Aspirin For Primary Prevention Research Articles

Subgroup analysis of the ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly randomized clinical trial suggests aspirin did not improve outcomes in older adults with chronic kidney disease

The role of aspirin for primary prevention in older adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is unclear. Therefore, post hoc analysis of the randomized controlled trial ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) was undertaken comparing 100 mg of enteric-coated aspirin daily against matching placebo. Participants were community dwelling adults aged 70 years and older in Australia, 65 years and older in the United States, all free of a history of dementia or cardiovascular disease and of any disease expected to lead to death within five years. CKD was defined as present at baseline if either eGFR under 60mL/min/1.73m2 or urine albumin to creatinine ratio 3 mg/mmol or more. In 4758 participants with and 13004 without CKD, the rates of a composite endpoint (dementia, persistent physical disability or death), major adverse cardiovascular events and clinically significant bleeding in the CKD participants were almost double those without CKD. Aspirin's effects as estimated by hazard ratios were generally similar between CKD and non-CKD groups for dementia, persistent physical disability or death, major adverse cardiovascular events and clinically significant bleeding. Thus, in our analysis aspirin did not improve outcomes in older people while increasing the risk of bleeding, with mostly consistent effects in participants with and without CKD.

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.

Prescription prevalence of low dose aspirin in primary prevention in the Spanish population, trends over time and associated factors

Background and objectiveThe use of low-dose acetylsalicylic acid (LD-ASA) in primary prevention is a matter of controversy, but its magnitude is unknown in Spain. The aim of the study was to estimate the proportion of patients who are prescribed LD-ASA for primary prevention and to identify their characteristics. MethodsIn a sample from the primary care database BIFAP we obtained the proportion of persons with prescriptions of LD-ASA over the period 2002–2015, excluding patients with any previous record of occlusive vascular disease, atrial fibrillation or cancer. The proportions were standardized to the Spanish population aged 40–99 years old. We identified the factors associated with the use of LD-ASA through a logistic regression and estimated its prevalence of use according to the presence of such factors. ResultsThe sample included 102,850 subjects; of which 6198 were users of LD-ASA. The standardized prevalence of prescription was 2.21% at the start of the period and 3.57% at the end, and increased with age. The factors with the strongest associations were diabetes (OR = 3.26; 95% CI:3.07−3.47), dyslipidaemia (OR = 2.08;1.96−2.21), heart failure (OR = 2.02;1.72−2.37), and hypertension (OR = 1.78;1.67−1.90). Among diabetic patients older than 70 years with hypertension and dyslipidaemia, the prevalence of LD-ASA prescription was 33.7%. ConclusionsThe prescription of LD-ASA for primary prevention in Spain over the study period was low in the general population, but high in older diabetic patients with additional risk factors. After years of controversy, it is time to realign the use of this drug in primary prevention according to recent guidelines.

Aspirin for primary prevention? No thank you!

Dwight David Eisenhower Army Medical Center, Family Medicine Residency Fort Gordon, GA The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The opinions and assertions contained herein are those of the authors and are not to be construed as official or as reflecting the views of the U.S. Army Medical Department, the Army at large or the Department of Defense.

Aspirin in Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events.

Aspirin has demonstrated a clear benefit in secondary prevention of coronary syndrome, while aspirin's effect in primary prevention is unclear. This report will explore the role of aspirin as primary prevention for various vascular events. It strives to provide a clear guide for clinicians on whether or not to prescribe aspirin for their patients for primary prevention. Current guidelines and recent trials failed to show clear benefit against primary prevention, with risks outweighing benefits in moderate to high risk patients. A thoughtful discussion between patients and their doctors should be conducted before beginning aspirin use. More studies are needed to gain a better understanding of aspirin use in primary prevention.

Is There Still a Role for Aspirin in Primary Prevention in Women in 2020?

Aspirin's place in primary prevention for females has not been well delineated and has been under increased scrutiny in light of recent literature and guideline recommendations. The purpose of this review is to discuss current literature reviewing aspirin use for primary prevention in women and to discuss when use is appropriate. The Women's Health Study found no differences in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in women randomized to aspirin vs. placebo, though a significant reduction was observed in women ≥ 65years. More recent literature evaluated outcomes for primary prevention use in patients at increased cardiovascular risk, patients with diabetes, and patients who are elderly. These trials found either no benefit in MACE outcomes or a slight benefit accompanied by an increased risk of bleeding. Furthermore, no difference in outcomes were found in subgroup analyses comparing females receiving aspirin vs. placebo or comparing events in males vs. females. With improvements in risk factor reduction, such as blood pressure control, statin use, diabetes management, and smoking cessation, the role of aspirin for primary prevention in women is still uncertain. Aspirin use for primary prevention in females has failed to show a clear benefit except in women ≥ 65years old, with a potential increase in bleeding events. An effort to better study aspirin in female patients would allow for better identification of women who would or would not benefit from therapy.

Role of Aspirin for Primary Prevention in Persons with Diabetes Mellitus and in the Elderly.

To review the clinical evidence of the effect of aspirin as primary prevention for patients with diabetes mellitus and in healthy elderly. Two trials were performed to study these two patient populations: ASCEND showed that the use of low-dose aspirin in persons with diabetes, who did not have prior cardiovascular disease, led to a lower risk of cardiovascular events than placebo (8.5% vs 9.6%, rate ratio 0.88, 95% CI 0.79-0.97; p = 0.01). However, it showed a similar magnitude of increased risk of major bleeding among the aspirin group compared with placebo (4.1% vs 3.2%, rate ratio 1.29, 95% CI 1.09-1.52; p = 0.003). ASPREE showed that the use of low-dose aspirin in healthy elderly did not prolong disability-free survival (21.5% vs 21.2%, HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.92-1.11; p = 0.79); however, the rate of major hemorrhage was higher in the aspirin group than in the placebo group (3.8% vs 2.8%, HR 1.38, 95% CI 1.18-1.62; p < 0.001). Additionally, further analyses of secondary end points of death, cardiovascular disease, and major hemorrhage were also studied. Higher all-cause mortality was seen among healthy elderly who received aspirin compared with placebo (12.7% vs 11.1%, HR 1.14, 95% CI 1.01-1.29) and was primarily attributed to cancer-related deaths. Similar risk of cardiovascular disease was seen among elderly who received aspirin compared with placebo (10.7% vs 11.3%, HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83-1.08) and resulted in a significantly higher risk of major hemorrhage (8.6% vs 6.8%, HR 1.38, 95% CI 1.18-1.62; p < 0.001). These studies show that the use of low-dose aspirin as primary prevention in patients with diabetes and in the elderly does not have overall beneficial effect compared with its use in secondary prevention. In patients with diabetes without prior cardiovascular disease, the benefits of aspirin use were counterbalanced by the bleeding risk. Additionally, in healthy elderly, the use of aspirin did not prolong disability-free survival and instead led to a higher rate of major hemorrhage.

Antithrombotic treatment of asymptomatic carotid atherosclerosis: a medical dilemma.

Carotid artery atherosclerosis (CAAS) is a common finding in asymptomatic subjects evaluated for cardiovascular (CV)-risk stratification. Besides the careful control of CV-risk factors, antithrombotic agents, and in particular aspirin, may be considered for primary prevention in patients at CV-risk. However, there is strong controversy on the use of aspirin in primary prevention. Even if several studies confirmed the association between CAAS and CV-events, CAAS is not universally recognized as an independent risk factor and the choice to use aspirin as primary prevention in these patients remains a medical dilemma. Here we review the available evidence on the prognostic value of asymptomatic CAAS for major CV-events and on the utility of antithrombotic agents in this population. We conclude that the detection of asymptomatic CAAS can not be considered as a direct indication to carry out primary prophylaxis with antithrombotic drugs, and the choice to use aspirin should be made only after the careful estimate of the individual's CV-and hemorrhagic risk.

Aspirin for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular events.

Recent trials evaluated the impact of aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular events in patients at intermediate risk, patients with diabetes, and the elderly, and the results have been incorporated into the most recent professional guidelines. For the most part, the role of aspirin in primary prevention remains limited, albeit not adequately tested in those at higher risk.

Aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in women.

For primary prevention, low-dose aspirin should be considered in women aged 40 to 70 years with a 10-year cardiovascular risk of 20% or more or in women with diabetes and a 10-year cardiovascular risk of 10% or more. The risk of bleeding outweighs the benefits in low-risk women and in women aged 70 years and older.

Abstract 326: De-escalation of Aspirin for Primary Prevention of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease in the Primary Care Setting

Background: For several decades, aspirin (ASA) has been used as primary prevention against ASCVD in adults. In 2018, three major trials (ASPREE, ARRIVE, and ASCEND) redefined our understanding of ASA and showed a net harm rather than benefit when ASA is used for primary prevention of ASCVD. These trials greatly impacted the current 2019 ACC/AHA Primary Prevention Guidelines, which now recommend the following: (a) Low-dose ASA might be considered for primary prevention of ASCVD in select higher ASCVD adults aged 40-70 years who are not at increased bleeding risk and (b) Low-dose ASA should not be administered for primary prevention of ASCVD among adults over the age of 70. The objective of the project was to re-evaluate the use and indications of ASA in our patient population and appropriately remove ASA when no longer indicated. With proper resident education and intervention, we hypothesized that we could reduce the number of inappropriate ASA prescriptions by 10%. Methods/Results: During a 6-month observational period, 254 patients at Ryan Health/Adair (a federally qualified health center which also serves as a primary care site for an internal medicine residency clinic) were found to be taking ASA, and of those 140 patients were found to be on ASA for primary ASCVD prevention. The interventions included implementation of an algorithm that reflected the most up to date guidelines. The intervention lasted 3 months. Any patient that was found to be on ASA inappropriately was discontinued. During this period ASA was successfully removed from 25 patients’ medication list, with an overall reduction by 17.9%. Of the 25 patients, 20% were over the age of 70, 80% were between the ages of 40-70, and 48% were male. In the remaining 115 patients in which ASA was continued, 27.8% were over the age of 70, 69.6% were between the ages of 40-70, 2.6% were under the age of 40, and 49.6% were male. The successful ASA removal group comprised of 44% Hispanic/Latino, 44% African American, 4% White, and 8% Unidentified. The ASA non-removal group comprised of 34.8% Hispanic/Latino, 44.3% African American, 5.2% White, and 15.7% Unidentified. Additionally, 80% of the patient taken off ASA spoke English, while only 69.6% of patient in the ASA non-removal group spoke English. Conclusions: Several differences were found between the two groups. Some key limitations between the two groups included (a) unclear past medical history leading to physicians being uncomfortable with removing ASA, (b) inability to speak in patient’s native language to facilitate proper discussion about ASA removal, and (c) patient refusal to stop ASA. Next steps include further cardiac testing (CT coronaries, stress test) to better characterize the risk of patients with unclear history. However, overall, there is likely a net benefit in prioritizing ASA removal in the primary care setting now that it is no longer recommended in key populations.

Coronary Artery Calcium for Personalized Allocation of Aspirin in Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in 2019

Recent American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Primary Prevention Guidelines recommended considering low-dose aspirin therapy only among adults 40 to 70 years of age who are at higher atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk but not at high risk of bleeding. However, it remains unclear how these patients are best identified. The present study aimed to assess the value of coronary artery calcium (CAC) for guiding aspirin allocation for primary prevention by using 2019 aspirin meta-analysis data on cardiovascular disease relative risk reduction and bleeding risk. The study included 6470 participants from the MESA Study (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis). ASCVD risk was estimated using the pooled cohort equations, and 3 strata were defined: <5%, 5% to 20%, and >20%. All participants underwent CAC scoring at baseline, and CAC scores were stratified as =0, 1 to 99, ≥100, and ≥400. A 12% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular disease events was used for the 5-year number needed to treat (NNT5) calculations, and a 42% relative risk increase in major bleeding events was used for the 5-year number needed to harm (NNH5) estimations. Only 5% of MESA participants would qualify for aspirin consideration for primary prevention according to the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines and using >20% estimated ASCVD risk to define higher risk. Benefit/harm calculations were restricted to aspirin-naive participants <70 years of age not at high risk of bleeding (n=3540). The overall NNT5 with aspirin to prevent 1 cardiovascular disease event was 476 and the NNH5 was 355. The NNT5 was also greater than or similar to the NNH5 among estimated ASCVD risk strata. Conversely, CAC≥100 and CAC≥400 identified subgroups in which NNT5 was lower than NNH5. This was true both overall (for CAC≥100, NNT5=140 versus NNH5=518) and within ASCVD risk strata. Also, CAC=0 identified subgroups in which the NNT5 was much higher than the NNH5 (overall, NNT5=1190 versus NNH5=567). CAC may be superior to the pooled cohort equations to inform the allocation of aspirin in primary prevention. Implementation of current 2019 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline recommendations together with the use of CAC for further risk assessment may result in a more personalized, safer allocation of aspirin in primary prevention. Confirmation of these findings in experimental settings is needed.

Aspirin for the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: A Review of the Literature and Considerations for Clinical Practice.

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death globally, and deaths due to coronary heart disease or stroke account for over half of all cardiovascular deaths in the United States. While many important advances have been made in the treatment and secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), morbidity and mortality remain high. Aspirin has been commonly used for the primary and secondary prevention of ASCVD for decades and is an easily accessible therapeutic option. While it is a cornerstone of secondary prevention, its role in primary prevention is less clear and professional guidelines have differed in their recommendations. As literature has substantially evolved over the past 40 years, so too has our understanding of aspirin's role in the primary prevention of ASCVD. This article reviews landmark clinical trials of aspirin in primary prevention and highlights key changes in dosing strategies and demographics.

Weighing the benefits of aspirin in primary prevention in diabetic individuals

Weighing the benefits of aspirin in primary prevention in diabetic individuals

Aspirin for primary cardiovascular prevention: why the wonder drug should not be precipitously dismissed.

Primary cardiovascular prevention is the combined set of actions aimed at reducing the likelihood of symptomatic atherosclerotic disease or major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in currently asymptomatic individuals. Older studies on aspirin for primary prevention were positive or neutral as to the primary ischemic endpoint (often represented by MACE), but the reduction in nonfatal ischemic events seemed largely counterbalanced by an increase in bleeding events. The 3 latest large randomized controlled trials on aspirin in primary prevention, all published in 2018, reached basically similar conclusions, leading to an intense debate on whether aspirin therapy is warranted in asymptomatic patients and whether there are subgroups that may benefit. In the present review, we provide an overview of the available evidence on aspirin for primary cardiovascular prevention, focusing on the results of meta‑analyses and on strengths and pitfalls of meta‑analytic assessments. Based on a meta‑regression of the benefits and harm of aspirin therapy in primary prevention as a function of the 10‑year risk of MACE, which is an alternative type of pooled analysis of available evidence, we propose a treatment algorithm acknowledging differences among patients and emphasizing the need for an individualized assessment of benefits and risks. Following general preventive measures (physical exercise, smoking cessation, treatment of hypertension and hypercholesterolemia, etc), a tailored approach to aspirin prescription is warranted. When patients are younger than 70 years of age, clinicians should assess the 10‑year cardiovascular risk: when such risk is high and bleeding risk is low, aspirin treatment should still be considered, also taking patients' preferences into account.

Selección de lo mejor del año 2019 en cardiología clínica

Clinical cardiology covers a wide area and it is constantly being updated. To properly manage patients it is of upmost importance to keep updated with the latest scientific news. In the field of prevention; we reviewed the use of aspirin for primary prevention that call into question its use; the excellent results of high-dose omega-3; the developments in the treatment of patients with diabetes mellitus, owing to the reduction of cardiovascular events, and the changes in the new guidelines on dyslipidaemias, with recommendations for really low lipid objectives. We also review the new contributions for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation and ischaemic heart disease, where direct-acting anticoagulants should be the therapeutic preference. The role that transcatheter aortic valve implantation plays in the management of patients with aortic stenosis is also important. To finish, we review the importance of new technologies in the area of clinical cardiology.

Aspirin, clopidogrel and prasugrel monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a double-blind randomised controlled trial of the effects on thrombotic markers and microRNA levels

BackgroundDespite increased atherothrombotic risk in type 2 diabetes mellitus, (T2DM) the best preventative antithrombotic strategy remains undetermined. We defined the effects of three antiplatelet agents on functional readout and biomarker kinetics in platelet activation and coagulation in patients with T2DM.Materials and methods56 patients with T2DM were randomised to antiplatelet monotherapy with aspirin 75 mg once daily (OD), clopidogrel 75 mg OD or prasugrel 10 mg OD during three periods of a crossover study. Platelet aggregation (PA) was determined by light-transmittance aggregometry and P-selectin expression by flow cytometry. Markers of fibrin clot dynamics, inflammation and coagulation were measured. Plasma levels of 14 miRNA were assessed by quantitative polymerase chain reactions.ResultsOf the 56 patients, 24 (43%) were receiving aspirin for primary prevention of ischaemic events and 32 (57%) for secondary prevention. Prasugrel was the strongest inhibitor of ADP-induced PA (mean ± SD maximum response to 20μmol/L ADP 77.6 ± 8.4% [aspirin] vs. 57.7 ± 17.6% [clopidogrel] vs. 34.1 ± 14.1% [prasugrel], p < 0.001), P-selectin expression (30 μmol/L ADP; 45.1 ± 21.4% vs. 27.1 ± 19.0% vs. 14.1 ± 14.9%, p < 0.001) and collagen-induced PA (2 μg/mL; 62.1 ± 19.4% vs. 72.3 ± 18.2% vs. 60.2 ± 18.5%, p < 0.001). Fibrin clot dynamics and levels of coagulation and inflammatory proteins were similar. Lower levels of miR-24 (p = 0.004), miR-191 (p = 0.019), miR-197 (p = 0.009) and miR-223 (p = 0.014) were demonstrated during prasugrel-therapy vs. aspirin. Circulating miR-197 was lower in those cardiovascular disease during therapy with aspirin (p = 0.039) or prasugrel (p = 0.0083).ConclusionsPrasugrel monotherapy in T2DM provided potent platelet inhibition and reduced levels of a number of platelet-associated miRNAs. miR-197 is a potential marker of cardiovascular disease in this population. Clinical outcome studies investigating prasugrel monotherapy are warranted in individuals with T2DM.Trial registration EudraCT, 2009-011907-22. Registered 15 March 2010, https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2009-011907-22/GB.

ACETYLSALICYLIC ACID RESISTANCE: RISK FACTORS, MECHANISMS, DIAGNOSTIC TESTS

Acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) is one the most widespread drugs in the world. It is used for secondary prevention of atherothrombotic events in patients with cardiovascular disease. Accordingly, the problem of the effectiveness of aspirin treatment is among the crucial issues of cardiology. The issue of personalization of antiplatelet therapy remains relevant, since there is no convincing evidence in favor of using aspirin for primary prevention in the general population. In this review, recent data on aspirin resistance are considered. Potential mechanisms of non-responsiveness to aspirin, the role of genetic factors, standardization of tests and diagnostic criteria for aspirin resistance, and the treatment options are discussed. The data on the clinical and prognostic value of 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 as a promising marker of thromboxane-dependent platelet activation are analyzed.

Prior Use of Medication for Primary Prevention in Patients with Coronary Syndrome

Background: Cardiovascular disease, especially coronary disease, represents one of the main causes of morbidity and mortality. Objective: To determine the drug prescription profile for primary cardiovascular prevention prior to a first acute coronary syndrome event. Methods: Cross-sectional study. We included adult patients of any sex affiliated with one healthcare insurer of the Colombian Health System, with a diagnosis of a first episode of acute coronary syndrome that occurred during the period of 2015 to 2016. Sociodemographic, clinical and pharmacological variables were evaluated from clinical records. The cardiovascular risk score prior to the event was calculated, and the need for the use of statins and aspirin in primary prevention was defined according to the recommendations of clinical practice guidelines. Results: Clinical records of 322 patients were reviewed with mean age of 61.9 ± 10.8 years, and 77.3% were men. The most frequent comorbidities were dyslipidemia (64.3%), arterial hypertension (62.7%) and diabetes mellitus (30.1%); 22% of the patients were obese, and 33.5% were smokers. The cardiovascular risk score was calculated in 211 patients (65.5%) who had the necessary variables complete. The median 10-year risk according to Framingham risk score was 21.4%, and it was 16.3% according to the American Heart Association. From the 211 patients with risk scores, there were 179 (84.8%) who needed statins (175 of high intensity, 97.8%), and 88 (27.3%) required aspirin as a primary prevention; however, 56 of these patients (31.3%) did not receive any statins, 127 (72.6%) did not receive the high intensity statin they needed, and 38 (43.2% of those with indication) lacked aspirin. Conclusion: Real-life data show that among a group of patients with high cardiovascular risk, a substantial proportion were not receiving medications for primary prevention necessary to reduce their risk and finally suffered an acute coronary event.

Aspirin use for cardiovascular disease prevention in the uninsured population.

Introduction:Aspirin is an effective anti-inflammatory and antiplatelet agent as an irreversible inhibitor of cyclooxygenase. In 2016, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients aged 50–69 years with a 10% or greater 10-year cardiovascular disease risk. Current guidelines for patients with prior myocardial infarction or coronary artery disease recommend aspirin use for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Due to the lack of literature describing adherence to these recommendations in the uninsured patient population, we studied aspirin use for cardiovascular disease prevention in free medical clinics.Methods:We conducted a cross sectional study of uninsured patients who visited nine free medical clinics in 2016–2017. Data from the records of 8857 patients were combined into a database for analysis. 10-year Framingham risk scores for coronary artery disease were calculated for the 50–69-year-old population to evaluate which patients qualified for aspirin usage. Aspirin use was assessed for patients with prior myocardial infarction or coronary artery disease.Results:In total, 1443 patients met the criteria to take aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, but just 17% of these patients aged 50–59 years were on the medication. About 15% of the patients aged 60–69 years were taking aspirin. Of the 297 patients who had prior myocardial infarction or coronary artery disease, 50% were taking aspirin for secondary prevention.Conclusion:Among the uninsured population, there are low rates of aspirin use for risk reduction of cardiovascular disease. This study demonstrates that improvements are needed to increase adherence to current guidelines and address barriers uninsured patients may face in maintaining their cardiovascular health.