Dataset Information

Aspirin in people with dementia, long-term benefits, and harms: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

People with dementia may have indications for aspirin prescription and clinicians are asked to balance the potential risks against benefits. This review examines the evidence for the risk and benefit of long-term aspirin use in people with dementia aged over 65 years, including randomised controlled trials and observational studies.

Methods

We searched three databases for research published between 2007 and 2020. Each eligible article was assessed for risk of bias, and confidence in findings was rated using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

Results

Four papers met inclusion criteria: one randomised controlled trial, two cohort studies, and one with pooled data. All looked only at dementia of Alzheimer's type, and none addressed myocardial or cerebral infarction as outcomes. Dementia progression was reported by two studies, with conflicting results. The trial found no significant effect of aspirin on mortality (odds ratio aspirin vs. no aspirin 1.07, 95% confidence interval 0.58-1.97) but found more events of severe bleeding with aspirin (OR aspirin vs. no aspirin 6.9, 1.5-31.2). An excess in intracranial haemorrhage in the aspirin group was judged plausible based on two non-randomised studies.

Conclusions

The review findings are limited because studies include only people with Alzheimer's-type dementia and lack confirmatory studies, although an increased risk of bleeding events is recognised. Further research that addresses the benefits and risks of aspirin in more representative groups of people with dementia is needed to guide prescribing decisions.

SUBMITTER: Davis KAS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8184554 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMany clinicians are reevaluating the use of long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) for chronic pain in response to the opioid crisis and calls from organizations including the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention to limit prescribing of high-dose opioids. However, this practice change is occurring largely in the absence of data regarding patient outcomes. A 2017 systematic review found inconclusive evidence on the impact of LTOT dose reduction and discontinuation on pain severity and function, quality of life, withdrawal symptoms, substance abuse, and adverse effects. This rapid systematic review provides an updated evidence synthesis of patient outcomes following LTOT dose reduction including serious harms such as overdose and suicide.MethodsWe systematically searched numerous bibliographic databases from January 2017 (the end search date of the 2017 systematic review) through May 2020. One reviewer used prespecified criteria to assess articles for inclusion, evaluate study quality, abstract data, and grade strength of evidence, with a second reviewer checking.ResultsWe included 49 studies-1 systematic review, 34 studies included in that systematic review, and 14 new studies. We prioritized evidence synthesis of 19 studies with the most applicability to the Veteran population and outpatient settings. Among these studies, improvements in mean pain scores were common among patients tapering opioids while participating in intensive multimodal pain interventions and mostly unchanged with less intensive or nonspecific co-interventions. Our confidence in these findings is low due to methodological limitations of the studies. Observational data suggests that serious harms such as opioid overdose and suicidal ideation can occur following opioid dose reduction or discontinuation, but the incidence of these harms at the population level is unknown.DiscussionThe net balance of benefits and harms of LTOT dose reduction for patients with chronic pain is unclear. Clinicians should closely monitor patients during the tapering process given the potential for harm.

Project description:BackgroundPrevious meta-analyses of the benefits and harms of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1RAs) have been limited to specific outcomes and comparisons and often included short-term results. We aimed to estimate the longer-term effects of GLP1RAs on cardiovascular risk factors, microvascular and macrovascular complications, mortality, and adverse events in patients with type 2 diabetes, compared to placebo and other anti-hyperglycemic medications.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Scopus, and clinicaltrials.gov (inception-July 2019) for randomized controlled trials ≥ 52 weeks' duration that compared a GLP1RA to placebo or other anti-hyperglycemic medication and included at least one outcome of interest. Outcomes included cardiovascular risk factors, microvascular and macrovascular complications, all-cause mortality, and treatment-related adverse events. We performed random effects meta-analyses to give summary estimates using weighted mean differences (MD) and pooled relative risks (RR). Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias in randomized trials tool. Quality of evidence was summarized using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. The study was registered a priori with PROSPERO (CRD42018090506).ResultsForty-five trials with a mean duration of 1.7 years comprising 71,517 patients were included. Compared to placebo, GLP1RAs reduced cardiovascular risk factors, microvascular complications (including renal events, RR 0.85, 0.80-0.90), macrovascular complications (including stroke, RR 0.86, 0.78-0.95), and mortality (RR 0.89, 0.84-0.94). Compared to other anti-hyperglycemic medications, GLP1RAs only reduced cardiovascular risk factors. Increased gastrointestinal events causing treatment discontinuation were observed in both comparisons.DiscussionGLP1RAs reduced cardiovascular risk factors and increased gastrointestinal events compared to placebo and other anti-hyperglycemic medications. GLP1RAs also reduced MACE, stroke, renal events, and mortality in comparisons with placebo; however, analyses were inconclusive for comparisons with other anti-hyperglycemic medications. Given the high costs of GLP1RAs, the lack of long-term evidence comparing GLP1RAs to other anti-hyperglycemic medications has significant policy and clinical practice implications.

Project description:BackgroundThere has been increased interest in the role of cannabis for treating medical conditions. The availability of different cannabis-based products can make the side effects of exposure unpredictable. We sought to conduct a scoping review of systematic reviews assessing benefits and harms of cannabis-based medicines for any condition.MethodsA protocol was followed throughout the conduct of this scoping review. A protocol-guided scoping review conduct. Searches of bibliographic databases (e.g., MEDLINE®, Embase, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library) and gray literature were performed. Two people selected and charted data from systematic reviews. Categorizations emerged during data synthesis. The reporting of results from systematic reviews was performed at a high level appropriate for a scoping review.ResultsAfter screening 1975 citations, 72 systematic reviews were included. The reviews covered many conditions, the most common being pain management. Several reviews focused on management of pain as a symptom of conditions such as multiple sclerosis (MS), injury, and cancer. After pain, the most common symptoms treated were spasticity in MS, movement disturbances, nausea/vomiting, and mental health symptoms. An assessment of review findings lends to the understanding that, although in a small number of reviews results showed a benefit for reducing pain, the analysis approach and reporting in other reviews was sub-optimal, making it difficult to know how consistent findings are when considering pain in general. Adverse effects were reported in most reviews comparing cannabis with placebo (49/59, 83%) and in 20/24 (83%) of the reviews comparing cannabis to active drugs. Minor adverse effects (e.g., drowsiness, dizziness) were common and reported in over half of the reviews. Serious harms were not as common, but were reported in 21/59 (36%) reviews that reported on adverse effects. Overall, safety data was generally reported study-by-study, with few reviews synthesizing data. Only one review was rated as high quality, while the remaining were rated of moderate (n = 36) or low/critically low (n = 35) quality.ConclusionsResults from the included reviews were mixed, with most reporting an inability to draw conclusions due to inconsistent findings and a lack of rigorous evidence. Mild harms were frequently reported, and it is possible the harms of cannabis-based medicines may outweigh benefits.Systematic review registrationThe protocol for this scoping review was posted in the Open Access (https://ruor.uottawa.ca/handle/10393/37247).

Project description:ContextLung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death. Most patients are diagnosed with advanced disease, resulting in a very low 5-year survival. Screening may reduce the risk of death from lung cancer.ObjectiveTo conduct a systematic review of the evidence regarding the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT). A multisociety collaborative initiative (involving the American Cancer Society, American College of Chest Physicians, American Society of Clinical Oncology, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network) was undertaken to create the foundation for development of an evidence-based clinical guideline.Data sourcesMEDLINE (Ovid: January 1996 to April 2012), EMBASE (Ovid: January 1996 to April 2012), and the Cochrane Library (April 2012).Study selectionOf 591 citations identified and reviewed, 8 randomized trials and 13 cohort studies of LDCT screening met criteria for inclusion. Primary outcomes were lung cancer mortality and all-cause mortality, and secondary outcomes included nodule detection, invasive procedures, follow-up tests, and smoking cessation.Data extractionCritical appraisal using predefined criteria was conducted on individual studies and the overall body of evidence. Differences in data extracted by reviewers were adjudicated by consensus.ResultsThree randomized studies provided evidence on the effect of LDCT screening on lung cancer mortality, of which the National Lung Screening Trial was the most informative, demonstrating that among 53,454 participants enrolled, screening resulted in significantly fewer lung cancer deaths (356 vs 443 deaths; lung cancer−specific mortality, 274 vs 309 events per 100,000 person-years for LDCT and control groups, respectively; relative risk, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73-0.93; absolute risk reduction, 0.33%; P = .004). The other 2 smaller studies showed no such benefit. In terms of potential harms of LDCT screening, across all trials and cohorts, approximately 20% of individuals in each round of screening had positive results requiring some degree of follow-up, while approximately 1% had lung cancer. There was marked heterogeneity in this finding and in the frequency of follow-up investigations, biopsies, and percentage of surgical procedures performed in patients with benign lesions. Major complications in those with benign conditions were rare.ConclusionLow-dose computed tomography screening may benefit individuals at an increased risk for lung cancer, but uncertainty exists about the potential harms of screening and the generalizability of results.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To investigate the benefits and harms of exercise therapy on physical and psychosocial health in people with multimorbidity. DESIGN:Systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Data sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and CINAHL from 1990 to April 20th, 2020 and Cochrane reviews on the effect of exercise therapy for each of the aforementioned conditions, reference lists of the included studies, the WHO registry and citation tracking on included studies in Web of Science. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION:RCTs investigating the benefit of exercise therapy in people with multimorbidity, defined as two or more of the following conditions: osteoarthritis (of the knee or hip), hypertension, type 2 diabetes, depression, heart failure, ischemic heart disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on at least one of the following outcomes: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL), physical function, depression or anxiety. SUMMARY AND QUALITY OF THE EVIDENCE:Meta-analyses using a random-effects model to assess the benefit of exercise therapy and the risk of non-serious and serious adverse events according to the Food and Drug Administration definition. Meta-regression analyses to investigate the impact of pre-specified mediators of effect estimates. Cochrane 'Risk of Bias Tool' 2.0 and the GRADE assessment to evaluate the overall quality of evidence. RESULTS:Twenty-three RCTs with 3363 people, testing an exercise therapy intervention (mean duration 13.0 weeks, SD 4.0) showed that exercise therapy improved HRQoL (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.37, 95 % CI 0.14 to 0.61) and objectively measured physical function (SMD 0.33, 95 % CI 0.17 to 0.49), and reduced depression symptoms (SMD -0.80, 95 % CI -1.21 to -0.40) and anxiety symptoms (SMD -0.49, 95 % CI -0.99 to 0.01). Exercise therapy was not associated with an increased risk of non-serious adverse events (risk ratio 0.96, 95 % CI 0.53-1.76). By contrast, exercise therapy was associated with a reduced risk of serious adverse events (risk ratio 0.62, 95 % CI 0.49 to 0.78). Meta-regression showed that increasing age was associated with lower effect sizes for HRQoL and greater baseline depression severity was associated with greater reduction of depression symptoms. The overall quality of evidence for all the outcomes was downgraded to low, mainly due to risk of bias, inconsistency and indirectness. CONCLUSIONS:Exercise therapy appears to be safe and to have a beneficial effect on physical and psychosocial health in people with multimorbidity. Although the evidence supporting this was of low quality, it highlights the potential of exercise therapy in the management and care of this population.

Project description:BackgroundLow-dose aspirin has proven effectiveness in secondary and primary prevention of cardiovascular events, but is also associated with an increased risk of major bleeding events. For primary prevention, this absolute risk must be carefully weighed against the benefits of aspirin; such assessments are currently limited by a lack of data from general populations.MethodsSystematic searches of Medline and Embase were conducted to identify observational studies published between 1946 and 4 March 2015 that reported the risks of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding or intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) with long-term, low-dose aspirin (75-325 mg/day). Pooled estimates of the relative risk (RR) for bleeding events with aspirin versus non-use were calculated using random-effects models, based on reported estimates of RR (including odds ratios, hazard ratios, incidence rate ratios and standardized incidence ratios) in 39 articles.FindingsThe incidence of GI bleeding with low-dose aspirin was 0.48-3.64 cases per 1000 person-years, and the overall pooled estimate of the RR with low-dose aspirin was 1.4 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.2-1.7). For upper and lower GI bleeding, the RRs with low-dose aspirin were 2.3 (2.0-2.6) and 1.8 (1.1-3.0), respectively. Neither aspirin dose nor duration of use had consistent effects on RRs for upper GI bleeding. The estimated RR for ICH with low-dose aspirin was 1.4 (1.2-1.7) overall. Aspirin was associated with increased bleeding risks when combined with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, clopidogrel and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors compared with monotherapy. By contrast, concomitant use of proton pump inhibitors decreased upper GI bleeding risks relative to aspirin monotherapy.ConclusionsThe risks of major bleeding with low-dose aspirin in real-world settings are of a similar magnitude to those reported in randomized trials. These data will help inform clinical judgements regarding the use of low-dose aspirin in prevention of cardiovascular events.

Project description:To determine benefits and harms of arthroscopic knee surgery involving partial meniscectomy, debridement, or both for middle aged or older patients with knee pain and degenerative knee disease.Systematic review and meta-analysis.Pain and physical function.Systematic searches for benefits and harms were carried out in Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up to August 2014. Only studies published in 2000 or later were included for harms.Randomised controlled trials assessing benefit of arthroscopic surgery involving partial meniscectomy, debridement, or both for patients with or without radiographic signs of osteoarthritis were included. For harms, cohort studies, register based studies, and case series were also allowed.The search identified nine trials assessing the benefits of knee arthroscopic surgery in middle aged and older patients with knee pain and degenerative knee disease. The main analysis, combining the primary endpoints of the individual trials from three to 24 months postoperatively, showed a small difference in favour of interventions including arthroscopic surgery compared with control treatments for pain (effect size 0.14, 95% confidence interval 0.03 to 0.26). This difference corresponds to a benefit of 2.4 (95% confidence interval 0.4 to 4.3) mm on a 0-100?mm visual analogue scale. When analysed over time of follow-up, interventions including arthroscopy showed a small benefit of 3-5?mm for pain at three and six months but not later up to 24 months. No significant benefit on physical function was found (effect size 0.09, -0.05 to 0.24). Nine studies reporting on harms were identified. Harms included symptomatic deep venous thrombosis (4.13 (95% confidence interval 1.78 to 9.60) events per 1000 procedures), pulmonary embolism, infection, and death.The small inconsequential benefit seen from interventions that include arthroscopy for the degenerative knee is limited in time and absent at one to two years after surgery. Knee arthroscopy is associated with harms. Taken together, these findings do not support the practise of arthroscopic surgery for middle aged or older patients with knee pain with or without signs of osteoarthritis.PROSPERO CRD42014009145.