Dataset Information

Aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular events in people with diabetes: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate the benefits and harms of low dose aspirin in people with diabetes and no cardiovascular disease.

Design

Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Data sources

Medline (1966-November 2008), the Cochrane central register of controlled trials (Cochrane Library 2008;issue 4), and reference lists of retrieved articles. Review methods Randomised trials of aspirin compared with placebo or no aspirin in people with diabetes and no pre-existing cardiovascular disease were eligible for inclusion. Data on major cardiovascular events (death from cardiovascular causes, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, and all cause mortality) were extracted and pooled with a random effect model. Results are reported as relative risks with 95% confidence intervals.

Results

Of 157 studies in the literature searches, six were eligible (10 117 participants). When aspirin was compared with placebo there was no statistically significant reduction in the risk of major cardiovascular events (five studies, 9584 participants; relative risk 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.81 to 1.00), cardiovascular mortality (four studies, n=8557, 0.94; 0.72 to 1.23), or all cause mortality (four studies, n=8557; 0.93, 0.82 to 1.05). Significant heterogeneity was found in the analysis for myocardial infarction (I(2)=62.2%; P=0.02) and stroke (I(2)=52.5%; P=0.08). Aspirin significantly reduced the risk of myocardial infarction in men (0.57, 0.34 to 0.94) but not in women (1.08, 0.71 to 1.65; P for interaction=0.056). Evidence relating to harms was inconsistent.

Conclusions

A clear benefit of aspirin in the primary prevention of major cardiovascular events in people with diabetes remains unproved. Sex may be an important effect modifier. Toxicity is to be explored further.

SUBMITTER: De Berardis G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2774388 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the benefits and harms of aspirin for the primary prevention of CVD and determine whether the effects vary by sex and diabetes status.MethodsWe searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of aspirin with placebo or control in people with no pre-existing CVD. Two investigators independently extracted data and assessed the study quality. Analyses were performed using Stata version 12.ResultsFourteen trials (107,686 participants) were eligible. Aspirin was associated with reductions in major cardiovascular events (risk ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.85-0.95), myocardial infarction (0.86; 0.75-0.93), ischemic stroke (0.86; 0.75-0.98) and all-cause mortality (0.94; 0.89-0.99). There were also increases in hemorrhagic stroke (1.34; 1.01-1.79) and major bleeding (1.55; 1.35-1.78) with aspirin. The number needed to treat to prevent 1 major cardiovascular event over a mean follow-up of 6.8 years was 284. By comparison, the numbers needed to harm to cause 1 major bleeding is 299. In subgroup analyses, pooled results demonstrated a reduction in myocardial infarction among men (0.71; 0.59-0.85) and ischemic stroke among women (0.77; 0.63-0.93). Aspirin use was associated with a reduction (0.65; 0.51-0.82) in myocardial infarction among diabetic men. In meta-regression analyses, the results suggested that aspirin therapy might be associated with a decrease in stroke among diabetic women and a decrease in MI among diabetic men and risk reductions achieved with low doses (75 mg/day) were as large as those obtained with higher doses (650 mg/day).ConclusionsThe use of low-dose aspirin was beneficial for primary prevention of CVD and the decision regarding an aspirin regimen should be made on an individual patient basis. The effects of aspirin therapy varied by sex and diabetes status. A clear benefit of aspirin in the primary prevention of CVD in people with diabetes needs more trials.

Project description:ImportanceThe role for aspirin in cardiovascular primary prevention remains controversial, with potential benefits limited by an increased bleeding risk.ObjectiveTo assess the association of aspirin use for primary prevention with cardiovascular events and bleeding.Data sourcesPubMed and Embase were searched on Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials from the earliest available date through November 1, 2018.Study selectionRandomized clinical trials enrolling at least 1000 participants with no known cardiovascular disease and a follow-up of at least 12 months were included. Included studies compared aspirin use with no aspirin (placebo or no treatment).Data extraction and synthesisData were screened and extracted independently by both investigators. Bayesian and frequentist meta-analyses were performed.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary cardiovascular outcome was a composite of cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke. The primary bleeding outcome was any major bleeding (defined by the individual studies).ResultsA total of 13 trials randomizing 164 225 participants with 1 050 511 participant-years of follow-up were included. The median age of trial participants was 62 years (range, 53-74), 77 501 (47%) were men, 30 361 (19%) had diabetes, and the median baseline risk of the primary cardiovascular outcome was 9.2% (range, 2.6%-15.9%). Aspirin use was associated with significant reductions in the composite cardiovascular outcome compared with no aspirin (57.1 per 10 000 participant-years with aspirin and 61.4 per 10 000 participant-years with no aspirin) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89 [95% credible interval, 0.84-0.95]; absolute risk reduction, 0.38% [95% CI, 0.20%-0.55%]; number needed to treat, 265). Aspirin use was associated with an increased risk of major bleeding events compared with no aspirin (23.1 per 10 000 participant-years with aspirin and 16.4 per 10 000 participant-years with no aspirin) (HR, 1.43 [95% credible interval, 1.30-1.56]; absolute risk increase, 0.47% [95% CI, 0.34%-0.62%]; number needed to harm, 210).Conclusions and relevanceThe use of aspirin in individuals without cardiovascular disease was associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular events and an increased risk of major bleeding. This information may inform discussions with patients about aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular events and bleeding.

Project description:ObjectivesPharmacologic evidence suggests adequate antiplatelet activity in diabetic patients requires >100 mg aspirin daily, yet recent trials have used ?100 mg daily. This meta-analysis explored the relationship between aspirin dose and prevention of cardiovascular events.Data sourcesSix electronic databases were searched using database-appropriate terms for aspirin, diabetes, and comparative study from inception until February 2010.Review methodsRandomized controlled trials and cohort studies comparing aspirin to no antiplatelet therapy were included if they reported cardiovascular events as pre-specified outcomes, aspirin dose, and number of diabetic patients. Studies were stratified by daily aspirin dose (?100 mg; 101-325 mg; >325 mg) and pooled risk ratios (RR) were calculated using random effects models. All-cause mortality was the primary outcome of interest. Cardiovascular-related mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke were secondary outcomes.ResultsData for diabetic patients were available from 21 studies (n = 17,522). Overall, 1,172 (15.4%) of 7,592 aspirin users and 1,520 (18.4%) of 8,269 controls died (p = 0.31). The pooled RRs were 0.89 (95% CI: 0.72-1.10; p = 0.27) from 13 studies using ?100 mg (I(2) = 64%); 0.89 (95% CI: 0.61-1.30; p = 0.55) from four studies using 101-325 mg (I(2) = 83%); and 0.96 (95% CI: 0.85-1.08; p = 0.50) from eight studies using >325 mg (I(2) = 0%). Aspirin use was associated with a significantly lower risk of mortality (RR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.69-0.98; p = 0.03) in 13 secondary prevention studies (I(2) = 27%), whereas aspirin use in seven primary prevention studies (I(2) = 0%) was not (RR: 1.01; 95% CI 0.85-1.19; p = 0.94). A substantial amount of heterogeneity was observed amongst studies in all outcomes. Although inclusion of cohort studies was a major source of heterogeneity, stratification by study design did not reveal a significant dose-response relationship.Conclusions/interpretationThis summary of available data does not support an aspirin dose-response effect for prevention of cardiovascular events in diabetic patients. However, the systematic review identified an important gap in randomized controlled trial evidence for using 101-325 mg aspirin daily in diabetes.

Project description:BackgroundThe role of aspirin in reducing lipoprotein(a)-mediated atherothrombotic events in primary prevention is not established.ObjectivesThis study sought to assess whether low-dose aspirin benefits individuals with elevated plasma lipoprotein(a)-associated genotypes in the setting of primary prevention.MethodsThe study analyzed 12,815 genotyped individuals ≥70 years of age of European ancestry and without prior cardiovascular disease events enrolled in the ASPREE (ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly) randomized controlled trial of 100 mg/d aspirin. We defined lipoprotein(a)-associated genotypes using rs3798220-C carrier status and quintiles of a lipoprotein(a) genomic risk score (LPA-GRS). We tested for interaction between genotypes and aspirin allocation in Cox proportional hazards models for incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and clinically significant bleeding. We also examined associations in the aspirin and placebo arms of the trial separately.ResultsDuring a median 4.7 years (IQR: 3.6-5.7 years) of follow-up, 435 MACE occurred, with an interaction observed between rs3798220-C and aspirin allocation (P = 0.049). rs3798220-C carrier status was associated with increased MACE risk in the placebo group (HR: 1.90; 95% CI: 1.11-3.24) but not in the aspirin group (HR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.17-1.70). High LPA-GRS (vs low) was associated with increased MACE risk in the placebo group (HR: 1.70; 95% CI: 1.14-2.55), with risk attenuated in the aspirin group (HR: 1.41; 95% CI: 0.90-2.23), but the interaction was not statistically significant. In all participants, aspirin reduced MACE by 1.7 events per 1,000 person-years and increased clinically significant bleeding by 1.7 events per 1,000 person-years. However, in the rs3798220-C and high LPA-GRS subgroups, aspirin reduced MACE by 11.4 and 3.3 events per 1,000 person-years respectively, without significantly increased bleeding risk.ConclusionsAspirin may benefit older individuals with elevated lipoprotein(a) genotypes in primary prevention.

Project description:BackgroundThe clinical benefit of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in diabetes remains uncertain. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular outcomes and all-cause mortality events in people with diabetes, we conducted an updated meta-analysis of published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and a pooled analysis of individual participant data (IPD) from three trials.MethodsRandomised controlled trials of aspirin compared with placebo (or no treatment) in participants with diabetes with no known CVD were identified from MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and manual search of bibliographies to January 2019. Relative risks with 95% confidence intervals were used as the summary measures of associations.ResultsWe included 12 RCTs based on 34,227 participants with a median treatment duration of 5.0 years. Comparing aspirin use with no aspirin, there was a significant reduction in risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE)0.89 (0.83-0.95), with a number needed to treat (NNT)of 95 (95% CI 61 to 208) to prevent one MACE over 5 years average follow-up. Evidence was lacking of heterogeneity and publication bias among contributing trials for MACE. Aspirin use had no effect on other endpoints including all-cause mortality; however, there was a significant reduction in stroke for aspirin dosage ≤ 100 mg/day 0.75 (0.59-0.95). There were no significant effects of aspirin use on major bleeding and other bleeding events, though some of the estimates were imprecise. Pooled IPD from the three trials (2306 participants) showed no significant evidence of an effect of aspirin on any of the outcomes evaluated; however, aspirin reduced the risk of MACE in non-smokers 0.70 (0.51-0.96) with a NNT of 33 (95% CI 20 to 246) to prevent one MACE.ConclusionsAspirin has potential benefits in cardiovascular primary prevention in diabetes. The use of low dose aspirin may need to be individualised and based on each individual's baseline CVD and bleeding risk. Systematic review registration PROSPERO: CRD42019122326.

Project description:BackgroundLow-dose aspirin is of definite and substantial net benefit for many people who already have occlusive vascular disease. We have assessed the benefits and risks in primary prevention.MethodsWe undertook meta-analyses of serious vascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke, or vascular death) and major bleeds in six primary prevention trials (95,000 individuals at low average risk, 660,000 person-years, 3554 serious vascular events) and 16 secondary prevention trials (17,000 individuals at high average risk, 43,000 person-years, 3306 serious vascular events) that compared long-term aspirin versus control. We report intention-to-treat analyses of first events during the scheduled treatment period.FindingsIn the primary prevention trials, aspirin allocation yielded a 12% proportional reduction in serious vascular events (0.51% aspirin vs 0.57% control per year, p=0.0001), due mainly to a reduction of about a fifth in non-fatal myocardial infarction (0.18%vs 0.23% per year, p<0.0001). The net effect on stroke was not significant (0.20%vs 0.21% per year, p=0.4: haemorrhagic stroke 0.04%vs 0.03%, p=0.05; other stroke 0.16%vs 0.18% per year, p=0.08). Vascular mortality did not differ significantly (0.19%vs 0.19% per year, p=0.7). Aspirin allocation increased major gastrointestinal and extracranial bleeds (0.10%vs 0.07% per year, p<0.0001), and the main risk factors for coronary disease were also risk factors for bleeding. In the secondary prevention trials, aspirin allocation yielded a greater absolute reduction in serious vascular events (6.7%vs 8.2% per year, p<0.0001), with a non-significant increase in haemorrhagic stroke but reductions of about a fifth in total stroke (2.08%vs 2.54% per year, p=0.002) and in coronary events (4.3%vs 5.3% per year, p<0.0001). In both primary and secondary prevention trials, the proportional reductions in the aggregate of all serious vascular events seemed similar for men and women.InterpretationIn primary prevention without previous disease, aspirin is of uncertain net value as the reduction in occlusive events needs to be weighed against any increase in major bleeds. Further trials are in progress.FundingUK Medical Research Council, British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, and the European Community Biomed Programme.

Project description:Aims/hypothesisMetformin is the most-prescribed oral medication to lower blood glucose worldwide. Yet previous systematic reviews have raised doubts about its effectiveness in reducing risk of cardiovascular disease, the most costly complication of type 2 diabetes. We aimed to systematically identify and pool randomised trials reporting cardiovascular outcomes in which the effect of metformin was 'isolated' through comparison to diet, lifestyle or placebo.MethodsWe performed an electronic literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. We also manually screened the reference lists of previous meta-analyses of trials of metformin identified through a MEDLINE search. We included randomised controlled trials of adults with type 2 diabetes comparing any dose and preparation of oral metformin with no intervention, placebo or a lifestyle intervention and reporting mortality or a cardiovascular outcome.ResultsWe included ten articles reporting 13 trials (including a total of 2079 individuals with type 2 diabetes allocated to metformin and a similar number to comparison groups) of which only four compared metformin with placebo and collected data on cardiovascular outcomes. Participants were mainly white, aged ≤65 years, overweight/obese and with poor glycaemic control. Summary estimates were based on a small number of events: 416 myocardial infarctions/ischaemic heart disease events in seven studies and 111 strokes in four studies. The UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) contributed the majority of data to the summary estimates, with weights ranging from 52.3% for myocardial infarction to 70.5% for stroke. All outcomes, with the exception of stroke, favoured metformin, with limited heterogeneity between studies, but none achieved statistical significance. Effect sizes (Mantel-Haenszel RR) were: all-cause mortality 0.96 (95% CI 0.84, 1.09); cardiovascular death 0.97 (95% CI 0.80, 1.16); myocardial infarction 0.89 (95% CI 0.75, 1.06); stroke 1.04 (95% CI 0.73, 1.48); and peripheral vascular disease 0.81 (95% CI 0.50, 1.31).Conclusions/interpretationThere remains uncertainty about whether metformin reduces risk of cardiovascular disease among patients with type 2 diabetes, for whom it is the recommended first-line drug. Although this is mainly due to absence of evidence, it is unlikely that a definitive placebo-controlled cardiovascular endpoint trial among people with diabetes will be forthcoming. Alternative approaches to reduce the uncertainty include the use of electronic health records in long-term pragmatic evaluations, inclusion of metformin in factorial trials, publication of cardiovascular outcome data from adverse event reporting in trials of metformin and a cardiovascular endpoint trial of metformin among people without diabetes.