Aspirin Therapy For Primary Prevention Research Articles

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

Is there a benefit of aspirin therapy for primary prevention to reduce the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in patients with elevated Lipoprotein (a)—A review of the evidence

Aspirin has long been recognized as a beneficial treatment for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) due to its antiplatelet effects. However, there is a need to more precisely identify individuals who would benefit from aspirin therapy for primary prevention in order to reduce the risk of ASCVD. Those with elevated lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] levels are at increased risk of ASCVD. In this article, we provide an overview of studies that have explored the use of aspirin therapy in individuals with elevated Lp(a). We discuss the potential mechanisms by which aspirin therapy may reduce ASCVD risk, and present a review of the data on the effectiveness of aspirin therapy in reducing ASCVD risk in individuals with elevated Lp(a). The presented evidence suggests that individuals with elevated Lp(a) benefit more from aspirin therapy for reduction of ASCVD events than the general population.

Aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: What do the current USPSTF guidelines say?

The 2022 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation notes that the decision to initiate daily aspirin therapy for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) should be made on a case-by-case basis for adults ages 40 to 59 with a 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk. The recommendation applies to those without signs or symptoms of clinically evident CVD who are not at an increased risk of bleeding. Clinicians are encouraged to use their judgment in weighing the risks and benefits of aspirin therapy, while taking patient preference into account for patients ages 40 to 60.

Temporal trends in low-dose aspirin therapy for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in European adults with and without diabetes.

Aspirin therapy for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is controversial, and guideline recommendations have changed throughout the last decades. We report temporal trends in primary prevention aspirin use among persons with and without diabetes and describe characteristics of incident aspirin users. Using Danish nationwide registries, we identified incident and prevalent aspirin users in a population of subjects ≥40 years without CVD eligible for primary preventive aspirin therapy from 2000 through 2020. Temporal trends in aspirin users with and without diabetes were assessed, as were CVD risk factors among incident users. 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 the lowest in 2019 (11 898 individuals, 0.49%), with similar trends for subjects with and without diabetes. The percentage of incident users with no CVD risk factors [diabetes, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a proxy for smoking)] decreased from 53.9% in 2000 to 30.9% in 2020. The temporal trends in prevalent aspirin users followed a unimodal curve, 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% decreasing to 17.1% in 2020. Aspirin therapy for primary prevention of CVD has decreased over the last two decades. However, the drug remained used in individuals with and without diabetes, and a large proportion of individuals started on aspirin therapy had no CVD risk factors.

WITHDRAWN: Adherence to European guidelines for the use of aspirin in primary health care

The Publisher regrets that this article is an accidental duplication of an article that has already been published, 10.1016/j.repc.2022.03.007. The duplicate article has therefore been withdrawn. The full Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/article-withdrawal

Adherence to European guidelines for the use of aspirin in primary health care

Introduction and objectivesCardiovascular disease remains a leading cause of global morbidity and mortality. The administration of low doses of aspirin in secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) has been clearly established. However, the most recent guidelines do not recommend aspirin in primary prevention, reserving it for high-risk patients and after a risk/benefit assessment. The aim of this study was to assess adherence to European guidelines for the use of aspirin in primary and secondary prevention of ASCVD in primary health care. MethodsThe study population consisted of individuals aged >50 years registered at two primary health care units without (primary prevention) and with previous ASCVD events (secondary prevention). ResultsWe studied a total of 1262 individuals, 720 in primary prevention and 542 in secondary prevention. A total of 61 individuals (8.5%) were under aspirin therapy in primary prevention, most of them taking 150 mg/day (57%). In secondary prevention, 195 patients (27%) were receiving aspirin only, most taking 150 mg/day (52%), and 166 patients (31%) were not under any antithrombotic or anticoagulant therapy. The 100 mg dosage was predominant in patients with ischemic heart disease with (64%) and without (64%) angina, as well as those with myocardial infarction (61.5%) and peripheral vascular disease (62%). ConclusionsIn this study, the prevalence of aspirin use in primary prevention was 8.5%. We found that 30% of patients were not taking either antithrombotic or anticoagulation therapy in secondary prevention. In both primary and secondary prevention, the 150 mg dosage was predominant.

Effect of aspirin on primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and mortality among patients with chronic kidney disease

Chronic kidney disease is associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular and bleeding events. Data regarding the effectiveness and risks of aspirin therapy for primary prevention in the high-risk group of patients with chronic kidney disease are scant and controversial. This retrospective study included patients with chronic kidney disease. Participants were divided according to aspirin use. Outcomes included non-fatal cardiovascular events, major bleeding events and all-cause mortality. Among 10,303 patients, 2169 met the inclusion criteria and 1818 were included after 1:1 propensity-score matching. Our final cohort included patients with mean age of 73.4 ± 11.6 years, estimated glomerular filtration rate of 31.5 ± 10.5 ml/min/1.73m2 with follow up of 4.9 ± 1.5 years. There were no significant differences in all-cause mortality and bleeding events (odds ratio = 1.03, confidence interval [0.62, 1.84], p = .58 and odds ratio = 1.09, confidence interval [0.65, 1.72], p = .87 respectively). The incidence of cardiovascular events was higher in aspirin users versus non-users on univariate analysis (p < 0.01) and was comparable after controlling for possible risk-factors (OR = 1.05, CI [0.61, 3.14], p = .85). Chronic aspirin use for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease was not associated with lower mortality, cardiovascular events or increased bleeding among patients with chronic kidney disease. Those results were unexpected and should prompt further research in this field.

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.

Aspirin Therapy for Primary Prevention: The Case for Continuing Prescribing to Patients at High Cardiovascular Risk-A Review.

Current evidence supports the use of low-dose aspirin for secondary cardiovascular prevention. By contrast, the benefit-to-risk ratio of aspirin use in primary prevention is debated: three contemporary randomized control trials have been conflicting, and meta-analyses have concluded for an unclear clinical benefit, based on the consideration that the reduction in thromboembolic events is counterbalanced by increased bleeding. The primary prevention setting is, however, a heterogeneous mix of subjects at highly variable cardiovascular risk. One possible explanation for the uncertainty of data interpretation is the progressive reduction in risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in primary prevention that has accompanied global education programs, leading patients to smoke less, exercise more, and increasingly take lipid-lowering therapies. 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, we favor a nuanced approach still, however, based on the evaluation of cardiovascular risk, acknowledging differences between patients and emphasizing an individualized assessment of both benefits and harm. After optimal control of cardiovascular risk factors, and when patients are less than 70 years of age, clinicians should assess the risk of MACE and base decision on such stratification, considering the risk of bleeding and patient preferences. Clinicians would then advise the use of aspirin in primary prevention patients at the highest risk of MACE who do not have a prohibitive risk of bleeding, and in the majority of cases after initiation of properly titrated statin therapy.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular events among patients with type 2 diabetes in China

The use of aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) is associated with lower rates of cardiovascular events but increased risks of bleeding complications. We aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of aspirin therapy for primary prevention of CVD in Chinese DM patients. A life-long Markov model was developed to compare aspirin therapy (100mg daily) versus no use of aspirin in DM patients with no history of CVD. Model validation was conducted by comparing the simulated event rates with data reported in a clinical trial. Direct medical costs and quality-adjusted life-years gained (QALYs) were the primary outcomes from the perspective of healthcare system in China. Sensitivity analyses were performed to examine the uncertainty of model inputs. Base-case analysis showed aspirin therapy was more costly (USD1,086 versus USD819) with higher QALYs gained (11.94 versus 11.86 QALYs) compared to no use of aspirin. The base-case results were sensitive to the odds ratio of all-cause death in aspirin therapy versus no use of aspirin. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis found that aspirin therapy gained an additional 0.066 QALYs (95% CI: -0.167 QALYs-0.286 QALYs) at higher cost by USD352 (95% CI: USD130-644)). Using 30,000 USD/QALY as willingness-to-pay threshold, aspirin therapy and no use of aspirin were the preferred option in 68.71% and 31.29% of 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations, respectively. In conclusion, aspirin therapy appears to be cost-effective compared with no use of aspirin in primary prevention of CVD in Chinese DM patients.

Aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in diabetes.

Aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in diabetes.

Aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: Advice for a decisional strategy based on risk stratification.

The need for aspirin therapy as part of primary prevention of cardiovascular (CV) disease is currently being highly debated, especially after 3 studies in different settings reported that a reduction in ischemic events is largely counterbalanced by an increase in bleeding events. One possible explanation for these results is the progressive reduction in the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) as a result of primary prevention, which has accompanied global education programs that have led to patients smoking less, exercising more, and increasingly undertaking lipid-lowering therapies. Based on a meta-regression of the benefits and harmful effects of aspirin therapy in primary prevention as a function of the 10-year risk of MACE, we favor a differentiated and personalized approach that acknowledged differences between patients and emphasized an individualized assessment of benefits and risks. Following general preventive measures (physical exercise, cessation of smoking, treatment of hypertension and hypercholesterolemia, etc.), an individualized approach to prescribing aspirin is still warranted. When patients are less than 70 years of age, clinicians should assess the 10-year CV risk. Aspirin treatment should be considered only when the CV risk is very high and the bleeding risk is low, after taking into account the patient’s preferences.

Update of Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients Without Known Cardiovascular Disease

AbstractPlatelet activation and aggregation play a critical role in thrombosis, a fundamental pathophysiologic event responsible for the acute clinical manifestations of atherothrombotic events such as acute coronary syndrome, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke/transient ischemic attack and peripheral artery disease. Dual antiplatelet therapy (low-dose aspirin plus ADP-P2Y12 receptor blockers) has become the cornerstone of therapy for the management of acute and chronic coronary artery disease and the prevention of ischemic complications associated with percutaneous coronary intervention. However, dual antiplatelet therapy in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients without known cardiovascular disease did not significantly reduce the risk of cardiovascular events, such as myocardial infarction, stroke or death, but significantly increased the rate of bleeding. Furthermore, despite multiple randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of aspirin use in patients without known cardiovascular disease, its role in primary prevention is still unclear, especially in patients with a higher risk of cardiovascular disease (non-diabetic individuals with &gt;2 risk factors for coronary artery disease, elderly &gt;60 years with additional risk factors, and patients with diabetes). Currently, there are four ongoing randomized controlled trials aiming to fill the missing gap in the efficacy and safety of aspirin therapy for primary prevention in these patients. The current European and United States Guidelines agree that primary prevention of cardiovascular disease is essential, but there are some substantial differences in risk estimation and treatment strategies among patients without known cardiovascular disease. This short review is focused on these differences and practical treatment approach to these patients based on present European and United States recommendations.

Aspirin in primary prevention for patients with diabetes: Still a matter of debate.

Patients with diabetes are at high cardiovascular (CV) risk due to an exaggerated platelet activation and aggregation. In the first 2000s low-dose aspirin was first recommended for primary prevention, but then re-discussed. This short narrative review, based on the material searched for and obtained via PubMed up to February 2018, aims at clarifying this controversial topic. The JPAD2 study has been designed to evaluate the occurrence of any CV event in a cohort of patients with diabetes and concluded that low-dose aspirin did not influence the risk for CV events while increasing the risk for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Reasons for this result can be found in the role of diabetic platelets, which are known to be hyperreactive, thus producing intensified adhesion, activation, and aggregation. In this setting, other associated metabolic conditions can concur to enhance platelet adhesion and activation. Aspirin resistance has been often considered a guilty actor, although many mechanisms have been mistaken for true aspirin resistance, such as patient poor compliance, inadequate dosing, drug interactions, and high-platelet turnover. However, the mere presence of diabetes is not likely to give a net benefit for CV protection with respect to GI bleeding. It appears advisable to follow current guidelines addressing first of all classical risk factors and evaluate aspirin therapy in primary prevention only for patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes at increased CV risk and no risk for GI bleeding. Anyway, additional clinical trials are needed to address the current topic.

Annual Risk of Major Bleeding Among Persons Without Cardiovascular Disease Not Receiving Antiplatelet Therapy

A decision to initiate aspirin therapy for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) requires consideration of both treatment benefits and harms. The most significant harm associated with aspirin is major bleeding, yet there is a paucity of data on bleeding risk in suitable community populations. To determine the risk of major bleeding among people without CVD who are not receiving antiplatelet therapy. Prospective cohort study of 359 166 individuals aged 30 to 79 years receiving primary care in New Zealand who had CVD risk assessment between 2002 and 2015. Participants were censored at the earliest date on which they had a first major bleeding event, died, or met any baseline cohort exclusion criteria or the study end date of December 31, 2015. Analyses were repeated after excluding people with medical conditions associated with increased bleeding risk (non-high-risk cohort; n=305 057) and after further excluding people receiving other medications associated with increased bleeding risk (nonmedication cohort; n=240 254). Sex and age group in 10-year bands from 30 to 79 years. Risk of a major bleeding event (hospitalization or death associated with bleeding); nonfatal gastrointestinal tract bleeding; and gastrointestinal tract bleeding-related case fatality. Mean participant age was 54 years (SD, 10 years), 44% were women, and 57% were European. Among the 359 166 individuals in the baseline cohort, 3976 had a major bleeding event during 1 281 896 person-years of follow-up. Most had gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding (n=2910 [73%]). There were 274 fatal bleeding events (7%), of which 153 were intracerebral. The risk of a nonfatal GI bleeding event per 1000 person-years was 2.19 (95% CI, 2.11-2.27), 1.77 (95% CI, 1.69-1.85) and 1.61 (95% CI, 1.52-1.69), in the baseline, non-high-risk, and nonmedication cohorts, respectively. Case fatality associated with GI bleeding was 3.4% (95% CI, 2.2%-4.1%), 4.0% (95% CI, 3.2%-5.1%), and 4.6% (95% CI, 3.6%-6.0%) in the baseline, non-high-risk, and nonmedication cohorts, respectively. In a population not receiving antiplatelet therapy, the annual risk of major bleeding events and nonfatal major bleeding was estimated. These findings could inform population-level guidelines for primary prevention of CVD.

Weighing the Anti-Ischemic Benefits and Bleeding Risks from Aspirin Therapy: a Rational Approach.

The role of aspirin in secondary cardiovascular prevention is well understood; however, the role in primary prevention is less clear, and requires careful balancing of potential benefits with risks. Here, we summarize the evidence base on the benefits and risks of aspirin therapy, discuss clinical practice guidelines and decision support tools to assist in initiating aspirin therapy, and highlight ongoing trials that may clarify the role of aspirin in cardiovascular disease prevention. In 2016, the USPSTF released guidelines on the use of aspirin for primary prevention. Based on 11 trials (n = 118,445), aspirin significantly reduced all-cause mortality and nonfatal myocardial infarction, and in 7 trials that evaluated aspirin ≤ 100mg/day, there was significant reduction in nonfatal stroke. The USPSTF recommends individualized use of aspirin based on factors including age, 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk score, and bleeding risk. Several ongoing trials are evaluating the role of aspirin in primary prevention, secondary prevention, and in combination therapy for atrial fibrillation. Evidence-based approaches to aspirin use should consider the anti-ischemic benefits and bleeding risks from aspirin. In this era of precision medicine, tools that provide the personalized benefit to risk assessment, such as the freely available clinical decision support tool (Aspirin-Guide), can be easily incorporated into the electronic health record and facilitate more informed decisions about initiating aspirin therapy for primary prevention. Aspirin has a complex matrix of benefits and risks, and its use in primary prevention requires individualized decision-making. Results from ongoing trials may guide healthcare providers in identifying appropriate candidates for aspirin therapy.

New Insights on Long-Term Aspirin Therapy in Primary Prevention for Cardiovascular Disease

The atherosclerosis-related cardiovascular diseases, such as coronary artery disease, stroke and peripheral artery disease, are the leading cause of death and morbidity in the United States and Europe. The pathophysiology of atherosclerotic plaque is essential to understand the criticality of these diseases and the correct functioning of pharmacological strategies. The use of statins, both primary and secondary prevention, it is well established in clinical practice based on scientific evidence; however, the use of aspirin in primary prevention is widely debated.

Aspirin use for primary prevention in elderly patients.

The net clinical benefit of aspirin in primary prevention is uncertain as the reduction in occlusive events needs to be balanced against the increase in gastro-intestinal and cerebral bleedings. The meta-analysis of ATT (Anti Thrombotic Trialists) Collaboration in 2009 showed that aspirin therapy in primary prevention was associated with 12% reduction in cardio-vascular events, due mainly to a reduction in non-fatal myocardial infarction (0.18% vs 0.23% per year, p<0.0001). However, the benefit in term of coronary events was almost balanced by the increase in major bleedings. The balance between potential benefit and harm of aspirin differs in each person and appears to be favorable in subjects at higher cardio-vascular risk. Older people have increased risk of hemorrhage as well as increased risk of heart attack and stroke. As a consequence, it is important consider both likelihoods of benefits as well as harm within the lifespan and functioning of the person. The older people who most likely benefit from aspirin in primary prevention are those at higher cardio-vascular risk, with preserved functional abilities, low comorbidity, low risk of bleeding and a prolonged life expectancy.

Aspirin for the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: In Need of Clarity.

Aspirin remains one of the most extensively studied cardiovascular medications in the history of medicine. However, despite multiple, well-designed, large randomized controlled trials evaluating the potential of aspirin to prevent cardiovascular events in individuals without known cardiovascular disease (CVD), the role of aspirin in primary prevention is currently unclear. The initial aspirin trials included largely low-risk individuals with primary outcomes mostly focused on myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke, and showed a significant reduction in these CVD outcomes, especially MI. The more recently conducted trials have focused on older, higher CVD risk populations with high rates of lipid-lowering and antihypertensive medications use. These studies have used broader CVD outcomes as their primary end points and have failed to show a significant benefit of aspirin therapy in primary prevention. The exact reasons for the lack of efficacy in these recent trials are unclear but may be related to low rate of atherothrombotic events relative to other CVD events in the populations studied. Four large randomized controlled trials are currently underway which should provide some clarity in determining the optimal use of aspirin in the primary prevention of CVD.

Value of Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography in Tailoring Aspirin Therapy for Primary Prevention of Atherosclerotic Events in Patients at High Risk With Diabetes Mellitus

Aspirin use for primary prevention in patients at high risk with diabetes mellitus (DM) is often recommended under the assumption that most patients with DM have coronary artery disease (CAD). However, not all patients may have CAD. The present study evaluated, in 425 patients at high risk with DM (without chest pain syndrome or a history of cardiac disease), the prevalence of CAD on coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA). Moreover, the association between the presence and number of traditional cardiovascular (CV) risk factors and CAD (on coronary CTA) was evaluated. The median coronary artery calcium score was 29 (interquartile range 0 to 298). On coronary CTA, 116 patients (27%) had no CAD (defined as <30% stenosis). Of the 309 patients (73%) with any CAD (≥30% stenosis), 35% had obstructive CAD (≥50% stenosis). The number of traditional CV risk factors was not associated with the presence of any CAD (≥30% stenosis; p= 0.18) or obstructive CAD (≥50% stenosis; p= 0.13). Hypertension was the only traditional CV risk factor associated with a higher frequency of any CAD (≥30% stenosis; odds ratio= 2.21, 95% CI 1.43 to 3.41, p <0.001) and obstructive CAD (≥50% stenosis; odds ratio 2.03, 95% CI 1.33 to 3.11, p= 0.001). In conclusion, in patients at high risk with DM without chest pain syndrome, any CAD was ruled out by coronary CTA in 27%, whereas 65% of the patients did not have obstructive CAD. The number of CV risk factors was not associated with the presence of CAD. Hypertension was the only traditional CV risk factor that was associated with a higher frequency of CAD. These observations support potential use of coronary CTA to tailor aspirin therapy in patients at high risk with DM.