Impact of platelet reactivity on long-term clinical outcomes and bleeding events in Japanese patients receiving antiplatelet therapy with aspirin

The prognostic utility of tests of platelet function for the detection of 'aspirin resistance' in patients with established cardiovascular or cerebrovascular disease: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

The use of aspirin is well established for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. However, a proportion of patients suffer repeat cardiovascular events despite being prescribed aspirin treatment. It is uncertain whether or not this is due to an inherent inability of aspirin to sufficiently modify platelet activity. This report aims to investigate whether or not insufficient platelet function inhibition by aspirin ('aspirin resistance'), as defined using platelet function tests (PFTs), is linked to the occurrence of adverse clinical outcomes, and further, whether or not patients at risk of future adverse clinical events can be identified through PFTs.

OBJECTIVES

To review systematically the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness evidence regarding the association between PFT designation of 'aspirin resistance' and the risk of adverse clinical outcome(s) in patients prescribed aspirin therapy. To undertake exploratory model-based cost-effectiveness analysis on the use of PFTs.

DATA SOURCES

Bibliographic databases (e.g. MEDLINE from inception and EMBASE from 1980), conference proceedings and ongoing trial registries up to April 2012.

METHODS

Standard systematic review methods were used for identifying clinical and cost studies. A risk-of-bias assessment tool was adapted from checklists for prognostic and diagnostic studies. (Un)adjusted odds and hazard ratios for the association between 'aspirin resistance', for different PFTs, and clinical outcomes are presented; however, heterogeneity between studies precluded pooling of results. A speculative economic model of a PFT and change of therapy strategy was developed.

RESULTS

One hundred and eight relevant studies using a variety of PFTs, 58 in patients on aspirin monotherapy, were analysed in detail. Results indicated that some PFTs may have some prognostic utility, i.e. a trend for more clinical events to be associated with groups classified as 'aspirin resistant'. Methodological and clinical heterogeneity prevented a quantitative summary of prognostic effect. Study-level effect sizes were generally small and absolute outcome risk was not substantially different between 'aspirin resistant' and 'aspirin sensitive' designations. No studies on the cost-effectiveness of PFTs for 'aspirin resistance' were identified. Based on assumptions of PFTs being able to accurately identify patients at high risk of clinical events and such patients benefiting from treatment modification, the economic model found that a test-treat strategy was likely to be cost-effective. However, neither assumption is currently evidence based.

LIMITATIONS

Poor or incomplete reporting of studies suggests a potentially large volume of inaccessible data. Analyses were confined to studies on patients prescribed aspirin as sole antiplatelet therapy at the time of PFT. Clinical and methodological heterogeneity across studies precluded meta-analysis. Given the lack of robust data the economic modelling was speculative.

CONCLUSIONS

Although evidence indicates that some PFTs may have some prognostic value, methodological and clinical heterogeneity between studies and different approaches to analyses create confusion and inconsistency in prognostic results, and prevented a quantitative summary of their prognostic effect. Protocol-driven and adequately powered primary studies are needed, using standardised methods of measurements to evaluate the prognostic ability of each test in the same population(s), and ideally presenting individual patient data. For any PFT to inform individual risk prediction, it will likely need to be considered in combination with other prognostic factors, within a prognostic model.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO 2012:CRD42012002151.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

A short-term risk-benefit analysis of occasional and regular use of low-dose aspirin in primary prevention of vascular diseases: a nationwide population-based study

OBJECTIVE

To calculate the short-term risk-benefit effect of occasional and regular use of low-dose aspirin (≤100 mg/day) in primary prevention.

STUDY DESIGN

Two retrospective cohort studies.

SETTING

Taiwan.

PARTICIPANTS

63 788 and 24 910 patients of two nationwide population-based studies were examined.

METHODS

Two databases of 1 000 000 patients were randomly sampled from data of Taiwan's National Health Insurance (NHI) for years 1997-2000 (NHI 2000) and 2005 (NHI 2005). In NHI 2000, 63 788 patients 30-95 years of age were found not to have previously been prescribed aspirin before 1 January 2000, but to have first been prescribed low-dose aspirin after that date. They were also found to be at risk of first hospitalisation for any major vascular diseases including haemorrhage (major gastrointestinal haemorrhage or cerebral haemorrhage) and ischaemia (acute myocardial infarction or ischaemic stroke) after their first prescription. We also applied it to NHI 2005, and the number of eligible patients was 24 910. Patients prescribed low-dose aspirin for <20% of the days of a 60-day follow-up period were considered to be occasional users, and those prescribed low-dose aspirin for ≥80% of the days were considered to be regular users. Differences in rate of haemorrhage and ischaemia between these users were used to calculate their net clinical risk.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

Vascular diseases.

RESULTS

In NHI 2000, the overall unadjusted rates of haemorrhage and ischaemia were 0.09% and 0.21%, respectively, for occasional users and 0.32% and 2.30%, respectively, for regular users. Adjusted net clinical risk of low-dose aspirin use between the two groups was 2.24% (95% CI 2.03% to 2.48%; p<0.001). Similar results were also found in NHI 2005.

CONCLUSIONS

Short-term regular use of low-dose aspirin might not be better than occasional use for preventing major vascular diseases in primary prevention. Prescribing regular low-dose aspirin for primary prevention should be done with caution. Future studies should explore the risk-benefit effect of long-term low-dose aspirin use in primary prevention.

A short-term effect of low-dose aspirin on major hemorrhagic risks in primary prevention: a case-crossover design

BACKGROUND

Very few studies have examined the risk of short-term adverse hemorrhage of low-dose aspirin use in primary prevention. This case-crossover study examined the transient effect of low-dose aspirin use on major hemorrhagic risks.

METHODS

A representative database of 1,000,000 patients randomly sampled from the Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database in 2000 was analyzed. The study cohort consisted of a total of 501,946 individuals, aged 30-95 years old, at risk of a major bleeding event in 2000. A case-crossover study was used to retrieve data on 10,905 incident patients with major hemorrhagic complications (3,781 cerebral and 7,124 gastrointestinal) and prescribed low-dose aspirin (≤300 mg/day) from 2000-2008. A 56-day time window (∼2 months) was used as the case period for which the odds ratio (OR) was estimated using the ratio of patients exposed during the 56-day case period only (1-56 days before the index date) compared to its corresponding 56-day control period only (57-112 days before the index date).

RESULTS

Four hundred eighty-nine (4.5%) of the 10,905 hemorrhagic patients had used low-dose aspirin during the 56-day case only period; 294 (2.7%) of the same patients had used low-dose aspirin during control only period. Low-dose aspirin use increase the risk of developing a major hemorrhage 1.33-fold (95% CI = 1.13-1.55, P<0.0001). Significance was found prominent in 4,453 non-hypertensive and non-diabetic subjects (Adjusted odds ratio = 1.88, 95% CI = 1.21-2.91).

CONCLUSION

Transient low-dose aspirin use increases risk for major hemorrhagic events in Han Chinese.

Aspirin and clopidogrel for prevention of ischemic stroke

This review examines the role of platelets in ischemic stroke, platelet activation mechanisms, aspirin's rise as an antithrombotic agent, clopidogrel's appearance on the stage, a possible role for combination therapy, antiplatelet resistance, practical considerations, and future directions. Reviewed in this chapter are issues central to optimal antiplatelet therapy: efficacy, safety, resistance, and biochemical/laboratory testing. Current guidelines do not recommend combination aspirin and clopidogrel use, however recent research indicates dual antiplatelet therapy with combined aspirin and clopidogrel may have specific roles in secondary prevention of ischemic stroke. A cautious and analytical interpretation of the literature is advised before application of this knowledge to clinical practice. The best recommendation at this time is to follow the published guidelines for secondary prevention of ischemic stroke.