and efficacy in this population.

The evolution of lung adenocarcinoma precursors is associated with chromosomal instability and transition from innate to adaptive immune response/evasion

Studying lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) early carcinogenesis is challenging, primarily due to the lack of LUAD precursors specimens. We amassed multi-omics data from 213 LUAD and LUAD precursors to identify molecular features underlying LUAD precancer evolution. We observed progressively increasing mutations, chromosomal aberrations, whole genome doubling and genomic instability from precancer to invasive LUAD, indicating aggravating chromosomal instability (CIN). Telomere shortening, a crucial genomic alteration linked to CIN, emerged at precancer stage. Moreover, later-stage lesions demonstrated increasing cancer stemness and decreasing alveolar identity, suggesting epithelial de-differentiation during early LUAD carcinogenesis. The innate immune cells progressively diminished from precancer to invasive LUAD, concomitant with a gradual recruitment of adaptive immune cells (except CD8+ and gamma-delta T cells that decreased in later stages) and upregulation of numerous immune checkpoints, suggesting LUAD precancer evolution is associated with a shift from innate to adaptive immune response and immune evasion mediated by various mechanisms.

Do We Still Need Aspirin in Coronary Artery Disease?

Aspirin has for some time been used as a first-line treatment for acute coronary syndromes, including ST-elevation myocardial infarction, for secondary prevention of established coronary disease, and for primary prevention in patients at risk of coronary artery disease. Although aspirin has been in use for decades, the available evidence for its efficacy largely predates the introduction of other drugs, such as statins and P2Y12 inhibitors. Based on recent trials, the recommendation for aspirin use as primary prevention has been downgraded. In addition, P2Y12 inhibitors given as a single antiplatelet therapy have been associated with a lower incidence of bleeding than dual antiplatelet therapy in combination with aspirin in patients with stable and unstable coronary artery disease. The aim of this review is to discuss the role of aspirin considering the available evidence for primary prevention, secondary prevention for stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes, and after percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass revascularization.

Low-Dose Aspirin for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events Comparing East Asians With Westerners: A Meta-Analysis

Background

East Asians have shown different risk profiles for both thrombophilia and bleeding than Western counterparts.

Objectives

The authors sought to evaluate the effect of low-dose aspirin for primary prevention between these populations.

Methods

We searched randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for intervention with low-dose aspirin (≤100 mg once daily) in participants without symptomatic cardiovascular disease until December 31, 2021. The number of events between the arms was extracted for analysis. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) and risk differences (RDs) were analyzed in each population. Outcomes included a major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and major bleeding (intracranial hemorrhage and major gastrointestinal bleeding).

Results

Two RCTs included 17,003 East Asians, and 9 RCTs had 117,467 Western participants. Aspirin treatment showed a similar effect in reducing the MACE rate (RR of East Asians: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.71-1.05; RR of Westerners: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.85-0.95) (Pinteraction = 0.721). In contrast, the risk of major bleeding during aspirin vs control was greater in the East Asian population (RR: 2.48; 95% CI: 1.86-3.30) compared with the Western population (RR: 1.45; 95% CI: 1.26-1.66) (Pinteraction = 0.001), which was driven by more frequent gastrointestinal bleeding (RR of East Asians: 3.29; 95% CI: 2.26-4.80 vs RR of Westerners: 1.56; 95% CI: 1.29-1.88) (Pinteraction < 0.001). The net RDs (RD of MACE plus RD of major bleeding) were 8.04 and 0.72 per 1,000 persons in East Asian and Western participants, indicating 124 and 1,389 of the net number needed to harm, respectively.

Conclusions

Low-dose aspirin for primary prevention in East Asians must be cautiously prescribed because of the increased risk of major bleeding relative to Western counterparts.

Aspirin for the Primary Prevention of Vascular Ischemic Events: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis to Support Shared Decision-Making

Background

Since the publication of the 2010 Canadian antiplatelet guidelines, several large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated the role of aspirin (ASA) use in primary prevention. We evaluated the effect of ASA use, compared with no ASA, on ischemic and bleeding events in patients without known atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases.

Methods

We updated a published systematic review and meta-analysis by searching MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL for the period up to March 2023. We included RCTs that enrolled patients for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases, and compared use of ASA to no ASA. We assessed risk of bias (RoB) using the Cochrane RoB tool, and certainty of evidence using the grading recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) criteria. The primary efficacy outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (death, myocardial infarction, or stroke). The primary safety outcomes were intracranial hemorrhage and extracranial major bleeding events. We used a random-effects model to generate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

We included 14 RCTs (n = 167,587) at overall low RoB, with a median follow-up of 5 years. Compared to no ASA, ASA use reduced the incidence of MACE (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.86-0.94), with a higher risk of intracranial hemorrhage (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.13-1.56) and extracranial major bleeding (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.36-2.06). In prespecified subgroups of age, sex, and diabetes, effect estimates were consistent.

Conclusions

ASA use in primary prevention is associated with a consistent reduction in MACE, but at the expense of major bleeding events. Patient values and preferences should be taken into account when considering ASA use for primary prevention.

Aspirin chemoprevention in colorectal cancer: network meta-analysis of low, moderate, and high doses

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer, with nearly 2 million cases worldwide and just under 1 million deaths in 2020. Several trials have demonstrated that aspirin has the potential to reduce the incidence and/or recurrence of colorectal cancer; however, the optimal aspirin dose is unclear.

METHODS

Relevant studies were identified by searching MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library from database inception to 2 February 2022. Data from RCTs in which the incidence of colorectal cancer in patients without active colorectal cancer assigned to aspirin versus control were included. Two investigators independently identified studies and abstracted data. Study quality was assessed using Cochrane Collaboration risk-of-bias 2 tool. The study was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Aspirin dose was stratified into low (50-163 mg/day), mid (164-325 mg/day), and high (500-1200 mg/day).

RESULTS

Thirteen articles representing 11 RCTs (92 550 participants) were included, with studies assessing aspirin as primary prophylaxis in general or high-risk populations, and as secondary prophylaxis for metachronous colorectal cancer. There was a statistically significant reduction in colorectal cancer incidence in the high-dose aspirin group compared with the group that received no aspirin or placebo (OR 0.69, 95 per cent credible interval 0.50 to 0.96; surface under the cumulative ranking 0.82). There was no statistically significant difference between mid- and low-dose aspirin versus no aspirin/placebo.

CONCLUSION

In this network meta-analysis of RCTs, high-dose aspirin was associated with a reduction in colorectal cancer incidence. However, this was based on a limited number of trials. This study did not show a statistically significant risk reduction in colorectal cancer incidence with mid- or low-dose aspirin.

Association of lactate-to-albumin ratio with in-hospital and intensive care unit mortality in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage

Background

Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is a severe stroke subtype with a high mortality rate; the lactate-to-albumin ratio (LAR) is a new biomarker for predicting clinical outcomes in patients with ICH. However, the relationship between LAR and mortality in patients with ICH treated in the intensive care unit (ICU) remains controversial. Therefore, in this study, we aimed to investigate the association between LAR and in-hospital and ICU mortality in patients with ICH.

Methods

Patients with ICH were selected from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care III (MIMIC-III) database; their clinical information, including baseline characteristics, vital signs, comorbidities, laboratory test results, and scoring systems, was extracted. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards analyses were used to investigate the association of LAR with in-hospital and ICU mortality. The maximum selection statistical method and subgroup analysis were used to investigate these relationships further. Kaplan-Meier (KM) analysis was used to draw survival curves.

Results

This study enrolled 237 patients with ICH whose lactate and albumin levels, with median values of 1.975 and 3.6 mg/dl, respectively, were measured within the first 24 h after ICU admission. LAR had an association with increased risk of in-hospital mortality [unadjusted hazards ratio (HR), 1.79; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.32-2.42; p < 0.001] and ICU mortality (unadjusted HR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.38-2.55; p < 0.001). A cut-off value of 0.963 mg/dl was used to classify patients into high LAR (≥0.963) and low LAR (<0.963) groups, and survival curves suggested that those two groups had significant survival differences (p = 0.0058 and 0.0048, respectively). Furthermore, the high LAR group with ICH had a significantly increased risk of in-hospital and ICU mortality compared to the low LAR group.

Conclusion

Our study suggests that a high LAR is associated with an increased risk of in-hospital and ICU mortality in patients with ICH. Thus, the LAR is a useful prognostic predictor of clinical outcomes in patients with ICH.

Effect of antiplatelet therapy on the incidence, prognosis, and rebleeding of intracerebral hemorrhage

OBJECTIVE

Antiplatelet medications are increasingly being used for primary and secondary prevention of ischemic attacks owing to the increasing prevalence of ischemic stroke occurrences. Currently, many patients receive antiplatelet therapy (APT) to prevent thromboembolic events. However, long-term use of APT might also lead to an increased occurrence of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) and affect the prognosis of patients with ICH. Furthermore, some research suggest that restarting APT for patients who have previously experienced ICH may result in rebleeding events. The precise relationship between APT and ICH remains unknown.

METHODS

We searched PubMed for the most recent related literature and summarized the findings from various studies. The search terms included "antiplatelet," "intracerebral hemorrhage," "cerebral microbleeds," "hematoma expansion," "recurrent," and "reinitiate." Clinical studies involving human subjects were ultimately included and interpreted in this review, and animal studies were not discussed.

RESULTS

When individuals are administered APT, the risk of thrombotic events should be weighted against the risk of bleeding. In general, for some patients' concomitant with risk factors of thrombotic events, the advantages of antiplatelet medication may outweigh the inherent risk of rebleeding. However, the use of antiplatelet medications for other patients with a higher risk of bleeding should be carefully evaluated and closely monitored. In the future, a quantifiable system for assessing thrombotic risk and bleeding risk will be necessary. After evaluation, the appropriate time to restart APT for ICH patients should be determined to prevent underlying ischemic stroke events. According to the present study results and expert experience, most patients now restart APT at around 1 week following the onset of ICH. Nevertheless, the precise time to restart APT should be chosen on a case-by-case basis as per the patient's risk of embolic events and recurrent bleeding. More compelling evidence-based medicine evidence is needed in the future.

CONCLUSION

This review thoroughly discusses the relationship between APT and the development of ICH, the impact of APT on the course and prognosis of ICH patients, and the factors influencing the decision to restart APT after ICH. However, different studies' conclusions are inconsistent due to the differences in quality control. To support future clinical decisions, more large-scale randomized controlled trials are required.

Aspirin With or Without Statin in Individuals Without Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Across Risk Categories

Background

The effects of aspirin in adults without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), stratified by statin use across different ASCVD risks, remain uncertain.

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of aspirin in adults without ASCVD, stratified by statin use across different ASCVD risks.

Methods

We searched databases through March 2022 and selected randomized controlled trials of aspirin without ASCVD and follow-up of ≥1 year. We used random-effects models and estimated relative and absolute risks for cardiovascular outcomes, major bleeding, and mortality over 5 years. We calculated absolute risk differences assuming constant relative risks (RRs) across statin use and ASCVD risks. The Cholesterol Treatment Trialists Collaboration, and the ASCEND (A Study of Cardiovascular Events in Diabetes) trial were used to estimate baseline risks.

Results

In 16 trials [171,215 individuals; median age, 64 (Q1-Q3: 60-65) years], aspirin vs control reduced myocardial infarction (MI) [RR: 0.85 (95% CI: 0.77-0.95)] but increased major bleeding [RR: 1.48 (95% CI: 1.32-1.66)]. Aspirin did not reduce mortality. Statin vs no statin was associated with lower bleeding and MI risk; the bleeding and MI risk were proportional to ASCVD risk. For every 10,000 adults, aspirin reduced MI (very low risk: 3 events as monotherapy or 1 event with statin; very high risk: 49 events as monotherapy or 37 events with statin) and increased major bleeding (very low risk: 21 events as monotherapy or 20 events with statin; very high risk: 98 events as monotherapy or 94 events with statin) proportional to baseline ASCVD risk.

Conclusions

In adults without ASCVD, concomitant statin appeared to significantly reduce absolute risk reduction for MI associated with aspirin without influencing bleeding risk. The anticipated absolute risk of major bleeding with aspirin exceeds absolute MI benefits for every level of ASCVD risk.

Redefining the Roles of Aspirin across the Spectrum of Cardiovascular Disease Prevention

Even before its role in platelet inhibition was fully characterized in the 1980s, aspirin had been incorporated into the cardiovascular disease care algorithm. Early trials examining its use in unstable angina and acute myocardial infarction revealed evidence of its protective role in the secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Large trials assessing use in the primary prevention setting and optimal dosing regimens were studied in the late 1990s and early 2000s. As a cornerstone of cardiovascular care, aspirin was incorporated into primary and secondary ASCVD prevention guidelines in the United States and mechanical heart valve guidelines. However, in recent years, with significant advances in medical and interventional ASCVD therapies, scrutiny has been placed on the bleeding profile of aspirin, and guidelines have adapted to new evidence. Updates in primary prevention guidelines reserve aspirin only for patients at higher ASCVD risk and low bleeding risk - though questions remain in ASCVD risk assessment as risk-enhancing factors have proven difficult to incorporate on a population level. New thoughts regarding aspirin use in secondary prevention - especially with the concomitant use of anticoagulants - have altered recommendations as additional data accrued. Finally, a recommendation for aspirin and vitamin K antagonists with mechanical heart valves has been modified. Despite aspirin losing a foothold in cardiovascular care, new evidence has strengthened claims for its use in women at high risk for preeclampsia.

Acetylsalicylic Acid-Primus Inter Pares in Pharmacology

Acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) is one of the first drugs to be obtained by synthesis while being the most used. It has experienced the longest lasting commercial success and is considered the most popular drug of the modern era. ASA, originally used as an anti-inflammatory medication, nowadays is predominantly used as an antiplatelet agent for prophylaxis in cardiac patients. Many studies show that the benefits of using ASA far outweigh the potential risk of side effects. With particular emphasis on the possibility of ASA repositioning for new therapies, extending the indications for use beyond the diseases from the spectrum of atherosclerotic diseases, such as cancer, requires shifting the benefit-risk ratio, although very good, even more towards safety. Interesting activities consisting not only of changing the formulation but also modifying the drug molecule seem to be an important goal of the 21st century. ASA has become a milestone in two important fields: pharmacy and medicine. For a pharmacist, ASA is a long-used drug for which individual indications are practically maintained. For a doctor, acetylsalicylic acid is primarily an antiplatelet drug that saves millions of lives of patients with coronary heart disease or after a stroke. These facts do not exempt us from improving therapeutic methods based on ASA, the main goal of which is to reduce the risk of side effects, as well as to extend effectiveness. Modified acetylsalicylic acid molecules already seem to be a promising therapeutic option.

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.

Antiplatelet agents and anticoagulants for hypertension

BACKGROUND

The main complications of elevated systemic blood pressure (BP), coronary heart disease, ischaemic stroke, and peripheral vascular disease, are related to thrombosis rather than haemorrhage. Therefore, it is important to investigate if antithrombotic therapy may be useful in preventing thrombosis-related complications in patients with elevated BP.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic review of the role of antiplatelet therapy and anticoagulation in patients with elevated BP, including elevations in systolic or diastolic BP alone or together. To assess the effects of antiplatelet agents on total deaths or major thrombotic events or both in these patients versus placebo or other active treatment. To assess the effects of oral anticoagulants on total deaths or major thromboembolic events or both in these patients versus placebo or other active treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) up to January 2021: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2020, Issue 12), Ovid MEDLINE (from 1946), and Ovid Embase (from 1974). The World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) were searched for ongoing trials.  SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs in patients with elevated BP were included if they were ≥ 3 months in duration and compared antithrombotic therapy with control or other active treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data for inclusion criteria, our prespecified outcomes, and sources of bias. They assessed the risks and benefits of antiplatelet agents and anticoagulants by calculating odds ratios (OR), accompanied by the 95% confidence intervals (CI). They assessed risks of bias and applied GRADE criteria.  MAIN RESULTS: Six trials (61,015 patients) met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Four trials were primary prevention (41,695 patients; HOT, JPAD, JPPP, and TPT), and two secondary prevention (19,320 patients, CAPRIE and Huynh). Four trials (HOT, JPAD, JPPP, and TPT) were placebo-controlled and two studies (CAPRIE and Huynh) included active comparators. Four studies compared acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) versus placebo and found no evidence of a difference for all-cause mortality (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.08; 3 studies, 35,794 participants; low-certainty evidence). We found no evidence of a difference for cardiovascular mortality (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.17; 3 studies, 35,794 participants; low-certainty evidence). ASA reduced the risk of all non-fatal cardiovascular events (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.87; 1 study (missing data in 3 studies), 2540 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the risk of all cardiovascular events (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.96; 3 studies, 35,794 participants; low-certainty evidence). ASA increased the risk of major bleeding events (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.34 to 2.32; 2 studies, 21,330 participants; high-certainty evidence). One study (CAPRIE; ASA versus clopidogrel) included patients diagnosed with hypertension (mean age 62.5 years, 72% males, 95% Caucasians, mean follow-up: 1.91 years). It showed no evidence of a difference for all-cause mortality (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.15; 1 study, 19,143 participants; high-certainty evidence) and for cardiovascular mortality (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.26; 1 study, 19,143 participants; high-certainty evidence). ASA probably reduced the risk of non-fatal cardiovascular events (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.22; 1 study, 19,143 participants; high-certainty evidence) and the risk of all cardiovascular events (OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.17; 1 study, 19,143 participants; high-certainty evidence) when compared to clopidogrel. Clopidogrel increased the risk of major bleeding events when compared to ASA (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.61; 1 study, 19,143 participants; high-certainty evidence). In one study (Huynh; ASA verus warfarin) patients with unstable angina or non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, with prior coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) were included (mean age 68 years, 79.8% males, mean follow-up: 1.1 year). There was no evidence of a difference for all-cause mortality (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.06 to 16.12; 1 study, 91 participants; low-certainty evidence). Cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal cardiovascular events, and all cardiovascular events were not available. There was no evidence of a difference for major bleeding events (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.60; 1 study, 91 participants; low-certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence that antiplatelet therapy modifies mortality in patients with elevated BP for primary prevention. ASA reduced the risk of cardiovascular events and increased the risk of major bleeding events.  Antiplatelet therapy with ASA probably reduces the risk of non-fatal and all cardiovascular events when compared to clopidogrel. Clopidogrel increases the risk of major bleeding events compared to ASA in patients with elevated BP for secondary prevention.  There is no evidence that warfarin modifies mortality in patients with elevated BP for secondary prevention.  The benefits and harms of the newer drugs glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, clopidogrel, prasugrel, ticagrelor, and non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants for patients with high BP have not been studied in clinical trials. Further RCTs of antithrombotic therapy including newer agents and complete documentation of all benefits and harms are required in patients with elevated BP.

Aspirin for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Diseases: "WALTZ" with the Evidence

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In this review article, a detailed analysis of the current literature is provided, along with a "glimpse" into what the future holds for aspirin in the context of primary prevention.

RECENT FINDINGS

The role of aspirin in primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases (CVD) has been extensively evaluated; however, the results provided over the years have been controversial. Identification of individual subgroups who may benefit from aspirin administration at an acceptable risk of bleeding complications is of paramount importance. Additionally, questions emerge at everyday clinical practice regarding the optimal use of aspirin in different phenotypes of patients due to age, sex, obesity status, frailty and diabetes mellitus. Until further data become available, the effective management of the well-established CV risk factors constitutes the milestone in the primary prevention of CVD. Moreover, based on the available evidence, the beneficial addition of aspirin in the modern era of lifestyle and pharmacological interventions for primary CVD prevention remains largely undetermined and further research is needed.

Evaluation of prophylaxis in primary prevention with acetylsalicylic acid in people with diabetes: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) prophylaxis for the primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ACVD) remain controversial in people with diabetes (DM) without ACVD, because the possible increased risk of major bleeding could outweigh the potential reduction in the risk of mortality and of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) considered individually or together.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the overall risk-benefit of ASA prophylaxis in primary prevention in people with DM and to compare the recommendations of the guidelines with the results of the meta-analyses (MA) and systematic reviews (SR).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We searched Medline, Google Scholar, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for SR and MA published from 2009 to 2020 which compared the effects of ASA prophylaxis versus placebo or control followed up for at least one year in people with DM without ACVD. Heterogeneity among the randomized clinical trials (RCT) included in the SR and MA was assessed. Cardiovascular outcomes of efficacy (all-cause mortality [ACM], cardiovascular mortality [CVM], myocardial infarction [MI], stroke and MACE) and of safety (major bleeding events [MBE], major gastrointestinal bleeding events [MGIBE], and intracranial and extracranial bleeding) were shown.

RESULTS

The recommendations of 12 guidelines were evaluated. The results of 25 SR and MA that included a total of 20 RCT were assessed. None of the MA or SR showed that ASA prophylaxis decreased the risk of ACM, CVM or MI. Only two of the 19 SR and MA that evaluated ischemic stroke showed a decrease in the stroke risk (mean 20.0% [SD±5.7]), bordering on statistical significance. Almost half of the MA and SR showed, bordering on statistical significance, a risk reduction for the MACE composite endpoint (mean 10.5% [SD±3.3]). The significant increases in MGIBE risk ranged from 35% to 55%. The significant increases in the risk of MBE and extracraneal bleeding were 33.4% (SD±14.9) and 54.5% (SD±0.7) respectively.

CONCLUSION

The overall risk-benefit assessment of ASA prophylaxis in primary prevention suggests that it should not be applied in people with DM.

Aspirin Use to Prevent Cardiovascular Disease and Colorectal Cancer: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

Low-dose aspirin is used for primary cardiovascular disease prevention and may have benefits for colorectal cancer prevention.

OBJECTIVE

To review the benefits and harms of aspirin in primary cardiovascular disease prevention and colorectal cancer prevention to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through January 2021; literature surveillance through January 21, 2022.

STUDY SELECTION

English-language randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of low-dose aspirin (≤100 mg/d) compared with placebo or no intervention in primary prevention populations.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Single extraction, verified by a second reviewer. Quantitative synthesis using Peto fixed-effects meta-analysis.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Cardiovascular disease events and mortality, all-cause mortality, colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, major bleeding, and hemorrhagic stroke.

RESULTS

Eleven RCTs (N = 134 470) and 1 pilot trial (N = 400) of low-dose aspirin for primary cardiovascular disease prevention were included. Low-dose aspirin was associated with a significant decrease in major cardiovascular disease events (odds ratio [OR], 0.90 [95% CI, 0.85-0.95]; 11 RCTs [n = 134 470]; I2 = 0%; range in absolute effects, -2.5% to 0.1%). Results for individual cardiovascular disease outcomes were significant, with similar magnitude of benefit. Aspirin was not significantly associated with reductions in cardiovascular disease mortality or all-cause mortality. There was limited trial evidence on benefits for colorectal cancer, with the findings highly variable by length of follow-up and statistically significant only when considering long-term observational follow-up beyond randomized trial periods. Low-dose aspirin was associated with significant increases in total major bleeding (OR, 1.44 [95% CI, 1.32-1.57]; 10 RCTs [n = 133 194]; I2 = 4.7%; range in absolute effects, 0.1% to 1.0%) and in site-specific bleeding, with similar magnitude.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Low-dose aspirin was associated with small absolute risk reductions in major cardiovascular disease events and small absolute increases in major bleeding. Colorectal cancer results were less robust and highly variable.

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 Systematic Review of Methods used to Conduct Decentralised Clinical Trials

Aims

To evaluate, using quantitative and qualitative approaches, published data on the design and conduct of decentralised clinical trials (DCTs).

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, ClinicalTrials.gov, OpenGrey and Google Scholar for publications reporting, discussing, or evaluating decentralised clinical research methods. Reports of randomised clinical trials using decentralised methods were included in a focused quantitative analysis with a primary outcome of number of randomised participants. All publications discussing or evaluating DCTs were included in a wider qualitative analysis to identify advantages, disadvantages, facilitators, barriers and stakeholder opinions of decentralised clinical trials. Quantitative data were summarised using descriptive statistics, and qualitative data analysed using a thematic approach.

Results

Initial searches identified 19 704 articles. After removal of duplicates, 18 553 were screened, resulting in 237 eligible for full‐text assessment. Forty‐five trials were included in the quantitative analysis; 117 documents were included in the qualitative analysis. Trials were widely heterogeneous in design and reporting, precluding meta‐analysis of the effect of DCT methods on the primary recruitment outcome. Qualitative analysis formulated 4 broad themes: value, burden, safety and equity. Participant and stakeholder experiences of DCTs were incompletely represented.

Conclusion

DCTs are developing rapidly. However, there is insufficient evidence to confirm which methods are most effective in trial recruitment, retention, or overall cost. The identified advantages, disadvantages, facilitators and barriers should inform the development of DCT methods. We recommend further research on how DCTs are experienced and perceived by participants and stakeholders to maximise potential benefits.

Primary care providers should prescribe aspirin to prevent cardiovascular disease based on benefit-risk ratio, not age

Recent guidelines restricted aspirin (ASA) in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) to patients <70 years old and more recent guidance to <60.In the most comprehensive prior meta-analysis, the Antithrombotic Trialists Collaboration reported a significant 12% reduction in CVD with similar benefit-risk ratios at older ages. Using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, four trials were added to an updated meta-analysis.ASA produced a statistically significant 13% reduction in CVD with 95% confidence limits (0.83 to 0.92) with similar benefits at older ages in each of the trials.Primary care providers should make individual decisions whether to prescribe ASA based on benefit-risk ratio, not simply age. When the absolute risk of CVD is >10%, benefits of ASA will generally outweigh risks of significant bleeding. ASA should be considered only after implementation of therapeutic lifestyle changes and other drugs of proven benefit such as statins, which are, at the very least, additive to ASA. Our perspective is that individual clinical judgements by primary care providers about prescription of ASA in primary prevention of CVD should be based on our evidence-based solution of weighing all the absolute benefits and risks rather than age. This strategy would do far more good for far more patients as well as far more good than harm in both developed and developing countries. This new and novel strategy for primary care providers to consider in prescribing ASA in primary prevention of CVD is the same as the general approach suggested by Professor Geoffrey Rose decades ago.

Aspirin in the Modern Era of Cardiovascular Disease Prevention

Aspirin’s antithrombotic effects have a long-established place in the prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD), and its traditional use as a core therapy for secondary prevention of CVD is well recognized. However, with the advent of newer antiplatelet agents and an increasing understanding of aspirin’s bleeding risks, its role across the full spectrum of modern CVD prevention has become less certain. As a consequence, recent trials have begun investigating aspirin-free strategies in secondary prevention. For example, a contemporary metanalysis of trials that assessed P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy versus prolonged (≥ 12 months) dual antiplatelet therapy (which includes aspirin) after percutaneous coronary intervention reported a lower risk of major bleeding and no increase in stent thrombosis, all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke in the P2Y₁₂ monotherapy group.

In contrast to secondary prevention, aspirin’s role in primary prevention has always been more controversial. While historical trials reported a reduction in MI and stroke, more contemporary trials have suggested diminishing benefit for aspirin in this setting, with no reduction in hard outcomes, and some primary prevention trials have even indicated a potential for harm. In this review, we discuss how changing population demographics, enhanced control of lipids and blood pressure, changes in the definition of outcomes like MI, evolution of aspirin formulations, and updated clinical practice guidelines have all impacted the use of aspirin for primary and secondary CVD prevention.

Neutrophil-Derived Protein S100A8/A9 Alters the Platelet Proteome in Acute Myocardial Infarction and Is Associated With Changes in Platelet Reactivity

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Objective:

Platelets are central to acute myocardial infarction (MI). How the platelet proteome is altered during MI is unknown. We sought to describe changes in the platelet proteome during MI and identify corresponding functional consequences.

Approach and Results:

Platelets from patients experiencing ST-segment–elevation MI (STEMI) before and 3 days after treatment (n=30) and matched patients with severe stable coronary artery disease before and 3 days after coronary artery bypass grafting (n=25) underwent quantitative proteomic analysis. Elevations in the proteins S100A8 and S100A9 were detected at the time of STEMI compared with stable coronary artery disease (S100A8: FC, 2.00; false discovery rate, 0.05; S100A9: FC, 2.28; false discovery rate, 0.005). During STEMI, only S100A8 mRNA and protein levels were correlated in platelets (R=0.46, P=0.012). To determine whether de novo protein synthesis occurs, activated platelets were incubated with 13C-labeled amino acids for 24 hours and analyzed by mass spectrometry. No incorporation was confidently detected. Platelet S100A8 and S100A9 was strongly correlated with neutrophil abundance at the time of STEMI. When isolated platelets and neutrophils were coincubated under quiescent and activated conditions, release of S100A8 from neutrophils resulted in uptake of S100A8 by platelets. Neutrophils released S100A8/A9 as free heterodimer, rather than in vesicles or extracellular traps. In the community-based Bruneck study (n=338), plasma S100A8/A9 was inversely associated with platelet reactivity—an effect abrogated by aspirin.

Conclusions:

Leukocyte-to-platelet protein transfer may occur in a thromboinflammatory environment such as STEMI. Plasma S100A8/A9 was negatively associated with platelet reactivity. These findings highlight neutrophils as potential modifiers for thrombotic therapies in coronary artery disease.

The association of aspirin use with overall survival of patients with inoperable non-small cell lung cancer: a retrospective study

Background

Studies have indicated that individuals taking aspirin have a reduced risk of cancers and have also established chemo-preventive benefit of aspirin in colorectal cancer. However, research on the association between aspirin use and the survival in patients with lung cancer has revealed inconsistent results. In this study, we investigated the effect of aspirin use on the survival of inoperable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients.

Methods

We identified a cohort of 38,842 patients diagnosed with NSCLC between 2000 and 2012 using the Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database and used propensity score matching to reduce possible confounding factors. In total, 9864 patients (4932 matched pairs) were included in the matched cohort. Aspirin exposure was analyzed to identify a possible association with mortality in patients with inoperable NSCLC. Time-dependent Cox regression models were used to calculate the hazard ratios (HRs) and the 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) that corresponded with aspirin exposure.

Results

A total of 4979 patients used aspirin at the time of diagnosis of NSCLC. The median overall survival (OS) of the aspirin users was 1.73 (interquartile range, 0.94–3.53) years compared with the 1.30 (interquartile range, 0.69–2.62) years of the non-aspirin users. The Cox proportional hazard model with the time-dependent covariate revealed that aspirin use was associated with a significantly longer OS (HR: 0.83, 95.0% CI: 0.80–0.86). After controlling the sociodemographic characteristics (age, sex, income, and level of urbanization) and lung cancer treatments by propensity score matching, the aspirin users still had a significantly longer OS than the non-aspirin users (HR: 0.79, 95.0% CI: 0.75–0.83).

Conclusion

Aspirin use is associated with a longer OS in patients with inoperable NSCLC, suggesting that aspirin has a potential anticancer effect. These results warrant further randomized clinical trials to evaluate the actual role of aspirin in the treatment of NSCLC patients.

Efficacy and Safety of Aspirin for Primary Cardiovascular Risk Prevention in Younger and Older Age: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 178,310 Subjects from 21 Randomized Studies

AIMS

 The efficacy and safety of aspirin for primary cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention is controversial. The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of aspirin in subjects with no overt CVD, with a focus on age as a treatment modifier.

METHODS AND RESULTS

 Randomized trials comparing aspirin use versus no aspirin use or placebo were included. The primary efficacy outcome was all-cause death. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding. Secondary ischemic and bleeding outcomes were explored. Subgroup analyses were conducted to investigate the consistency of the effect sizes in studies including younger and older individuals, using a cut-off of 65 years. A total of 21 randomized trials including 173,810 individuals at a mean follow-up of 5.3 years were included. Compared with control, aspirin did not reduce significantly the risk of all-cause death (risk ratio: 0.96; 95% confidence interval: 0.92-1.00, p = 0.057). Major adverse cardiovascular events were significantly reduced by 11%, paralleled by significant reductions in myocardial infarction and transient ischemic attack. Major bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage, and gastrointestinal bleeding were significantly increased by aspirin. There was a significant age interaction for death (p for interaction = 0.007), with aspirin showing a statistically significant 7% relative benefit on all-cause death in studies including younger patients.

CONCLUSION

 The use of aspirin in subjects with no overt CVD was associated with a neutral effect on all-cause death and a modest lower risk of major cardiovascular events at the price of an increased risk in major bleeding. The benefit of aspirin might be more pronounced in younger individuals.

Aspirin, ibuprofen, and reduced risk of advanced colorectal adenoma incidence and recurrence and colorectal cancer in the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial

BACKGROUND

Studying the differential impact of aspirin and other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs across the stages of colorectal neoplasia from early adenoma to cancer is critical for understanding the benefits of these widely used drugs.

METHODS

With 13 years of follow-up, the authors prospectively evaluated the association between aspirin and ibuprofen use and incident distal adenoma (1221 cases), recurrent adenoma (862 cases), and incident colorectal cancer (CRC; 2826 cases) among men and women in the population-based Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial. With multivariable-adjusted models, odds ratio (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for adenoma incidence and recurrence and hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for incident CRC were determined.

RESULTS

The authors observed a significantly reduced risk of incident adenoma with ibuprofen use (≥30 vs <4 pills per month: OR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.60-0.95]; Ptrend = .04), particularly advanced adenoma (OR, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.28-0.83]; Ptrend = .005). Among those with a previous adenoma detected through screening, aspirin use was associated with a decreased risk of advanced recurrent adenoma (≥30 vs <4 pills per month: OR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.36-0.87]; Ptrend = 0.006). Both aspirin (HR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.81-0.96]; Ptrend <.0001) and ibuprofen use (HR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.70-0.93); Ptrend = 0.003) ≥30 versus <4 pills per month were significantly associated with reduced CRC risk.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large prospective study with long-term follow-up, a beneficial role for not only aspirin, but also ibuprofen, in preventing advanced adenoma and curbing progression to recurrence and cancer among older adults was observed.

Current Resources for Evidence-Based Practice, September 2021

An extensive review of new resources to support the provision of evidence-based care for women and infants. The current column includes an assessment of safety of birth centers in the United States and commentaries on reviews focused on aspirin prophylaxis in pregnancy and the new gestational weight gain evidence summary from the United States Preventive Services Task Force.

Does aspirin reduce the incidence, recurrence, and mortality of colorectal cancer? A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common diagnosed cancer and the third leading cause of all cancer deaths in the USA. Some evidences are shown that aspirin can reduce the morbidity and mortality of different cancers, including CRC. Aspirin has become a new focus of cancer prevention and treatment research so far; clinical studies, however, found conflicting conclusions of its anti-cancer characteristics. This study is to summarize the latest evidence of correlation between aspirin use and CRC and/or colorectal adenomas.

METHODS

Databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the salvage setting. The pooled relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to estimate the effect of aspirin on colorectal cancer and/or colorectal adenomas. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were also conducted.

RESULTS

The result showed that aspirin use was not associated with incidence of CRC (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.84-1.12; P = 0.66; I² = 34%), aspirin use was found to be associated with reduced recurrence of colorectal adenomas (RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.72-0.95; P = 0.006; I² = 63%) and reduced mortality of CRC (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.64-0.97; P = 0.02; I² = 14%). Subgroup analysis found a statistically significant association in low dose with a pooled RR of 0.85 (95% CI 0.74-0.99; P = 0.03; I² = 31%).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial data indicates that aspirin reduces the overall risk of recurrence and mortality of CRC and/or colorectal adenomas. Incidence of CRC was also reduced with low-dose aspirin. The emerging evidence on aspirin's cancer protection role highlights an exciting time for cancer prevention through low-cost interventions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov no: CRD42020208852; August 18, 2020; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020208852 ).

Learning from remote decentralised clinical trial experiences: A qualitative analysis of interviews with trial personnel, patient representatives and other stakeholders

AIMS

The aim of the study was to identify actionable learning points from stakeholders in remote decentralised clinical trials (RDCTs) to inform their future design and conduct.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews were carried out with a purposive sample of stakeholders, including senior managers, trial managers, technology experts, principal investigators, clinical investigators, research scientists, research nurses, vendors, patient representatives and project assistants. The interview data were coded using a thematic approach, identifying similarities, differences and clustering to generate descriptive themes. Further refinement of themes was guided by empirical phenomenology, grounding explanation in the meanings that interviewees gave to their experiences.

RESULTS

Forty-eight stakeholders were interviewed. Actionable learning points were generated from the thematic analysis. Patient involvement and participant engagement were seen as critical to the success of RDCTs where in-person contact is minimal or nonexistent. Involving patients in identifying the research question, creating recruitment materials, apps and websites, and providing ongoing feedback to trial participants were regarded as facilitating recruitment and engagement. Building strong relationships early with trial partners was thought to support RDCT conduct. Multiple modes of capturing information, including patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and routinely collected data, were felt to contribute to data completeness. However, RDCTs may transfer trial activity burden onto participants and remote-working research staff, therefore additional support may be needed.

CONCLUSION

RDCTs will continue to face challenges in implementing novel technologies. However, maximising patient and partner involvement, reducing participant and staff burden, and simplifying how participants and staff interact with the RDCT may facilitate their implementation.

Platelets: the point of interconnection among cancer, inflammation and cardiovascular diseases

INTRODUCTION

The association between thrombosis, cancer and inflammation is well-established. Platelets play a major role in atherosclerosis, inflammation and immune response. Furthermore, growing evidence suggests that they are also significantly involved in tumor development and progression so that anti-platelet agents may prevent cancer and improve outcomes in oncological patients. In this review, we aimed at analyzing the relationship between platelets, cardiovascular diseases and cancer. A comprehensive study in the main educational platforms was performed and high-quality original articles and reviews were included.

AREAS COVERED

This review will focus on the role of platelets in cardiovascular disease and in cancer genesis and progression, analyzing their function as immune cells that link inflammation to thrombosis. Finally, it will examine the recent controversies on the use of anti-platelet agents as cancer medications, in particular the already known anti-tumor properties of aspirin, as well as the new perspectives regarding P2Y12 inhibitors.

EXPERT OPINION

Platelet-cancer crosstalk generates a vicious feed-back loop involving tumor cells and secreting molecules that activate platelets, which in turn promote cancer-associated inflammation, proliferation, spreading and immune system evasion. Therefore, platelets inhibition may represent an innovative therapeutical strategy offered to cancer patients, in the perspective of personalized medicine.

Low-dose aspirin for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular events in Denmark 1998-2018

Randomised controlled trials have shown a neutral or even unfavourable risk–benefit balance of aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular events. Using Danish nationwide registries, we investigated aspirin use and associated risks during the past two decades (1998–2018). We linked individual patient data on repeated aspirin redemptions with registered hospital ICD-10 diagnoses of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and bleedings. The prevalence of aspirin use among 1.1 million Danish adults fluctuated over the 20-year study period peaking in 2008 with 8.5% (5.4% primary prevention) and dropping to 5.1% (3.1% primary prevention) in 2018. Aspirin use showed strong age dependency, and 21% of individuals > 80 years were treated with aspirin for primary prevention in 2018. Medication adding to bleeding risk was used concurrently by 21% of all aspirin users in 2018. The incidence of major bleedings were similar with primary and secondary prevention aspirin use and highest in elderly (2 per 100 patient years among individuals > 80 years in 2018). In conclusion, low-dose aspirin use for primary prevention of cardiovascular events remains prevalent. The widespread use of aspirin, especially among older adults, and substantial concomitant use of medications adding to bleeding risk warrant increased focus on discontinuation of inappropriate aspirin use.

Appropriateness of aspirin prescribing for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes in different care settings

Background

Type 2 diabetes is associated with an increased cardiovascular risk. Use of aspirin has been shown to be of benefit for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes; benefits in primary prevention have not been clearly proven.

Aims

This study aims to (a) determine if aspirin is prescribed appropriately in type 2 diabetes for primary or secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and (b) evaluate whether there are differences in aspirin prescribing according to where people receive their care.

Design

Cross-sectional study

Methods

The medical records of individuals with type 2 diabetes aged over 18 years and attending Elmwood Primary Care Centre and Cork University Hospital Diabetes outpatient clinics (n = 400) between February and August 2017 were reviewed.

Results

There were 90 individuals exclusively attending primary care and 310 persons attending shared care. Overall, 49.0% (n = 196) of those were prescribed aspirin, of whom 42.3% were using it for secondary prevention. Aspirin was used significantly more in people attending shared care (p < 0.001). About 10.8% of individuals with diabetes and CVD attending shared care met guidelines for, but were not prescribed aspirin.

Conclusion

A significant number of people with type 2 diabetes who should have been prescribed aspirin for secondary prevention were not receiving it at the time of study assessment. In contrast, a substantial proportion who did not meet criteria for aspirin use was prescribed it for primary prevention.

Aspirin, Statins, and Primary Prevention: Opportunities for Shared Decision Making in the Face of Uncertainty

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The utility of aspirin and statins for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease remains ambiguous in older adults. Current guidelines and recent data are vague and inconclusive. This review seeks to summarize the landscape of primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in older adults and explore the role of shared decision making.

RECENT FINDINGS

Observational data suggest potential benefit of statin therapy in older adults. Aspirin is presently not recommended for primary prevention based on evidence from recent clinical trials. The implementation of shared decision making and decision aids in routine clinical practice remains challenging but may rise in coming years. Clinical trial data on the horizon may aid in solidifying guideline therapy for statin use. However, in the face of uncertainty, shared decision making between provider and patient should be utilized to determine whether pharmacotherapy may benefit older adults. Decision aids are an effective tool to guide this process.

Chagas disease is an independent predictor of stroke and death in a cohort of heart failure patients

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Chagas disease is a common cause of heart failure (HF) and death in developing countries. Although stroke is known to occur in these patients, an accurate estimate of stroke incidence is lacking. We aimed to determine the incidence of stroke and death in patients with HF, comparing Chagas and non-Chagas etiologies.

METHODS

Cohort of stroke-free patients with HF (Framingham criteria) followed in a university-based outpatient clinic in Brazil. Baseline characteristics included sociodemographic, risk factor assessment, echocardiographic and electrocardiographic findings. Chagas disease was defined by appropriate serologic tests. Cause-specific Cox regression was used to search for predictors of stroke or death as separate outcomes.

RESULTS

We studied 565 patients with HF between January 2003 and December 2018, mean age 54.3 ± 12.9 years, 305 (54.0%) females, 271/535 (50.7%) with Chagas disease. Chagas patients were older (55.5 vs. 53.1 years), more frequently women (60.5% vs. 47.3%), less frequently harbored coronary artery disease (14.5% vs. 34.1%) when compared to non-Chagas patients. Echocardiography showed more severe disease among non-Chagas patients [median left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) 37.3% vs. 47.0%]. Over a mean 42.9 (±34.4) months, we followed 404 (71.5%) patients, completing 1442 patient-years of follow-up. Stroke incidence was higher in Chagas when compared to non-Chagas patients (20.2 vs. 13.9 events per 1000 patient-years), while death rate was similar (41.6 vs. 43.1 deaths per 1000 patient-years). In the multivariable analysis for stroke outcome adjusted for LVEF and arrhythmias, cause-specific hazard ratio (CSHR) for Chagas was 2.54 (95% confidence interval 1.01-6.42, p = 0.048). Chagas disease was also associated with increased risk of death (CSHR 1.83; 95% confidence interval 1.04-3.24, p = 0.037).

CONCLUSION

Chagas disease is associated with increased risk of stroke and death when compared to other etiologies of HF, independently of HF severity or cardiac arrhythmias, suggesting other factors contribute to increased stroke risk and mortality in Chagas disease. Early prevention and treatment of Chagas disease is imperative to reduce a later risk of stroke in endemic areas.

Aspirin for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in the 21st Century: A Review of the Evidence

Aspirin (ASA) is the most commonly prescribed antiplatelet agent. Although the evidence for efficacy of aspirin for secondary prevention of ischemic events in patients with established cardiovascular disease is strong, its role in primary prevention has been subject of controversies over the past decades. In fact, historical trials have shown only modest benefit in terms of reduction of ischemic events, mostly myocardial infarction and to a lesser extent stroke, and only at the expense of an increased risk of bleeding. These observations have led to divergent recommendations from professional societies on the use of ASA for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease manifestations. However, recent results from three trials of primary prevention have shown either no benefit or modest benefit on combined ischemic end points, without any impact on hard cardiovascular events such as myocardial infarction or stroke, accompanied by an increased risk of bleeding. Overall, this translated into neutral net benefit or even harm with the use of aspirin in patients with no overt cardiovascular disease. These results have accordingly led to a downgrade in the current recommendations on the use of ASA for primary prevention. This article provides an overview on the current evidence on the use of aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

Aspirin for Primary Prevention of Coronary Artery Disease

Primary prevention of coronary artery disease (CAD) is an important means to reduce the burden of the disease. Aspirin has been widely prescribed over the last several decades as part of primary CAD prevention strategy. However, 3 recent hallmark trials - ARRIVE, ASCEND and ASPREE have raised serious questions about this common practice. Although, aspirin reduced incidence of non-fatal MI and stroke in these recent studies, bleeding risk was higher. In the present era, where regular exercise, healthy diet, smoking cessation, and statins are used to manage the risk factors of CAD, additional prescription of aspirin seems more harmful than beneficial. The guidelines of major societies such as European Society of Cardiology (ESC), American College of Cardiology (ACC), and American Heart Association (AHA) also reflect this shift. In this article, the authors aim to highlight the current evidence on aspirin use for primary prevention of CAD, in the context of evolving contrasting clinical trial data from the last 2 decades. We also highlight the pertinent sections of the most recent clinical guidelines of European Society of Cardiology, American College of Cardiology, and American Heart Association in this article.

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.

Aspirin in the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease and Cancer

More than a century after its synthesis, daily aspirin, given at a low dose, is a milestone treatment for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Its role in primary prevention of CVD is still debated. Older randomized controlled trials showed that aspirin reduced the low incidence of myocardial infarction but correspondingly increased the low incidence of serious gastrointestinal bleeds without altering mortality. More recent trials see the benefit attenuated, perhaps obscured by other cardioprotective practices, while the bleeding risk remains, especially in older patients. Indirect evidence, both preclinical and clinical, suggests that aspirin may protect against sporadic colorectal cancer and perhaps other cancers. However, further studies are still necessary to warrant the consumption of aspirin for primary prevention of CVD and cancer by apparently healthy individuals.

Pros and Cons of Aspirin for the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events: A Secondary Study of Trial Sequential Analysis

Background and Aims: Aspirin leads to substantial benefits for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD). We aimed to cast more light on aspirin's role for the primary prevention of CVD. Methods: Databases were searched for clinical trials comparing aspirin vs. no aspirin use in this meta-analysis. Efficacy and safety profiles were rigorously investigated. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was used to determine the robustness of the results. Results: Fourteen studies with 163,840 participants were eligible (mean follow-up 6.2 y). Aspirin intake was found to be associated with 9, 13, and 12% reductions in the risk of cardiovascular events (CV events) (relative risk [RR]: 0.91, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.87-0.96; risk difference (RD): 0.29%; absolute risk percentage (AR%): 7.61%; number needed to treat (NNT): 345), myocardial infarction (RR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.77-0.97; RD: 0.21%; AR%: 11.11%; NNT: 488) and ischemic stroke (RR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.80-0.96; RD: 0.21%; AR%: 16.14%; NNT: 476), respectively; aspirin intake was also associated with 40%, 30%, and 57% increases in the risk of major bleeding (RR: 1.40, 95% CI: 1.29-1.53; RD: 0.47%; AR%: 27.85; NNT: 214), intracranial bleeding (RR: 1.30, 95% CI: 1.11-1.52; RD: 0.10%; AR%: 22.99%; NNT: 1,000) and major gastrointestinal bleeding (RR: 1.57, 95% CI: 1.38-1.78; RD: 0.32%; AR%: 36.70%; NNT: 315), respectively. Further, populations with low doses of aspirin intake (≤100 mg), populations <65 y old or populations with body mass index (BMI) ≧ 25 experienced more advantages; high-risk (10-y cardiovascular risk ≧10%) and full diabetic individuals reported hardly clinical benefits. Conclusion: Aspirin intake was associated with a reduced risk of CV events and an increased incidence of bleeding profiles in primary prevention. It is necessary to identify individual's CVD risk using clear examinations or assessments before aspirin intake, and truly realize individualized prescription.

Aspirin for prevention of colorectal cancer in the elderly: friend or foe?

Cancer is the leading cause of death among men and women aged 60-79 years. Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in males and the second most common in females, with about 0.8 million deaths worldwide per year. Individuals older than 50 years account for 20-50% of colonic adenomas. Several measures have been proposed to decrease colorectal cancer risks, such as an increase in dietary fiber, use of aspirin, and physical activity. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs have been proposed as protective agents against the development of colorectal cancer and colorectal adenomas. Aspirin was the first pharmacological agent endorsed by the United States Preventive Services Task Force screening for colorectal cancer chemoprevention. Although studies have shown up to 40% colorectal cancer risk reduction in individuals at average risk, data regarding this benefit are inconsistent. Several recent studies show that prophylactic use of aspirin in elderly subjects may not be beneficial in preventing the occurrence of colorectal cancers. Given the risks associated with aspirin, such as non-fatal and fatal bleeding events, aspirin's role should be redefined, especially in individuals at risk of bleeding. This review provides a discussion of the recent studies on the role of aspirin use in elderly individuals at risk of colorectal cancer.

The role of aspirin in the primary prevention of accelerated atherosclerosis in systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases

Aspirin is the most commonly used medication worldwide. Beside its well-known anti-inflammatory effects, a role has emerged in the prevention of cardiovascular events. However, a significant benefit has been demonstrated in secondary cardiovascular prevention only, while there is limited evidence supporting a role in primary prevention. This discrepancy might depend on the that so far, the high-risk populations that will achieve the greatest benefits yet experiencing minimal harmful side effects have not been identified. Patients with autoimmune systemic rheumatic diseases have an increased risk of cardiovascular complications compared with the general population, which makes aspirin of potential value in these subjects. Moving from general aspects of aspirin pharmacology and specific issues in general population, the aim of this study is to review the evidence about the role of low-dose aspirin in primary cardiovascular prevention in autoimmune systemic rheumatic diseases.

Aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: Advice for a decisional strategy based on risk stratification

The need for aspirin therapy as part of primary prevention of cardiovascular (CV) disease is currently being highly debated, especially after 3 studies in different settings reported that a reduction in ischemic events is largely counterbalanced by an increase in bleeding events. One possible explanation for these results is the progressive reduction in the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) as a result of primary prevention, which has accompanied global education programs that have led to patients smoking less, exercising more, and increasingly undertaking lipid-lowering therapies. Based on a meta-regression of the benefits and harmful effects of aspirin therapy in primary prevention as a function of the 10-year risk of MACE, we favor a differentiated and personalized approach that acknowledged differences between patients and emphasized an individualized assessment of benefits and risks. Following general preventive measures (physical exercise, cessation of smoking, treatment of hypertension and hypercholesterolemia, etc.), an individualized approach to prescribing aspirin is still warranted. When patients are less than 70 years of age, clinicians should assess the 10-year CV risk. Aspirin treatment should be considered only when the CV risk is very high and the bleeding risk is low, after taking into account the patient's preferences.