Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Review
IMPORTANCE Clinical decision making regarding the appropriate use of aspirin for the primary
bleeding from low-dose aspirin is difficult but essential for informed decision making and
achieving a net clinical benefit from aspirin for primary prevention. This is facilitated by a free
and readily-available evidence-based clinical decision support tool.
(Reprinted) E1
Methods
We identified English-language, peer-reviewed publications through
searches of the electronic databases of MEDLINE and the Cochrane
Database through April 2016 using the literature search terms
aspirin, in combination with one of the following: primary
prevention, heart disease, stroke, cardiovascular disease,
E2
Key Points
Question Which patients should be prescribed aspirin for the
primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease?
Findings In this review of advances in cardiovascular and bleeding
risk assessment and the randomized clinical trial results for aspirin
in primary prevention, the net cardiovascular benefit and the
bleeding events increased as the absolute cardiovascular risk
increased, but the benefits exceeded the risks among individuals
with higher cardiovascular risk (approximate 10-year risk 10%).
The Aspirin-Guide is a clinical decision making support tool (app
for mobile devices ) with internal risk calculators to help clinicians
with this dual assessment, and incorporates age- and sex-specific
guidance based on randomized clinical trial results and secondary
considerations for colorectal cancer prevention.
Meaning For the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease,
decisions regarding aspirin use should be individualized, balancing
the benefit to risk ratio. This can be facilitated by a free and
readily-available evidence-based clinical decision support tool.
Advances in Treatment
Randomized Clinical Trials and Meta-analyses
in Primary Prevention
In individuals without clinical ASCVD, the benefit to risk ratio for aspirin should be carefully weighed because the absolute ASCVD risk
is lower than that associated with patients who have been diagnosed with ASCVD and the increased risk of aspirin-related bleeding (GI bleeding and, rarely, hemorrhagic stroke) is more closely
matched with the potential for benefit.25 In the 2016 USPSTF systematic evidence review of the major aspirin primary prevention clinical trials (11 trials, total N = 118 445) (Table 1),17 aspirin significantly
reduced nonfatal MI (22%), cardiovascular mortality (6%), and allcause mortality (6%), with a nonsignificant reduction in nonfatal
stroke (5%).9 In the 8 trials (N = 87 524) (Table 1) that examined
doses of 100 mg or less daily, aspirin significantly reduced nonfatal
MI (17%), nonfatal stroke (14%), with a nonsignificant reduction in
all-cause mortality (5%).9 These results are consistent with the earlier 2009 Antithrombotic Trialists (ATT) individual-level metaanalysis (N = 6 trials, 95 456 individuals),14 that found a 12% relative risk reduction of total ASCVD events (absolute risk reduction
0.51% vs 0.57%) in primary prevention trials (compared with 20%
in secondary prevention trials), as well as results from several more
recent meta-analyses. Since the ATT meta-analysis, 4 additional recent randomized trials37-41 have evaluated aspirin in primary prevention on a background of contemporary statin and other preventative therapies (included in the USPSTF analysis) (Table 1).33-36 In
each of these trials individually, aspirin did not significantly reduce
the primary endpoints of total ASCVD (nonfatal and fatal events),
raising questions about the use of aspirin for primary prevention.
However, reductions in nonfatal ASCVD events were seen in some
jamainternalmedicine.com
Cardiovascular Mortality
In individuals without ASCVD, there has been little or no benefit from
aspirin in reducing cardiovascular mortality (Table 1). However, the
smaller reduction in cardiovascular mortality in primary prevention
trials has to be viewed in the context of several important points:
(1) recent advances in contemporary treatments (including antiplatelet and other regimens) and interventions (eg, revascularization and thrombolysis) for both MI and stroke, which have resulted
in lower ASCVD death rates; (2) cross-contamination by crossover
to active aspirin among individuals in the control arms once a nonfatal ASCVD event occurs, resulting in attenuation of the relative risk
reduction of aspirin vs control for fatal ASCVD events; (3) lower
absolute mortality rates in primary vs secondary prevention populations, which would necessitate much longer follow-up periods than
the mean follow-up in these trials (5 to 10 years); and (4) significant
reductions in nonfatal ASCVD events (MI and stroke) with aspirin in
primary prevention populations would be expected to result in
lower cardiovascular mortality if the duration of follow-up were
adequate, because individuals with prior MI or stroke are at the
highest risk for cardiovascular mortality.
Age
Age is the strongest predictor of ASCVD risk.14 Although the 2009 ATT
meta-analysis of primary prevention trials found similar relative risk
reduction with aspirin for individuals younger or older than 65 years,14
several individual trials found differences by age (Table 2). Age was a
key determinant of a womans cardiovascular response to aspirin and
her benefit to risk ratio with treatment.32 In the 4097 participants 65
years and older in the Womens Health Study (WHS), the only large
primary prevention trial of aspirin in women (total N = 39 876), aspirin was clearly beneficial for the primary endpoint of the trial (major
ASCVD, 26% reduction), including for both MI and ischemic stroke (for
jamainternalmedicine.com
aspirin by age interaction, P = .05 for major ASCVD and P= .03 for
MI).32 On the other hand, women aged 45 to 64 years had no reduction in ASCVD events, but experienced a similar increase in GI bleeding, which resulted in an unfavorable benefit to risk ratio. In unpublished data, the relative risk reduction for WHS women aged 70 to 79
(Reprinted) JAMA Internal Medicine Published online June 20, 2016
E3
E4
26
Placebo
75 mg
100 mg
100 mg every
other day
100 mg
81-100 mg
100 mg
100 mg
All doses
100 mg
Prevention of Progression
of Arterial Disease and Diabetes
(POPADAD)33
Totalb
Total stroke.
From Guirguis-Blake et al, US Preventive Services Task Force 2016 Systematic Evidence Review.9
87 524
118 445
7220/7244, M/F, 70
1675/1675, M/F, 62
1262/1277, M/F, 65
638/638, M/F, 60
19 934/19 942, F, 54
2226/2269, M/F, 64
9399/9391, M/F, 61
1268/1272, M, 57
No aspirin
Placebo
No aspirin
Placebo
Placebo
11 037/11 034, M, 53
3429/1710, M, 61
No. of Subjects
(Aspirin/Control),
Sex, Mean Age, y
Placebo
75 mg
Placebo
650 mg
No aspirin
Placebo
325 mg every
other day
300-500 mg
Control
Group
Trial (Acronym)
Aspirin Dose
(Daily, Unless
Noted)
0.83 (0.74-0.94)
0.78 (0.71-0.87)
Nonfatal
MI
0.86 (0.76-0.98)
0.95 (0.85-1.06)
0.97 (0.85-1.10)
0.94 (0.86-1.03)
Cardiovascular
Mortality
Nonfatal
Stroke
0.95 (0.89-1.01)
0.94 (0.89-0.99)
All-Cause
Mortality
jamainternalmedicine.com
Table 2. Relative Risk of Aspirin vs Control in Primary Prevention Trials by Age and Study
Source
Endpoint
MI
CHD
Age,
Range, y
40-49
1.12
50-59
0.58
60-69
0.46
70-84
0.49
45-49
0.48
50-54
0.77
55-59
0.73
60-64
0.61
65-69
Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT)30
Womens Health Study (WHS)32
CVD (MI)
CVD (MI)
CVD/limb
ischemia
CVD
CVD
CVD
Relative Risk,
Aspirin
vs Control
P Value
for Interaction
by Age
.02
.055
1.29
<65
0.79 (0.66)
65
0.92 (0.62)
45-54
1.01 (1.23)
55-64
0.98 (1.17)
65
0.74 (0.66)
<60
1.11
60
0.89
<65
1.0
65
0.68
<62
0.85
62
1.13
<65
1.00
65
0.92
NR (NR)
.05 (.03)
.44
.27
NR
Abbreviations: CHD, coronary heart
disease; CVD, cardiovascular disease;
MI, myocardial infarction; NR, not
reported.
NR
Figure. Risk Reductions in Major Coronary Events and Ischemic Stroke by Randomized Aspirin Use and Sex
in Primary Prevention Trials Adapted From the 2009 ATT Meta-analysis14
Events (%/y)
Allocated Aspirin Allocated Control
RR
(95% CI)
Men
635 (0.57%/y)
801 (0.72%/y)
0.77 (0.67-0.89)
Women
299 (0.14%/y)
314 (0.14%/y)
0.95 (0.77-1.17)
Men
312 (0.28%/y)
292 (0.26%/y)
1.06 (0.85-1.32)
Women
227 (0.10%/y)
301 (0.14%/y)
0.75 (0.60-0.94)
Subgroup
Favors
protection
Favors
harm
0.75
1.0
1.25
1.50
RR (95% CI)
years was similar to women aged 60 to 69 years, with a similar relative risk of GI bleeding. Age also modified (P for interaction, .02) the
aspirin benefit in reducing MI in the Physicians Health Study,27 where
aspirin did not reduce MI or ASCVD in men younger than 50 years, in
contrast with relative risk reductions in men age 50 to 59 years (42%),
60 to 69 years (54%), and 70 to 84 years (51%). In the more recent
Japanese Primary Prevention of Atherosclerosis with Aspirin for Diabetes trial,34 aspirin significantly reduced ASCVD (by a third) only in
participants 65 years and older. Prior guidelines18 concluded that the
evidence was insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms
of aspirin therapy for primary prevention in individuals 80 years and
older, while the 2016 USPSTF recommendations considered the evidenceinsufficientforindividuals70yearsorolder,orforthoseyounger
than 50 years.17
jamainternalmedicine.com
Differences by Sex
Trials14 in patients with established ASCVD have found similar
aspirin efficacy in men and women. However, trials in primary prevention populations have reported sex differences (Figure). In
men, aspirin reduces the risk of MI but not ischemic stroke; in
women, aspirin reduces the risk of ischemic stroke but not MI.32,42
It is unclear if this reflects biologic sex differences in aspirin pharmacokinetics and/or pharmacodynamics or different incidence
rates in MI and stroke by sex and age (as the occurrence of stroke
relative to MI is greater in younger than older women, and MI
occurs on average a decade later in women than men). The former
explanation of biological differences is less likely, as no substantial
differences have been noted in aspirin effects on platelet
reactivity43 and no sex differences were observed in secondary
(Reprinted) JAMA Internal Medicine Published online June 20, 2016
E5
162 mg daily.19 For cardiovascular primary prevention, we recommend using regular (noncoated, nonbuffered) aspirin at a daily dose
of 75 to 81 mg.
Genetic Profiling
There are currently no clinical indications for targeting aspirin use
based on genetic testing. In the WHS study, 2 genetic variations
influenced aspirin efficacy, 1 in the LPA gene encoding
lipoprotein(a) 50,51 and another in the COMT gene encoding
catecho-O-methyltransferase.49 These promising findings await replication in other populations. Genetic variation in the genes encoding the COX enzymes has been associated with platelet function, but
there is no strong evidence of association with clinical outcomes.50,51
Advances in Diagnosis
Advances in Cardiovascular Risk Assessment
Estimating cardiovascular risk is central to clinical decision making
to initiate and maintain preventative therapies when risks and
benefits of interventions are in question, as in the case of aspirin
jamainternalmedicine.com
use for primary prevention. Cardiovascular risk assessment is usually obtained from a global risk score.58,59 Until recently, separate
risk scores were used to estimate the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD: MI and coronary death) and stroke. In 2013, the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the AHA recommended using
a risk score that estimates 10-year risk of ASCVD, which includes
MI, ischemic stroke, and ASCVD death, providing separate equations for women, men, blacks, and whites. These sex- and racespecific risk equations quantify the 10-year risk of ASCVD events in
asymptomatic women and men age 40 to 79 years, taking into
account their age, systolic blood pressure, antihypertensive
therapy, diabe te s, smoking status, and total and HDL
cholesterol.58,59 Moreover, these risk equations can also be used
among individuals treated with statins. While the calibration accuracy of these equations in contemporary populations has been
debated (ie, whether the estimated ASCVD risks accurately correspond to the observed 10-year ASCVD risks), the high-risk threshold for considering aspirin use in the 2016 USPSTF recommendations is a 10-year ASCVD risk of 10%, which is more conservative
than the 10-year risk of 5% to 7.5% recommended for initiating a
statin discussion,58 and also similar to or higher than thresholds
recommended in other recent aspirin guidelines.18,60-62
2
3
3 to 6
10
Exponential
2
Variable
1.1 to 2
1.5 to 2
Other antiplatelets/anticoagulants
Other
1.3 to 2
Variable (generally <2)
Smoking
Excess alcohol
Hypertension
Diabetes
Increased BMI
Renal or liver disease
GI Bleeding
Gastrointestinal bleeding is a significant predictor of death, even after adjusting for comorbidities.63,64 The 2009 meta-analysis14 found
no increase in the risk of fatal GI bleeding with aspirin use in the primary prevention trials. In general populations, the estimated incidence rate of upper GI complications is approximately 1 to 2 per 1000
person-years,65 with a case fatality rate of 5% to 10% of these
complications.68,69 The incidence rate of upper GI complications is
often more than 2% per year in high-risk individuals. The risk of GI
bleeding increases with the number of risk factors. Major risk factors (Table 3) include a history of an upper GI disorder (dyspepsia,
peptic ulcer, Helicobacter pylori infection, upper GI bleeding and/or
perforation), age more than 60 years (doubling in risk with each decade), male sex, and concomitant or recent use of NSAIDs and other
medications, ASCVD risk factors, excess alcohol, and renal or liver
disease. The strongest risk factor for GI bleeding is a prior history of
peptic ulcer disease, in particular if complicated by bleeding or perforation. Gastrointestinal bleeding risk increases exponentially with
age, going from less than 0.1% per year in those older than 60 years
jamainternalmedicine.com
GI Prophylaxis
A 2015 meta-analysis73 of randomized clinical trials and observational studies reported that the use of a proton pump inhibitor (PPI)
may reduce the aspirin-related risk of upper GI bleeding by half, because it suppresses gastric acid production and promotes healing
of ulcers and erosions.74,75 Routine use of PPI is not recommended
for patients at lower bleeding risk.76 Limited data suggest that PPIs
may be more effective than H2 receptor antagonists.76 Proton pump
inhibitor use is recommended for reducing risk of GI bleeding in individuals with multiple bleeding risk factors who require aspirin.11,76
A recent expert consensus statement recommended PPI use for individuals with 2 or more GI risk factors ( 60 years, current use of
corticosteroids, NSAIDs, anticoagulant therapy [each counts as 1 risk
factor], and dyspepsia and/or gastroesophageal reflux disease
symptoms), similar to recent recommendations from the European Society of Cardiology.77 Furthermore, limited evidence suggests that patients with a history of a peptic ulcer may derive
additional benefit from Helicobacter pylori eradication.78
(Reprinted) JAMA Internal Medicine Published online June 20, 2016
E7
ARTICLE INFORMATION
Published Online: June 20, 2016.
doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.2648.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Mora has
received research support from Atherotech
Diagnostics and NHLBI, served as a consultant to
Quest Diagnostics, Lilly, Amgen, Pfizer, and Cerenis
Therapeutics. No other disclosures are reported.
Funding/Support: Drs Manson and Mora receive
support from the National Institutes of Health
(HL034594, HL117861, CA138962, and
HHSN268201100001C).
Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders/
sponsors had no role in the design and conduct of
the study; collection, management, analysis, and
interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or
approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit
the manuscript for publication.
Additional Contributions: We thank Jeffrey M.
Ames, BS, MEng, computer scientist, for expert
assistance in the development of Aspirin-Guide, a
mobile application and clinical decision support tool
that facilitates assessment of the comparative
benefits and risks of aspirin for the individual
patient. He was not compensated for his
contribution.
REFERENCES
1. Mozaffarian D, Benjamin EJ, Go AS, et al;
American Heart Association Statistics Committee
and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Heart disease
and stroke statistics2015 update: a report from
the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2015;
131(4):e29-e322.
2. Murray CJ, Atkinson C, Bhalla K, et al; U.S.
Burden of Disease Collaborators. The state of US
health, 1990-2010: burden of diseases, injuries, and
risk factors. JAMA. 2013;310(6):591-608.
3. Ford ES, Ajani UA, Croft JB, et al. Explaining the
decrease in U.S. deaths from coronary disease,
1980-2000. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(23):2388-2398.
4. Jack DB. One hundred years of aspirin. Lancet.
1997;350(9075):437-439.
E8
Conclusions
jamainternalmedicine.com
jamainternalmedicine.com
E9
E10
jamainternalmedicine.com