FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2945579989> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2945579989 endingPage "952" @default.
• W2945579989 startingPage "949" @default.
• W2945579989 abstract "Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a major cause of death worldwide. Aspirin inhibits platelet aggregation, which reduces clot formation. Thus, aspirin can help prevent cardiovascular problems caused by blood clots, but it can also increase risk of bleeding. For persons with known CVD, the beneficial effect of aspirin use for preventing cardiovascular events outweighs the harmful side effects (e.g., bleeding).1 The efficacy of aspirin in preventing cardiovascular events in patients without previously known CVD (primary prevention) has been unclear. This evidence-based summary examines the benefits and harms of aspirin in patients without known CVD. For this purpose, we summarize the 2015 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force report2 and two recent systematic reviews of aspirin for primary prevention.3, 4 The USPSTF report, published in 2016, was the definitive systematic review until three trials were published after its release. The ARRIVE,5 ASCEND,6 and ASPREE7 clinical trials together included over 47,000 new subjects. Two updated systematic reviews by Mahmoud et al.3 and Zheng et al.4 were published in 2019, and both include all the most recent trials. The summary table above of benefits and harms are derived from the two most recent meta-analyses by Mahmoud et al.3 and Zheng et al.4 because the USPTF report does not include the most recent trials. For the most part, the reported number-needed-to-treat (NNT) values and number-needed-to-harm (NNH) values were similar between the two reviews (Table 1). When the NNT and NNH values were different, to be conservative, we reported the higher NNT value and the lower NNH value. For the outcome of greatest interest, mortality, the older USPSTF analysis found a statistically significant overall benefit for aspirin at all doses, but no statistically significant benefit for aspirin at low doses (100 mg or less). The two updated reviews by Mahmoud et al.3 and Zheng et al.4 found no benefit in mortality regardless of the dose of aspirin (Table 1). All three reviews found statistically significant relative reductions of 15% to 20% in nonfatal heart attacks from the use of aspirin, with NNT values of 250,2, 3 and 361.4 The older USPTF analysis and the newer review by Mahmoud et al. did not find that aspirin prevented ischemic stroke, combined fatal and nonfatal.2, 3 Only the systematic review by Zheng et al.4 showed a small reduction in risk of ischemic stroke in patients allocated to the aspirin group, with an NNT value of 625 (Table 1). All three reviews found statistically significant relative increases of 30% to 50% in major bleeding events with NNH values of 142 to 357 (stratified by baseline risk),2,3 and 213.4 Major bleeding was defined differently within each trial and could have included intracranial hemorrhage, major gastrointestinal bleeding, ocular bleeding, major epistaxis, or any extracranial bleeding requiring transfusion or hospitalization. Harms outweighed benefits in all three reviews when analyzing all patients, with no mortality reduction. The USPSTF,2 however, projected one subgroup that may have benefits outweighing harms. USPSTF examined different age groups and divided each age group into different CVD risk groups using the AHA calculator to predict the 10-year risk of a cardiovascular event. In a computer model by Health Partners Institute,8 50- to 59-year-old patients with >10% risk over 10 years saw a projected benefit from reduction in nonfatal heart attacks that outpaced the increase risk of major bleeding. No other subgroup realized a net overall benefit. Optimal dosing of aspirin is unknown and some data suggest weight-based dosing.9 In the USPSTF analysis, low-dose aspirin (100 mg or less) was not associated with lower mortality but higher doses were, while the opposite association was true for nonfatal stroke. Aspirin dosing was not addressed in the Mahmoud et al3 and Zheng et al4 reviews. The conflicting results for dose finding in the older report and lack of newer analysis in the updated reviews makes dosing risk-benefit analysis unclear at this time. The older USPSTF report has limitations. The finding of overall benefit for 50- to 59-year-old patients is a computer projection based on a statistical model.10 The model uses data from subgroups across several trials and applies the benefits found with aspirin to a hypothetical person—in this case, a 50- to 59-year-old American male—with a baseline cardiovascular risk estimated using the AHA risk calculator. Unfortunately, that calculator substantially overestimates risk (by anywhere from 20% to 100% or more).11-13 Given the razor-thin benefit margins found, any overestimate of baseline risk would convert the finding of overall benefit to a finding of overall harm. Moreover, the model is out of date as three new large randomized controlled trials have been published since its release. There is debate across reviews about the definition of “primary prevention.” In the ETDRS study,14 half of the patients had known CVD, and all patients in the POPADAD study15 and the AAA study16 had arterial disease. The USPSTF and older meta-analyses included these studies, Mahmoud et al. excluded them, and Zheng et al. included ETDRS only. These patients constitute fewer than 9,000 subjects (5%) of the total patients analyzed. The varying inclusion of the three studies who enrolled patients with apparent CVD resulted in 96% overlap between the review by Mahmoud et al. (157,000 subjects) and the review by Zheng et al. (164,000 subjects). The inclusion of some patients with CVD in the study by Zheng et al. may explain why Zheng et al. found a statistically significant small stroke prevention benefit, while Mahmoud et al. did not (Table 1). Less clear are differences in the two new meta-analyses regarding the heterogeneity of the trials. Zheng et al. found no heterogeneity (I2 = 0%) for heart attack reduction, while Mahmoud et al. concluded “a high degree” of heterogeneity (I2 = 67%). These differences in the results could be from existing heterogeneity among different trials that were included (11 trials in the analysis by Mahmoud et al. and 13 trials in the analysis by Zheng et al.), but more likely reflects differences in the methodology of the meta-analyses. Regardless of these minor differences, both updated reviews found no consensus finding of benefits outweighing harms in patients regardless of CVD risk, contradicting the statistical model projection from the USPTF report that high-risk subgroups may benefit specifically. While overall benefit may be true in secondary prevention in high-risk patients, results from these primary prevention reviews are uniform in the benefits not outweighing the harms. In fact, the recent ASPREE trial found that high-risk patients had increased harm compared to low-risk patients.7 The proportion of high-risk patients was highest among the newer studies (25%–30%), and no statistically significant benefit was found in any outcome—only harms from mortality and bleeding.5-7 Further concern regarding the USPTF report reliance on the AHA calculator to project a subgroup benefit is that coronary events occurred at less than one-third the predicted rate in the ASPREE trial7 and less than half predicted in the ARRIVE5 and ASCEND6 trials. In practice, clinicians often apply the AHA calculator used in trials and estimate risk conservatively. If faulty calculators and conservative gestalt lead to overestimation of risk, and clinicians wrongly believe that higher risk means greater benefit from aspirin, overall harm due to aspirin prescribing for primary prevention is probably widespread. By the same token, overestimation means true ultra-high-risk patients (10-year risk of CVD > 30%) were potentially misdiagnosed as having preexisting CVD and were not enrolled in primary prevention trials and may potentially benefit. Future studies should tackle this question. Last but not least, patient preference is an important factor for making the decision regarding aspirin use for primary prevention of CVD. Some patients may value avoiding nonfatal heart attacks or possibly avoiding ischemic strokes as being worth the increased risk of major bleeding. We chose a red color recommendation (no benefit) because of consistent findings of harm outweighing benefit. We considered black (harmful) but recognize that there may be subgroups studies that will identify patients who can benefit." @default.
• W2945579989 created "2019-05-29" @default.
• W2945579989 creator A5006795514 @default.
• W2945579989 creator A5054298913 @default.
• W2945579989 creator A5070099614 @default.
• W2945579989 date "2019-07-10" @default.
• W2945579989 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W2945579989 title "Aspirin for Preventing a First Heart Attack or Stroke" @default.
• W2945579989 cites W2034942998 @default.
• W2945579989 cites W2087242360 @default.
• W2945579989 cites W2096849439 @default.
• W2945579989 cites W2116051185 @default.
• W2945579989 cites W2164096839 @default.
• W2945579989 cites W2318931832 @default.
• W2945579989 cites W2331422116 @default.
• W2945579989 cites W2805499342 @default.
• W2945579989 cites W2884727639 @default.
• W2945579989 cites W2888108651 @default.
• W2945579989 cites W2891412296 @default.
• W2945579989 cites W2899755710 @default.
• W2945579989 cites W2904205413 @default.
• W2945579989 cites W2914972362 @default.
• W2945579989 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.13808" @default.
• W2945579989 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31125462" @default.
• W2945579989 hasPublicationYear "2019" @default.
• W2945579989 type Work @default.
• W2945579989 sameAs 2945579989 @default.
• W2945579989 citedByCount "3" @default.
• W2945579989 countsByYear W29455799892021 @default.
• W2945579989 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2945579989 hasAuthorship W2945579989A5006795514 @default.
• W2945579989 hasAuthorship W2945579989A5054298913 @default.
• W2945579989 hasAuthorship W2945579989A5070099614 @default.
• W2945579989 hasBestOaLocation W29455799891 @default.
• W2945579989 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2945579989 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W2945579989 hasConcept C164705383 @default.
• W2945579989 hasConcept C194828623 @default.
• W2945579989 hasConcept C2777628954 @default.
• W2945579989 hasConcept C2780645631 @default.
• W2945579989 hasConcept C545542383 @default.
• W2945579989 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2945579989 hasConcept C78519656 @default.
• W2945579989 hasConceptScore W2945579989C126322002 @default.
• W2945579989 hasConceptScore W2945579989C127413603 @default.
• W2945579989 hasConceptScore W2945579989C164705383 @default.
• W2945579989 hasConceptScore W2945579989C194828623 @default.
• W2945579989 hasConceptScore W2945579989C2777628954 @default.
• W2945579989 hasConceptScore W2945579989C2780645631 @default.
• W2945579989 hasConceptScore W2945579989C545542383 @default.
• W2945579989 hasConceptScore W2945579989C71924100 @default.
• W2945579989 hasConceptScore W2945579989C78519656 @default.
• W2945579989 hasIssue "8" @default.
• W2945579989 hasLocation W29455799891 @default.
• W2945579989 hasLocation W29455799892 @default.
• W2945579989 hasOpenAccess W2945579989 @default.
• W2945579989 hasPrimaryLocation W29455799891 @default.
• W2945579989 hasRelatedWork W1817558971 @default.
• W2945579989 hasRelatedWork W2019059391 @default.
• W2945579989 hasRelatedWork W2064286441 @default.
• W2945579989 hasRelatedWork W2332797319 @default.
• W2945579989 hasRelatedWork W2336612561 @default.
• W2945579989 hasRelatedWork W2367823310 @default.
• W2945579989 hasRelatedWork W2542248393 @default.
• W2945579989 hasRelatedWork W2950169628 @default.
• W2945579989 hasRelatedWork W2978156863 @default.
• W2945579989 hasRelatedWork W4210375789 @default.
• W2945579989 hasVolume "26" @default.
• W2945579989 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2945579989 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2945579989 magId "2945579989" @default.
• W2945579989 workType "article" @default.