Aspirin For Primary Prevention Research Articles

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 < 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<0.001), dyslipidemia (74.1%, p<0.001), history of heart failure (9.2%, p<0.001), valvular disease (3.9%, p=0.002) and chronic renal disease (12.3%, p<0.001). STEMI presentation was more frequent in NAG (48%, p<0.001). Multivessel disease (mainly three vessels disease) was more frequent in AG (32.7%, p<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<0.001), valvular disease (OR 4.46, p<0.001), STEMI at presentation (OR 2.20, p<0.001), LVEF <40% (OR 4.40, p<0.001) and Killip-Kimball class > I (OR 12.9, p<0.001). Aspirin in primary prevention (HR 1.84, p=0.004), chronic lung disease (HR 5.68, p<0.001), and Killip-Kimball class > I (HR 3.27, p<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 <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 <60 years and 2,268 were ≥ 60 years. Figure-1 displays the interplay between baseline estimated ASCVD risk and CAC burden. In participants <60 years of age, both CAC and ASCVD risk >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 >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 <60 years with <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 <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%, >9%) and 10-year ASCVD risk (High-risk [≥20%]). Aspirin use was defined as no use, seldom used (<30% of the time), sometimes used (≥30% - < 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 >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 <0.001], ischemic stroke [HR STROKE 2.52 (1.92-3.29), p <0.001], and mortality [HR 1.67 (1.27-2.19), p <0.001] (Table). Aspirin use alone was associated with higher risk of MI [HR 3.11 (2.42-4.00), p <0.001], ischemic stroke [HR 3.12 (2.08-4.67), p <0.001], and mortality [HR 3.77 (2.71-5.23), p < 0.0004] in the high-risk population with HbA1c >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 >9%, ASA use ≥ 70% resulted in significantly lower risk of MI [HR 0.58 (0.49-0.69), p<0.001)], ischemic stroke [HR 0.36 (0.28-0.46), p<0.001] and mortality [HR 0.52 (0.42-0.66), p<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” (<30% of follow up time), “sometimes” (>30 to =<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 <0.001], ischemic stroke [HR ASA use ≥ 70% 0.83 (0.77-0.90), p <0.007], and mortality [HR ASA use ≥ 70% 0.78 (0.74-0.82), p <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 <0.001] and mortality [HR 1.70 (1.27-2.28), p < 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<0.001], ischemic stroke [HR 1.77 (1.56-2.00), p<0.001), and mortality [HR 2.16 (1.60-2.90), p<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

Identifying and reducing inappropriate aspirin use in primary care

ObjectiveRecent studies have called into question the safety of aspirin use for the primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, particularly in older adults. Therefore, the objectives of this study were...

Specialty preference for cardiovascular prevention practice in the Southeast US and role of a preventive cardiologist.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention is practiced concurrently by providers from several specialties. Our goal was to understand providers' preference of specialties in CVD prevention practice and the role of preventive cardiologists. Between 11 October 2021 and 1 March 2022, we surveyed providers from internal medicine, family medicine, endocrinology, and cardiology specialties to examine their preference of specialties in managing various domains of CVD prevention. We examined categorical variables using Chi square test and continuous variables using t or analysis of variance test. Of 956 invitees, 263 from 21 health systems and 9 states responded. Majority of respondents were women (54.5%), practicing physicians (72.5%), specializing in cardiology (43.6%), and working at academic centers (51.3%). Respondents favored all specialties to prescribe statins (43.2%), ezetimibe (37.8%), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors (30.5%), and aspirin in primary prevention (36.3%). Only 7.9% and 9.5% selected cardiologists and preventive cardiologists, respectively, to prescribe SGLT2 inhibitors. Most preferred specialists (i.e. cardiology and endocrinology) to manage advanced lipid disorders, refractory hypertension, and premature coronary heart disease. The most common conditions selected for preventive cardiologists to manage were genetic lipid disorders (17%), cardiovascular risk assessment (15%), dyslipidemia (13%), and refractory/resistant hypertension (12%). For CVD prevention practice, providers favored all specialties to manage common conditions, specialists to manage complex conditions, and preventive cardiologists to manage advanced lipid disorders. Cardiologists were least preferred to prescribe SGLT2 inhibitor. Future research should explore reasons for selected CVD prevention practice preferences to optimize care coordination and for effective use of limited expertise.

Association of low-dose aspirin use for primary prevention with self-reported kidney stones prevalence: a cross-sectional study.

To investigate the association between low-dose aspirin use for primary prevention and self-reported kidney stones prevalence in the 40-79years old population. We conducted a cross-sectional study based on the United States population data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2011-2018. Baseline demographical and clinical data were collected. The univariate and multivariate regression was performed to identify confounding factors and assess the relationship between aspirin use for primary prevention and the prevalence of self-reported kidney stones. A propensity-score matching was used to identify patients with similar baseline characteristics to adjust for the bias caused by confounding factors. A total of 10,256 low-dose aspirin-use participants were included in this study. 10.4% of participants reported a history of kidney stones, and 18.5% reported a continuous use of low-dose prophylactic aspirin. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that low-dose preventive aspirin use had significantly increased the odds of self-reported kidney stones (OR = 1.245; 95% CI: 1.063-1.459; p = 0.007). In subgroup analysis, this finding was primarily limited to males (OR = 1.311), non-hypertensive participants (OR = 1.443), diabetic participants (OR = 1.380), and older (60 ≤ Age < 80) (OR = 1.349). The propensity-score matched analyses supported this result after adjusting for the bias caused by potential confounders (OR = 1.216; 95% CI: 1.011-1.462; p = 0.038). In this study, there exists a significant relationship between low-dose aspirin for primary prevention and self-reported kidney stones, primarily among males, no hypertensive participants, diabetics, or older adults. Further studies are needed to elucidate the mechanisms underlying these findings in the future.

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

BackgroundEast Asians have shown different risk profiles for both thrombophilia and bleeding than Western counterparts. ObjectivesThe authors sought to evaluate the effect of low-dose aspirin for primary prevention between these populations. MethodsWe 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). ResultsTwo 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. ConclusionsLow-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 primary prevention in patients with high cardiovascular risk: insights from CORE-Thailand registry

Aspirin may be considered for primary prevention in non-elderly patients with high cardiovascular risk. However, contemporary management aimed at aggressive cardiovascular risk factor control may alter benefit-risk ratio of aspirin. Therefore, we aimed to examine the effect of aspirin for primary prevention on the long-term MACEs in a large cohort registry. Cohort Of patients with high Risk for cardiovascular Events (CORE-Thailand) registry is a prospective, multicenter, observational, longitudinal study of Thai patients with high atherosclerotic risk. Patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases were excluded. Among 4259 patients with multiple cardiovascular risk factors, 1945 (45.7%) patients used aspirin. After propensity score matching, there were 3228 patients remained in post-matching analysis. During the median follow-up period of 58.2 months, we demonstrated that aspirin use increased risk of long-term MACEs in pre-matching cohort (unadjusted HR 1.76, 95% CI 1.43–2.17, P < 0.001) and post-matching cohort (HR 1.66 (1.31–2.10), P < 0.001). In addition, patients taking aspirin had a higher risk of bleeding than non-aspirin users in pre-matching cohort (unadjusted HR 2.28, 95% CI 1.09–4.75, P = 0.028). We demonstrated that aspirin was associated with increased risk of long-term MACEs in patients with multiple cardiovascular risk factors. Due to the non-randomized design, our results should be interpreted with caution.

Clinicians' self-reported Efficacy in Cardiovascular Prevention Practice in the Southeastern United States

Aim: We assessed self-reported efficacy in cardiovascular prevention practice among internal medicine, family medicine, endocrinology and cardiology clinicians. Patients &amp; methods: We emailed a 21-item questionnaire to 956 physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants and pharmacists. Results: 264 clinicians responded (median age: 39 years, 55% women, 47.9% specialists). Most expressed high self-efficacy in lifestyle counselling, prescribing statins, metformin, and aspirin in primary prevention, but low self-efficacy in managing specialized conditions like elevated lipoprotein(a). Compared with specialists, PCPs expressed lower self-efficacy in managing advanced lipid disorders and higher self-efficacy in prescribing sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists. Conclusion: Self-efficacy in cardiovascular prevention varied across specialties. Future research should explore relevant provider, clinic and system level factors to optimize cardiovascular prevention.

Accuracy of Electronic Health Record–Documented Aspirin for Primary Prevention in Adult Outpatients

This quality improvement study examines the accuracy of electronic health record (EHR) documentation of aspirin use for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in adult outpatients.

Aspirin deprescribing in patients on oral anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism: A national survey of clinician practices

AbstractIntroductionConcomitant use of oral anticoagulation (OAC) and aspirin increases bleeding risk without decreasing thromboembolic events compared with OAC monotherapy. Weak guideline recommendations and limited data exist for deprescribing aspirin for primary prevention or stable coronary artery disease in patients already on OAC for atrial fibrillation (AF) or venous thromboembolism (VTE).ObjectivesThe objective of this study was to identify aspirin deprescribing practices among clinicians for patients on OAC for AF or VTE and concomitant aspirin for non‐compelling reasons.MethodsA cross‐sectional, national survey was electronically distributed to pharmacists and non‐pharmacists (physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants). Co‐primary end points were composite aspirin discontinuation rates in patients on OAC for AF or VTE in primary prevention and stable coronary artery disease (CAD) cases. Key secondary end points were clinician comfort level with deprescribing aspirin and availability of institutional protocols.ResultsThree hundred four responses were included: 212 (69.7%) pharmacists and 92 (30.3%) non‐pharmacists. Mean age of respondents was 35.4 years, and 37.4% male. In the primary prevention cases, pharmacists were more likely to discontinue aspirin than non‐pharmacists (76.7% vs. 54.6%, p &lt; 0.001). In the stable CAD cases, composite rates of aspirin discontinuation by pharmacists and non‐pharmacists were similar (41.7% vs. 40.1%, p = 0.140). More pharmacists than non‐pharmacists stated that their aspirin deprescribing decisions were independent of the type of OAC that was used (60.4% vs. 35.9%, p &lt; 0.001). Pharmacists were more likely to discontinue aspirin after discussing with patients compared with non‐pharmacists (62.7% vs. 47.8%, p = 0.017). 27.3% of clinicians reported having a protocol to deprescribe aspirin at their institution/clinic.ConclusionThere are variations in aspirin deprescribing practices among clinicians in patients on OAC for AF or VTE and without compelling indications for aspirin. Further studies and stronger recommendations are warranted to guide clinicians regarding optimal antithrombotic therapy in these scenarios. Lack of institutional protocols for aspirin deprescribing creates opportunities for future quality improvement initiatives.