Aspirin For Primary Prevention Research Articles

Use of Aspirin and Initial Cardiovascular and Bleeding Risk in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease

Background: Despite the high cardiovascular risk in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), the role of aspirin in primary prevention remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the association between aspirin initiation in adults with CKD without prior cardiovascular disease (CVD) and the first cardiovascular and bleeding events using Korean nationwide cohort data. Methods: Among individuals aged 40–79 years with an estimated glomerular filtration rate between 15 and 59 mL/min/1.73 m2 who underwent routine health examinations between 2011 and 2016, 15,861 individuals who were newly prescribed aspirin at a dose of 100 mg/day were matched with 79,305 aspirin non-users by propensity score matching. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of nonfatal atherosclerotic CVD or cardiovascular death. The primary safety outcome was hospitalization due to intracranial or gastrointestinal bleeding. Results: During a mean follow-up of 6.9±2.9 years, the incidence rates for the primary efficacy outcome in aspirin users and non-users were 8.0 and 9.0 per 1,000 person-years, respectively. Aspirin therapy initiation was not associated with the primary efficacy outcome (hazard ratio [HR], 0.93; 95% confidence intervals [CI], 0.86-1.04). However, the primary safety outcome of major bleeding was more frequent in aspirin users than in non-users (6.7 versus 4.7 per 1,000 person-years). The HR for this outcome in aspirin users versus non-users was 1.45 (95% CI, 1.32-1.59). Conclusions: No association was observed between aspirin use and the risk of nonfatal atherosclerotic CVD or cardiovascular death in patients with CKD stages G3 and G4 without prior CVD. Aspirin use was associated with higher risk of major bleeding.

Long-Term Effects of Low-Dose Aspirin on Gastrointestinal Symptoms and Bleeding Complications in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes.

Low-dose aspirin for primary prevention is determined by the balance of risks of cardiovascular events and adverse effects. We assessed the long-term gastrointestinal symptoms or bleeding with low-dose aspirin in diabetic patients. The Japanese Primary Prevention of Atherosclerosis with Aspirin for Diabetes (JPAD) trial was a randomized clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of low-dose aspirin in patients with type 2 diabetes. As a posthoc analysis, we investigated the incidence of upper gastrointestinal symptoms or bleeding in aspirin (100 mg enteric-coated aspirin or 81 mg buffered aspirin daily) and no-aspirin groups within and beyond 3 years. Of 2535 patients (mean age 65 years, 55% male) followed for a median of 11.2 years, 1258 were included in the aspirin group (951 enteric-coated, 208 buffered, 99 unknown) and 1277 were included in the no-aspirin group. The cumulative incidence of upper gastrointestinal symptoms or bleeding was higher in the aspirin group than the no-aspirin group (8.8% vs. 5.7% at 18 years; p<0.0001). The increased risk in the aspirin group was prominent within 3 years, and thehazard ratio (HR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] of the aspirin group was 7.10 [3.21-15.7], but attenuated beyond 3years (HR 1.20 [0.76-1.89]). In 1159 patients in the aspirin group, the cumulative incidence was lower in the enteric-coated than in the buffered aspirin groups (2.9% vs. 7.3%; p=0.003) within 3 years, and the adjusted HR of enteric-coated aspirin was 0.38 [0.20-0.72] compared with the buffered aspirin group. The upper gastrointestinal symptoms or bleeding of low-dose aspirin within 3 years, and the aspirin formulations, were relevant for decision making of initiation and continuation of low-dose aspirin for primary prevention.

Obstructive sleep apnea and cerebral small vessel disease in community-based older people: an aspirin in reducing events in the elderly imaging substudy

Abstract Study Objectives Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) may increase the risk of dementia. A potential pathway for this risk is through cerebral small vessel disease (CSVD). In the context of an existing randomized trial of aspirin for primary prevention, we aimed to investigate OSA’s impact on CSVD imaging measures and explore whether aspirin effects these measures over 3 years that differ in the presence or absence of OSA. Methods A substudy of the aspirin in reducing events in the elderly (ASPREE) randomized placebo-controlled trial of low-dose aspirin. Community-dwelling participants aged 70 years and above, without cognitive impairment, cardiovascular disease, or known OSA completed an unattended limited-channel sleep study that calculated the oxygen desaturation index and apnea–hypopnea index. At baseline and 3 years later, volumes of white matter hyperintensities (WMH) and silent brain infarctions (SBI) were measured on 1.5 Tesla brain magnetic resonance imaging, and retinal vessel calibers were calculated from retinal vascular imaging. Results Mild and moderate/severe OSA was detected in 48.9% and 29.9%, respectively, of the 311 participants, who had a mean age of 73.7 years (SD 3.4 years), 38.6% female. OSA of any severity was not associated with WMH volumes, SBI, nor retinal vessel calibers at baseline, nor with change in these measures in the 277 participants with repeated measures acquired after 3 years. OSA of any severity did not interact with aspirin on change in these measures over 3 years. Conclusions In healthy older adults undiagnosed OSA was not associated with retinal vascular calibers and neuroimaging measures of CSVD. Clinical Trial Information ASPREE trial has registration with the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) www.isrctn.com, ISRCTN83772183 and with www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01038583. SNORE-ASA has registration with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) at www.anzctr.org.au, ACTRN12612000891820.

Strategies for management of patients with elevated lipoprotein(a).

There is growing literature that supports the testing of Lp(a). However, few patients are tested, including those with a personal or family history of cardiovascular disease (CVD). One often noted barrier to more widespread testing is uncertainty regarding what to do with an elevated Lp(a) level. Although guidelines vary, there is agreement on the use of Lp(a) as a risk enhancer to guide medical care and shared decision-making. This review will discuss a clinical approach with supporting evidence for management of patients with elevated Lp(a). At the minimum, elevated Lp(a) increases cardiovascular risk and can be incorporated into existing risk stratification paradigms. The cornerstone of management is aggressive management of traditional cardiovascular risk factors, including LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C). More recent studies have highlighted the potential role for proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors (PCSK9i), aspirin in primary prevention, and prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy in secondary prevention. Although there is optimism for Lp(a)-targeted therapies in the near future, an elevated Lp(a) level is actionable today, and uncertainty regarding the management of patients with elevated Lp(a) should not be a barrier to more widespread testing.

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.

Evaluating Aspirin's Efficacy for Primary Prevention in Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease: Insights from a Nationwide Cohort Study.

The effectiveness of aspirin for the primary prevention of cerebro-cardiovascular diseases in Koreans remains unclear. Therefore, we evaluated the preventive effects of low-dose aspirin (equal or less than 100 mg) on cerebro-cardiovascular events. We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the National Sample Cohort dataset. From the 1,106,580 individuals eligible in 2004, we selected 200 individuals (47% male and 22.5% aged 65 or older) who consistently received low-dose aspirin from 2004 to 2013 for inclusion in the aspirin cohort. Participants for the control cohort, who did not use aspirin, were selected through propensity score matching based on variables. We compared the incidences of endpoints (acute myocardial infarction, cerebral infarction, gastrointestinal hemorrhage, and cerebral hemorrhage) between the aspirin group and the non-aspirin group over the 9-year follow-up period. There was no significant difference in the incidence rates of acute myocardial infarction, cerebral infarction, gastrointestinal hemorrhage, or cerebral hemorrhage between the aspirin and non-aspirin groups. Low-dose aspirin for primary prevention in Koreans did not reduce myocardial or cerebral infarctions and did not increase the risk of gastrointestinal or cerebral hemorrhage. Therefore, we suggest that aspirin for primary prevention should be used cautiously and tailored to the individual's baseline cardiovascular risk.

Efficacy of Aspirin for primary prevention among adults with high-risk type 2 diabetes in the ACCORD trial.

To assess the efficacy of aspirin use for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) with incident atherosclerotic CVD and mortality in high-risk type 2 diabetes. In this post hoc analysis, we included participants in the ACCORD trial without CVD at baseline. The association between aspirin use and the primary outcome (a composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke or cardiovascular [CV] death) and all-cause mortality was evaluated using Cox proportional hazard analysis adjusting for demographics, CV risk factors and comorbidities. Eligible participants (n = 6330) were aged 62.8 ± 5.9 years at baseline, 43.8% of the participants were female, and 3026 (47.8%) used aspirin. Over a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 4.9 (4.1-5.7) years, the number (%) of primary outcome and all-cause mortality events in those who used aspirin (vs. those who did not), was 196 (6.5) versus 229 (6.9) and 146 (4.8) versus 147 (4.5), respectively. The adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) associated with aspirin use for the primary outcome and all-cause mortality were 0.94 (0.77-1.14) and 1.08 (0.85-1.36), respectively. In high-risk individuals with type 2 diabetes, the use of aspirin for primary prevention was not associated with a decreased risk of incident CVD or all-cause mortality.

Carotid Ultrasound-Based Plaque Score for the Allocation of Aspirin for the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease Events: The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis and the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study.

Coronary artery calcium testing using noncontrast cardiac computed tomography is a guideline-indicated test to help refine eligibility for aspirin in primary prevention. However, access to cardiac computed tomography remains limited, with carotid ultrasound used much more often internationally. We sought to update the role of aspirin allocation in primary prevention as a function of subclinical carotid atherosclerosis. The study included 11 379 participants from the MESA (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis) and ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities) studies. A harmonized carotid plaque score (range, 0-6) was derived using the number of anatomic sites with plaque from the left and right common, bifurcation, and internal carotid artery on ultrasound. The 5-year number needed to treat and number needed to harm as a function of the carotid plaque score were calculated by applying a 12% relative risk reduction in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) events and 42% relative increase in major bleeding events related to aspirin use, respectively. The mean age was 57 years, 57% were women, 23% were Black, and the median 10-year ASCVD risk was 12.8%. The 5-year incidence rates (per 1000 person-years) were 5.5 (4.9-6.2) for ASCVD and 1.8 (1.5-2.2) for major bleeding events. The overall 5-year number needed to treat with aspirin was 306 but was 2-fold lower for individuals with carotid plaque versus those without carotid plaque (212 versus 448). The 5-year number needed to treat was less than the 5-year number needed to harm when the carotid plaque score was ≥2 for individuals with ASCVD risk 5% to 20%, whereas the presence of any carotid plaque demarcated a favorable risk-benefit for individuals with ASCVD risk >20%. Quantification of subclinical carotid atherosclerosis can help improve the allocation of aspirin therapy.

Low-dose aspirin for the prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

During the past 30 years, several developments have occurred in the antiplatelet field, including the role of aspirin in primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. There have been several attempts to develop antiplatelet drugs more effective and safer than aspirin and a shift in emphasis from efficacy to safety, advocating aspirin-free antiplatelet regimens after percutaneous coronary intervention. Evidence supporting a chemopreventive effect of low-dose aspirin against colorectal (and other digestive tract) cancer has also strengthened. The aim of this article is to revisit the role of aspirin in the prevention of atherothrombosis across the cardiovascular risk continuum, in view of developments in the antiplatelet field. The review will offer a clinical perspective on aspirin's mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics. This will be followed by a detailed discussion of its clinical efficacy and safety.

Implementation of a Pharmacist-Driven Aspirin Deprescribing Protocol Among Older Veterans in a Primary Care Setting.

Background Recent cardiovascular guideline updates recommend against the use of aspirin for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) in older people. However, aspirin use remains common in this population. Objective To implement and evaluate the benefit of a pharmacist-driven aspirin deprescribing protocol compared with primary care provider (PCP) education-only in a primary care setting. Methods This prospective, cohort project targeted deprescribing for patients prescribed aspirin for primary prevention of ASCVD. Patients were included if they received primary care services at the Milwaukee Veterans Health Administration Medical Center (VHA) and were 70 years of age or older. Criteria for exclusion were aspirin obtained outside the VHA system, aspirin prescribed for a non-ASCVD-related condition, and/or a history of ASCVD. Active deprescribing by pharmacists and PCP education took place in the intervention group with PCP education only in the standard-of-care group. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who had aspirin deprescribed in each group. Secondary outcomes included patient acceptability of the intervention and barriers to implementation. Results A total of 520 patients were prescribed aspirin in the intervention group versus 417 in the education-only group. Sixty-five patients met intervention criteria and were contacted for aspirin deprescribing. The pharmacist-led active deprescribing group led to a higher rate of aspirin deprescriptions versus the education-only group (54% vs 18%; P = 0.0001) for patients who met criteria. Conclusion A pharmacist-led aspirin deprescribing protocol within a primary care setting significantly decreased the number of aspirin prescriptions compared with PCP education only.

Evaluation of Aspirin Prescribing and Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Adults 60 Years of Age and Older in a Large, Academic Health System.

Background National guidelines no longer recommend adults 60 years of age and older to begin treatment with low-dose daily aspirin for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD) due to a lack of proven net benefit and a higher risk of bleeding. Objective The objective of this cross-sectional retrospective analysis was to evaluate the appropriateness of low-dose aspirin prescribing and subsequent gastrointestinal bleeding in older persons receiving primary care in a large academic health system. Setting Large, academic health system within Colorado. Patients Patients with an active order for daily low-dose aspirin as of July 1, 2021, were assessed for appropriateness based on indication (primary vs secondary prevention) and use of a concomitant proton-pump inhibitor (PPI). Incident gastrointestinal bleeds (GIBs) in the subsequent 12 months and GIB risk factors were also evaluated. Results A total of 19,525 patients were included in the analysis. Eighty-nine percent of patients identified as White and 54% identified as male. Of the total cohort, 44% had CVD and 19% were co-prescribed a PPI. GIB occurred in 247 patients (1.27%) within the subsequent year. Risk factors significantly associated with a GIB within 1 year included: history of GIB, history of peptic ulcer disease, other esophageal issue (esophagitis, Barrett's esophagus, Mallory Weiss tears, etc.), 75 years of age or older, and history of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Conclusion This evaluation found that many older persons at this institution may be inappropriately prescribed aspirin, providing opportunities for pharmacists to improve medication safety by deprescribing aspirin among primary prevention patients or potentially co-prescribing a PPI in secondary prevention patients.

Pharmacist-Led Deprescribing of Aspirin in Older People in an Outpatient Setting.

Background In 2019, the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association updated their joint guidelines stating low-dose aspirin should not be used on a routine basis for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) among people older than 70 years of age because of increased bleeding risk.1 In addition to these updated guidelines, a statement released by the US Preventive Services Task Force in April 2022 recommends against the initiation of low-dose aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in people 60 years of age or older.² Despite these updated recommendations, aspirin continues to be a common medication older patients take, providing an opportunity for a clinical pharmacist deprescribing intervention. Objective To identify the role of a pharmacist-led aspirin deprescribing intervention within a safety-net health system in the outpatient setting. Methods This project included patients 70 years of age and older who had aspirin listed as an active medication without documented ASCVD. This project assessed aspirin deprescribing rates, time spent on pharmacist outreach, and reasons for patient and/or provider refusal to discontinue aspirin. Results One hundred thirty-one eligible patients were contacted. Of those, 78 (60%) patients discontinued aspirin after speaking with the pharmacist, and 8 patients discontinued aspirin after a clinical pharmacist recommendation to the patient's primary care provider (PCP). The median time spent on outreach was approximately eight minutes. Of the 6 patients who consented to the project but declined to discontinue aspirin therapy based on pharmacist intervention, 5 preferred to discuss the issue with their PCP, while 1 patient was told by an outside provider to take aspirin. Conclusion Results indicate the successful impact a clinical pharmacist may have in deprescribing aspirin in a high-risk population. These data may also suggest that an active and intentional approach to deprescribing is likely to be more effective than a written recommendation to providers.

Aspirin for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: What We Now Know

Cardiovascular disease (CVD), including coronary artery disease and stroke, is the leading cause of death worldwide. Advances in primary and secondary prevention of CVD have improved patient prognoses and outcomes, however, it is imperative that the clinician and patient engage in early risk factor screening and preventive management of modifiable risk factors for CVD. In addition to blood lipid and blood pressure lowering medications, aspirin has been a long-standing therapy targeted to the prevention of CVD based on its antiplatelet and anti-inflammatory activity. However, recent articles and reports on updates to clinical guidelines for the primary prevention of CVD have resulted in confusion about aspirin recommendations. This review aims to assess the latest guidance on aspirin in CVD prevention and how to identify appropriately at-risk patients who may benefit from low-dose aspirin therapy as part of their CVD preventive healthcare choices. Additionally, this review will provide practical application guidance about clinician-patient conversations to clearly explain the benefits and risks of aspirin use and ensure a patient-centric decision to initiate aspirin therapy.

Low-dose aspirin for prevention of cardiovascular mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease: A real-world nationwide cohort study.

Cardiovascular mortality risk is elevated among patients with diabetes and concurrent chronic kidney disease. However, controversy surrounds the use of aspirin for primary prevention within this population. This study aims to assess the effectiveness and safety of low-dose aspirin for primary prevention in patients with diabetes and pre-end-stage renal disease. This was a retrospective population-based cohort study using the National Health Insurance Research Database in Taiwan. The study included adults with type 2 diabetes who were enrolled in the pre-end-stage renal disease pay-for-performance program and had no atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. We used propensity score analysis to control baseline characteristics between the two groups. Clinical outcomes including cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, major bleeding, and renal disease progression were compared between patients who first received aspirin and those who did not. Between January 2012 and December 2015, a total of 2,155 low-dose aspirin users and 6,737 nonaspirin users were identified. Following propensity score adjustment, aspirin use exhibited a comparable risk of cardiovascular death compared with nonaspirin users (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65-1.95; P = 0.681). The risk of all-cause mortality was similar between the two groups (aHR 1.07; 95% CI 0.92-1.24; P = 0.385). Similar risks were observed in terms of major bleeding and renal disease progression. In patients with diabetes and pre-end-stage renal disease who lacked atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, low-dose aspirin did not demonstrate a reduction in mortality. These findings do not support the use of aspirin for primary prevention in this high-risk population.

Updated Lipoprotein(a) Genomic Risk Score and Aspirin for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events

Updated Lipoprotein(a) Genomic Risk Score and Aspirin for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events

Outcomes of diabetic patients with acute coronary syndromes treated with aspirin in primary prevention

Abstract Introduction The use of aspirin in primary prevention (PP) remains a matter of international debate. In type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2) patients with high/very high cardiovascular (CV) risk, low dose aspirin may be considered for PP (class IIb, evidence level A) in european guidelines in the absence of hemorrhagic contraindication. Objectives Our aim was to analyze in-hospital and one year follow-up (FU) outcomes of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) DM2 patients without previous atherosclerotic CV disease (ASCVD) treated with vs without aspirin in primary prevention. Methods A retrospective analysis was carried out of DM2 patients without established ASCVD admitted with ACS included in the Portuguese Registry of ACS between 2010-2021. Patients were divided in two groups regarding the use of aspirin in primary prevention (with-AG and without-NAG). Composite primary outcome (re-infarction, heart failure, shock, death – in-hospital) and secondary outcomes (one-year all-cause mortality and mortality/rehospitalization) were compared in both groups. Independent predictors of primary outcome were assessed by multivariate logistic regression. Survival analysis and cox regression were used to compare and identify predictors of secondary outcomes. P value &amp;lt; 0.05 indicates statistical significance. Results A total of 4517 patients were analyzed, mean age 68±12 years, 64.8% male. AG showed higher rates of hypertension (89.9%, p&amp;lt;0.001), dyslipidemia (74.1%, p&amp;lt;0.001), history of heart failure (9.2%, p&amp;lt;0.001), valvular disease (3.9%, p=0.002) and chronic renal disease (12.3%, p&amp;lt;0.001). STEMI presentation was more frequent in NAG (48%, p&amp;lt;0.001). Multivessel disease (mainly three vessels disease) was more frequent in AG (32.7%, p&amp;lt;0.001), but anterior descendent (AD) as culprit artery was more common in NAG (40.3%, p=0.013). Both groups had no difference in major hemorrhage occurrence. Primary outcome was more frequent in AG (18.6%, p=0.034). One-year all-cause mortality and mortality/rehospitalization were higher in AG (9.90%, p=0.004 and 32.9%, p=0.017, survival analysis). Independent predictors of primary outcome were aspirin in primary prevention (OR 1.38, p=0.026), age (OR 1.59, p&amp;lt;0.001), valvular disease (OR 4.46, p&amp;lt;0.001), STEMI at presentation (OR 2.20, p&amp;lt;0.001), LVEF &amp;lt;40% (OR 4.40, p&amp;lt;0.001) and Killip-Kimball class &amp;gt; I (OR 12.9, p&amp;lt;0.001). Aspirin in primary prevention (HR 1.84, p=0.004), chronic lung disease (HR 5.68, p&amp;lt;0.001), and Killip-Kimball class &amp;gt; I (HR 3.27, p&amp;lt;0.001) were predictors of one-year all-cause mortality. Conclusion DM2 patients with ACS treated with aspirin in primary prevention had worst in-hospital and one-year FU outcomes. Although with higher rates of three vessels disease, PP with aspirin showed less AD disease and STEMI presentation, with similar major clinical hemorrhage.

Aspirin overuse in primary prevention: nationwide temporal trends in low-dose aspirin therapy for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in adults with and without diabetes

Abstract Background Aspirin therapy for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is controversial. European Society of Cardiology guideline recommendations have changed in the last decades, and aspirin is currently not recommended in individuals with low/moderate cardiovascular (CV) risk but may be considered in high-risk individuals with diabetes. Purpose We report temporal trends in primary prevention aspirin prescription among individuals with and without diabetes and describe characteristics of incident aspirin users. Methods Using Danish nationwide registries, we identified incident and prevalent aspirin users in a population ≥40 years without CVD, eligible for primary preventive aspirin therapy from 2000 through 2020. Temporal trends in aspirin use with and without diabetes were assessed, as were CV risk factors among incident users. Individuals in Denmark are primarily seen by general practitioners who have a gate-keeper function for secondary hospital-based care. Results A total of 522,680 individuals started aspirin therapy during the study period. The number of incident users peaked in 2002 (39,803 individuals, 1.78% of the eligible population) and was lowest in 2019 (11,898 individuals, 0.49%), with similar trends for subjects with and without diabetes (Figure 1). A large proportion of incident users had no CV risk factors (diabetes, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [a proxy for smoking]); however, this proportion decreased from 53.9% in 2000 to 30.9% in 2020 (Figure 2). The number of prevalent aspirin users peaked at 7.7% in 2008 and was 3.3% in 2020. For subjects with diabetes, the peak was observed in 2009 at 38.5% and decreased to 17.1% in 2020. Conclusion Prescription of aspirin for primary prevention of CVD has decreased over the last two decades in individuals both with and without diabetes. However, aspirin appears to be inappropriately prescribed in many primary prevention adults as a large proportion of incident users had no CV risk factors. Efforts to inform appropriate prescription of aspirin are needed, e.g., by improved guidance for general practitioners.Figure 1Figure 2

Abstract 18737: Coronary Artery Calcium for Allocation of Aspirin in Light of the 2022 USPSTF Guideline Recommendations: Results From the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA)

Introduction: The 2022 USPSTF guidelines issued a grade C recommendation for aspirin in patients aged 40-59 and recommended against its use in patients ≥ 60 years. We sought to assess if coronary artery calcium (CAC) would allow for personalized allocation of aspirin. Methods: Using MESA, aspirin naïve participants without high-risk bleeding features were identified. Participants were grouped by age into &lt;60, ≥ 60 and stratified by CAC and ASCVD risk. The number needed to treat (NNT 5 ) and number needed to harm (NNH 5 ) was assessed by applying a 11% relative risk reduction in CVD and a 44% relative risk increase in major bleeding (2022 USPSTF meta-analysis) to the observed CVD and bleeding events from MESA Results: Of 6,814 participants, 4,506 met inclusion criteria. 2,235 were &lt;60 years and 2,268 were ≥ 60 years. Figure-1 displays the interplay between baseline estimated ASCVD risk and CAC burden. In participants &lt;60 years of age, both CAC and ASCVD risk &gt;10% identified subgroups in whom the NNT was lower than the NNH: CAC 1-99 (NNT 5 -313, NNH 5 -517); CAC ≥100 (NNT 5 -152, NNH 5 -367); ASCVD risk &gt;10% (NNT 5 -155, NNH 5 -554) Fig-1. In those ≥ 60 years CAC ≥100 identified subgroups with a lower NNT 5 -128 than NNH 5 -168, while ASCVD risk stratification did not. 6% of adults &lt;60 years with &lt;10% ASCVD risk and 30.3% of adults ≥ 60 years who had CAC ≥100, and who demonstrated benefit from the use of Aspirin, would not qualify for the use of aspirin using only ASCVD risk as per the 2022 USPSTF guideline recommendations. Conclusions: CAC identifies subgroups of patients &lt;60 as well as those ≥ 60 years who would derive a net benefit from aspirin in primary prevention. A significant proportion of patients will be missed if only ASCVD risk scores are used for allocation of aspirin. CAC should be used to risk stratify individuals to personalize the allocation of aspirin

Abstract 15993: The Association of Aspirin With and Without Statin on Cardiovascular Outcomes in Primary Prevention Patients With Diabetes Mellitus

Background: The role of aspirin in primary prevention of ASCVD amongst high-risk individuals with diabetes mellitus remains unclear. We investigated aspirin use with and without statin and its association with future ASCVD events in a cohort of real-world primary prevention patients with diabetes mellitus. Methods: Primary prevention patients with diabetes were stratified based on HbA1c levels (6.5-7%, 7-9%, &gt;9%) and 10-year ASCVD risk (High-risk [≥20%]). Aspirin use was defined as no use, seldom used (&lt;30% of the time), sometimes used (≥30% - &lt; 70% of the time), and often used (≥70% of the time). Cox regression assessed HRs of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and mortality with aspirin use. Results: Of 79, 597 patients with diabetes, 44.6% were classified as high-risk. These patients showed highest utilization of aspirin (45.7%) and statin (44.9%). Compared to high-risk patients with diabetes and an HbA1c of &gt;9% on both a statin and an aspirin, those on statin alone had higher risk of MI [HR MI 1.74 (1.44-2.212), p &lt;0.001], ischemic stroke [HR STROKE 2.52 (1.92-3.29), p &lt;0.001], and mortality [HR 1.67 (1.27-2.19), p &lt;0.001] (Table). Aspirin use alone was associated with higher risk of MI [HR 3.11 (2.42-4.00), p &lt;0.001], ischemic stroke [HR 3.12 (2.08-4.67), p &lt;0.001], and mortality [HR 3.77 (2.71-5.23), p &lt; 0.0004] in the high-risk population with HbA1c &gt;9% (Table). At all A1c levels, patients on no statin or aspirin were at significantly higher risk for MI, stroke, and mortality (Table). In high-risk patients with an HbA1c &gt;9%, ASA use ≥ 70% resulted in significantly lower risk of MI [HR 0.58 (0.49-0.69), p&lt;0.001)], ischemic stroke [HR 0.36 (0.28-0.46), p&lt;0.001] and mortality [HR 0.52 (0.42-0.66), p&lt;0.001]. Conclusion: Low dose aspirin may play a role in prevention of ASCVD events in high-risk patients with diabetes. Future studies can clarify the risk-benefit ratio of using aspirin with statin in patients with poor glycemic control for primary prevention of ASCVD events.

Abstract 15944: Aspirin Use for Primary Prevention in High-Risk Patients: Insights From a Large Healthcare Network

Background: Recently, the value of routine use of aspirin in primary prevention for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) has come into question. We investigated patients with a high 10-year ASCVD risk profile to evaluate the magnitude of protection afforded by aspirin with and without statin in prevention of ASCVD events. Methods: Primary prevention patients were stratified based on 10-year ASCVD risk (High [20%]). Aspirin use was categorized over the 6-year follow-up period as “None”, “seldom” (&lt;30% of follow up time), “sometimes” (&gt;30 to =&lt;70%), and often used (≥70% of the time). Cox regression models were used to assess HRs of MI, ischemic stroke and mortality with aspirin or statin use alone compared to a combination of aspirin and statin. Results: 69,955 patients qualified as “high” 10-year ASCVD risk. In fully adjusted models, aspirin use ≥ 30% was associated with significantly lower risk of MI [HR ASA use ≥ 70% 0.76 (0.72-0.80), p &lt;0.001], ischemic stroke [HR ASA use ≥ 70% 0.83 (0.77-0.90), p &lt;0.007], and mortality [HR ASA use ≥ 70% 0.78 (0.74-0.82), p &lt;0.001] in high-risk patients compared to no aspirin use ( Table ). Compared to patients on both a statin and aspirin, patients on statin alone had increased risk of MI [HR 1.30 (1.06-1.60), p = 0.013]. Patients on aspirin alone had increased risk of MI [HR 1.74 (1.34-2.26), p &lt;0.001] and mortality [HR 1.70 (1.27-2.28), p &lt; 0.0004] versus those on aspirin and statin. Patients not on any aspirin or statin were at significantly increased risk for MI [HR 2.28 (2.08-2.49), p&lt;0.001], ischemic stroke [HR 1.77 (1.56-2.00), p&lt;0.001), and mortality [HR 2.16 (1.60-2.90), p&lt;0.001] compared to those taking both aspirin and statin. Conclusions: Low dose aspirin may still have a role in primary prevention of ASCVD events amongst high-risk patients when added to statin therapy. Risk-benefit profile of each high-risk primary prevention patient should be assessed for initiating or discontinuing low dose aspirin therapy