Aspirin and Primary Prevention in Patients with Diabetes-A Critical Evaluation of Available Randomized Trials and Meta-Analyses
- PMID: 31430800
- DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1694774
Aspirin and Primary Prevention in Patients with Diabetes-A Critical Evaluation of Available Randomized Trials and Meta-Analyses
Erratum in
-
Erratum.Thromb Haemost. 2019 Oct;119(10):e1. doi: 10.1055/s-0040-1702204. Epub 2020 May 18. Thromb Haemost. 2019. PMID: 32422665 No abstract available.
Abstract
Primary prevention of cardiovascular events with aspirin in patients with elevated cardiovascular risk, including diabetics, is currently under intense discussion. Data from meta-analyses suggests that the efficacy of aspirin in these patients is low, whereas there is a significantly increased bleeding tendency. However, meta-analyses are based on trials that differ in many important aspects, including study selection. Fresh insights were expected from the ASCEND trial, by far the largest primary, randomized, placebo-controlled prevention trial in diabetics without known cardiovascular disease. There was a small but significant reduction in serious cardiovascular events by aspirin (8.6% vs. 9.6%) but also a significant increase in major bleeding: 4.1% versus 3.2%. Unfortunately, this trial did not meet the desired annual rate of elevated vascular risk of ≥ 2%. It was only 1.2 to 1.3%, and thus in the range of other primary prevention trials in low-risk patients. Apart from potential compliance problems, possible explanations for the small cardioprotective effect of antiplatelet treatment include a healthy lifestyle as well as improved vascular protection by comedication with vasoactive and anti-inflammatory drugs, such as statins or antihypertensive agents, as well as proton-pump inhibitors that might modify bleeding, specifically in the upper gastrointestinal tract-the most frequently affected site. Also, the introduction of new antidiabetic drugs with more favorable cardiovascular effects may in part explain the low event rate. ASCEND, similar to ARRIVE, did not study patients at elevated (as planned) but only at low vascular risk and, therefore, was largely confirmatory of earlier primary prevention trials.
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.
Conflict of interest statement
K.S. reports personal fees from Bayer; S.D.K. reports personal fees from Bayer and Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, grants, personal fees, and other from AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. R.F.S. reports grants and personal fees from PlaqueTec and AstraZeneca, personal fees from Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Avacta, Novartis, Idorsia, Thromboserin, Haemonetics, outside the submitted work. In addition, R.F.S. has a patent PCT/GB2017/050692 pending. F.W.A.V. has nothing to disclose.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
