Summary Background High blood pressure is a prognostic factor for acute stroke, but blood pressure variability might also independently predict outcome. We assessed the prognostic value of blood ...pressure variability in participants of INTERACT2, an open-label randomised controlled trial ( ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT00716079 ). Methods INTERACT2 enrolled 2839 adults with spontaneous intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) and high systolic blood pressure (150–220 mm Hg) without a definite indication or contraindication to early intensive treatment to reduce blood pressure. Participants were randomly assigned to intensive treatment (target systolic blood pressure <140 mm Hg within 1 h using locally available intravenous drugs) or guideline-recommended treatment (target systolic blood pressure <180 mm Hg) within 6 h of onset of ICH. The primary outcome was death or major disability at 90 days (modified Rankin Scale score ≥3) and the secondary outcome was an ordinal shift in modified Rankin Scale scores at 90 days, assessed by investigators masked to treatment allocation. Blood pressure variability was defined according to standard criteria: five measurements were taken in the first 24 h (hyperacute phase) and 12 over days 2–7 (acute phase). We estimated associations between blood pressure variability and outcomes with logistic and proportional odds regression models. The key parameter for blood pressure variability was standard deviation (SD) of systolic blood pressure, categorised into quintiles. Findings We studied 2645 (93·2%) participants in the hyperacute phase and 2347 (82·7%) in the acute phase. In both treatment cohorts combined, SD of systolic blood pressure had a significant linear association with the primary outcome for both the hyperacute phase (highest quintile adjusted OR 1·41, 95% CI 1·05–1·90; ptrend =0·0167) and the acute phase (highest quintile adjusted OR 1·57, 95% CI 1·14–2·17; ptrend =0·0124). The strongest predictors of outcome were maximum systolic blood pressure in the hyperacute phase and SD of systolic blood pressure in the acute phase. Associations were similar for the secondary outcome (for the hyperacute phase, highest quintile adjusted OR 1·43, 95% CI 1·14–1·80; ptrend =0·0014; for the acute phase OR 1·46, 95% CI 1·13–1·88; ptrend =0·0044). Interpretation Systolic blood pressure variability seems to predict a poor outcome in patients with acute intracerebral haemorrhage. The benefits of early treatment to reduce systolic blood pressure to 140 mm Hg might be enhanced by smooth and sustained control, and particularly by avoiding peaks in systolic blood pressure. Funding National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
Summary Background Patients with ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA) are at high risk of recurrent stroke or other cardiovascular events. We compared the selective ...thromboxane-prostaglandin receptor antagonist terutroban with aspirin in the prevention of cerebral and cardiovascular ischaemic events in patients with a recent non-cardioembolic cerebral ischaemic event. Methods This randomised, double-blind, parallel-group trial was undertaken in 802 centres in 46 countries. Patients who had an ischaemic stroke in the previous 3 months or a TIA in the previous 8 days were randomly allocated with a central interactive response system to 30 mg per day terutroban or 100 mg per day aspirin. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary efficacy endpoint was a composite of fatal or non-fatal ischaemic stroke, fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction, or other vascular death (excluding haemorrhagic death). We planned a sequential statistical analysis of non-inferiority (margin 1·05) followed by analysis of superiority. Analysis was by intention to treat. The study was stopped prematurely for futility on the basis of the recommendation of the Data Monitoring Committee. This study is registered, number ISRCTN66157730. Findings 9562 patients were assigned to terutroban (9556 analysed) and 9558 to aspirin (9544 analysed); mean follow-up was 28·3 months (SD 7·7). The primary endpoint occurred in 1091 (11%) patients receiving terutroban and 1062 (11%) receiving aspirin (hazard ratio HR 1·02, 95% CI 0·94–1·12). There was no evidence of a difference between terutroban and aspirin for the secondary or tertiary endpoints. We recorded some increase in minor bleedings with terutroban compared with aspirin (1147 12% vs 1045 11%; HR 1·11, 95% CI 1·02–1·21), but no significant differences in other safety endpoints. Interpretation The trial did not meet the predefined criteria for non-inferiority, but showed similar rates of the primary endpoint with terutroban and aspirin, without safety advantages for terutroban. In a worldwide perspective, aspirin remains the gold standard antiplatelet drug for secondary stroke prevention in view of its efficacy, tolerance, and cost. Funding Servier, France.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
Summary Although hypertension is the most prevalent treatable vascular risk factor, how it causes end-organ damage and vascular events is poorly understood. Yet, a widespread belief exists that ...underlying usual blood pressure can alone account for all blood-pressure-related risk of vascular events and for the benefits of antihypertensive drugs, and this notion has come to underpin all major clinical guidelines on diagnosis and treatment of hypertension. Other potentially informative measures, such as variability in clinic blood pressure or maximum blood pressure reached, have been neglected, and effects of antihypertensive drugs on such measures are largely unknown. Clinical guidelines recommend that episodic hypertension is not treated, and the potential risks of residual variability in blood pressure in treated hypertensive patients have been ignored. This Review discusses shortcomings of the usual blood-pressure hypothesis, provides background to accompanying reports on the importance of blood-pressure variability in prediction of risk of vascular events and in accounting for benefits of antihypertensive drugs, and draws attention to clinical implications and directions for future research.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
Summary Background Aspirin is recommended for secondary prevention after transient ischaemic attack (TIA) or ischaemic stroke on the basis of trials showing a 13% reduction in long-term risk of ...recurrent stroke. However, the risk of major stroke is very high for only the first few days after TIA and minor ischaemic stroke, and observational studies show substantially greater benefits of early medical treatment in the acute phase than do longer-term trials. We hypothesised that the short-term benefits of early aspirin have been underestimated. Methods Pooling the individual patient data from all randomised trials of aspirin versus control in secondary prevention after TIA or ischaemic stroke, we studied the effects of aspirin on the risk and severity of recurrent stroke, stratified by the following time periods: less than 6 weeks, 6–12 weeks, and more than 12 weeks after randomisation. We compared the severity of early recurrent strokes between treatment groups with shift analysis of modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score. To understand possible mechanisms of action, we also studied the time course of the interaction between effects of aspirin and dipyridamole in secondary prevention of stroke. In a further analysis we pooled data from trials of aspirin versus control in which patients were randomised less than 48 h after major acute stroke, stratified by severity of baseline neurological deficit, to establish the very early time course of the effect of aspirin on risk of recurrent ischaemic stroke and how this differs by severity at baseline. Findings We pooled data for 15 778 participants from 12 trials of aspirin versus control in secondary prevention. Aspirin reduced the 6 week risk of recurrent ischaemic stroke by about 60% (84 of 8452 participants in the aspirin group had an ischaemic stroke vs 175 of 7326; hazard ratio HR 0·42, 95% CI 0·32–0·55, p<0·0001) and disabling or fatal ischaemic stroke by about 70% (36 of 8452 vs 110 of 7326; 0·29, 0·20–0·42, p<0·0001), with greatest benefit noted in patients presenting with TIA or minor stroke (at 0–2 weeks, two of 6691 participants in the aspirin group with TIA or minor stroke had a disabling or fatal ischaemic stroke vs 23 of 5726 in the control group, HR 0·07, 95% CI 0·02–0·31, p=0·0004; at 0–6 weeks, 14 vs 60 participants, 0·19, 0·11–0·34, p<0·0001). The effect of aspirin on early recurrent ischaemic stroke was due partly to a substantial reduction in severity (mRS shift analysis odds ratio OR 0·42, 0·26–0·70, p=0·0007). These effects were independent of dose, patient characteristics, or aetiology of TIA or stroke. Some further reduction in risk of ischaemic stroke accrued for aspirin only versus control from 6–12 weeks, but there was no benefit after 12 weeks (stroke risk OR 0·97, 0·84–1·12, p=0·67; severity mRS shift OR 1·00, 0·77–1·29, p=0·97). By contrast, dipyridamole plus aspirin versus aspirin alone had no effect on risk or severity of recurrent ischaemic stroke within 12 weeks (OR 0·90, 95% CI 0·65–1·25, p=0·53; mRS shift OR 0·90, 0·37–1·72, p=0·99), but dipyridamole did reduce risk thereafter (0·76, 0·63–0·92, p=0·005), particularly of disabling or fatal ischaemic stroke (0·64, 0·49–0·84, p=0·0010). We pooled data for 40 531 participants from three trials of aspirin versus control in major acute stroke. The reduction in risk of recurrent ischaemic stroke at 14 days was most evident in patients with less severe baseline deficits, and was substantial by the second day after starting treatment (2–3 day HR 0·37, 95% CI 0·25–0·57, p<0·0001). Interpretation Our findings confirm that medical treatment substantially reduces the risk of early recurrent stroke after TIA and minor stroke and identify aspirin as the key intervention. The considerable early benefit from aspirin warrants public education about self-administration after possible TIA. The previously unrecognised effect of aspirin on severity of early recurrent stroke, the diminishing benefit with longer-term use, and the contrasting time course of effects of dipyridamole have implications for understanding mechanisms of action. Funding Wellcome Trust, the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
Summary Background The mechanisms by which hypertension causes vascular events are unclear. Guidelines for diagnosis and treatment focus only on underlying mean blood pressure. We aimed to reliably ...establish the prognostic significance of visit-to-visit variability in blood pressure, maximum blood pressure reached, untreated episodic hypertension, and residual variability in treated patients. Methods We determined the risk of stroke in relation to visit-to-visit variability in blood pressure (expressed as standard deviation SD and parameters independent of mean blood pressure) and maximum blood pressure in patients with previous transient ischaemic attack (TIA; UK-TIA trial and three validation cohorts) and in patients with treated hypertension (Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial Blood Pressure Lowering Arm ASCOT-BPLA). In ASCOT-BPLA, 24-h ambulatory blood-pressure monitoring (ABPM) was also studied. Findings In each TIA cohort, visit-to-visit variability in systolic blood pressure (SBP) was a strong predictor of subsequent stroke (eg, top-decile hazard ratio HR for SD SBP over seven visits in UK-TIA trial: 6·22, 95% CI 4·16–9·29, p<0·0001), independent of mean SBP, but dependent on precision of measurement (top-decile HR over ten visits: 12·08, 7·40–19·72, p<0·0001). Maximum SBP reached was also a strong predictor of stroke (HR for top-decile over seven visits: 15·01, 6·56–34·38, p<0·0001, after adjustment for mean SBP). In ASCOT-BPLA, residual visit-to-visit variability in SBP on treatment was also a strong predictor of stroke and coronary events (eg, top-decile HR for stroke: 3·25, 2·32–4·54, p<0·0001), independent of mean SBP in clinic or on ABPM. Variability on ABPM was a weaker predictor, but all measures of variability were most predictive in younger patients and at lower (<median) values of mean SBP in every cohort. Interpretation Visit-to-visit variability in SBP and maximum SBP are strong predictors of stroke, independent of mean SBP. Increased residual variability in SBP in patients with treated hypertension is associated with a high risk of vascular events. Funding None.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
Summary Background Lifelong antiplatelet treatment is recommended after ischaemic vascular events, on the basis of trials done mainly in patients younger than 75 years. Upper gastrointestinal ...bleeding is a serious complication, but had low case fatality in trials of aspirin and is not generally thought to cause long-term disability. Consequently, although co-prescription of proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) reduces upper gastrointestinal bleeds by 70–90%, uptake is low and guidelines are conflicting. We aimed to assess the risk, time course, and outcomes of bleeding on antiplatelet treatment for secondary prevention in patients of all ages. Methods We did a prospective population-based cohort study in patients with a first transient ischaemic attack, ischaemic stroke, or myocardial infarction treated with antiplatelet drugs (mainly aspirin based, without routine PPI use) after the event in the Oxford Vascular Study from 2002 to 2012, with follow-up until 2013. We determined type, severity, outcome (disability or death), and time course of bleeding requiring medical attention by face-to-face follow-up for 10 years. We estimated age-specific numbers needed to treat (NNT) to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding with routine PPI co-prescription on the basis of Kaplan–Meier risk estimates and relative risk reduction estimates from previous trials. Findings 3166 patients (1582 50% aged ≥75 years) had 405 first bleeding events (n=218 gastrointestinal, n=45 intracranial, and n=142 other) during 13 509 patient-years of follow-up. Of the 314 patients (78%) with bleeds admitted to hospital, 117 (37%) were missed by administrative coding. Risk of non-major bleeding was unrelated to age, but major bleeding increased steeply with age (≥75 years hazard ratio HR 3·10, 95% CI 2·27–4·24; p<0·0001), particularly for fatal bleeds (5·53, 2·65–11·54; p<0·0001), and was sustained during long-term follow-up. The same was true of major upper gastrointestinal bleeds (≥75 years HR 4·13, 2·60–6·57; p<0·0001), particularly if disabling or fatal (10·26, 4·37–24·13; p<0·0001). At age 75 years or older, major upper gastrointestinal bleeds were mostly disabling or fatal (45 62% of 73 patients vs 101 47% of 213 patients with recurrent ischaemic stroke), and outnumbered disabling or fatal intracerebral haemorrhage (n=45 vs n=18), with an absolute risk of 9·15 (95% CI 6·67–12·24) per 1000 patient-years. The estimated NNT for routine PPI use to prevent one disabling or fatal upper gastrointestinal bleed over 5 years fell from 338 for individuals younger than 65 years, to 25 for individuals aged 85 years or older. Interpretation In patients receiving aspirin-based antiplatelet treatment without routine PPI use, the long-term risk of major bleeding is higher and more sustained in older patients in practice than in the younger patients in previous trials, with a substantial risk of disabling or fatal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Given that half of the major bleeds in patients aged 75 years or older were upper gastrointestinal, the estimated NNT for routine PPI use to prevent such bleeds is low, and co-prescription should be encouraged. Funding Wellcome Trust, Wolfson Foundation, British Heart Foundation, Dunhill Medical Trust, National Institute of Health Research (NIHR), and the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZRSKP
Summary Background Long-term follow-up of randomised trials of aspirin in prevention of vascular events showed that daily aspirin reduced the incidence of colorectal cancer and several other cancers ...and reduced metastasis. However, statistical power was inadequate to establish effects on less common cancers and on cancers in women. Observational studies could provide this information if results can be shown to be reliable. We therefore compared effects of aspirin on risk and outcome of cancer in observational studies versus randomised trials. Methods For this systematic review, we searched for case–control and cohort studies published from 1950 to 2011 that reported associations between aspirin use and risk or outcome of cancer. Associations were pooled across studies by meta-analysis and stratified by duration, dose, and frequency of aspirin use and by stage of cancer. We compared associations from observational studies with the effect of aspirin on 20-year risk of cancer death and on metastasis in the recent reports of randomised trials. Findings In case–control studies, regular use of aspirin was associated with reduced risk of colorectal cancer (pooled odds ratio OR 0·62, 95% CI 0·58–0·67, psig <0·0001, 17 studies), with little heterogeneity (phet =0·13) in effect between studies, and good agreement with the effect of daily aspirin use on 20-year risk of death due to colorectal cancer from the randomised trials (OR 0·58, 95% CI 0·44–0·78, psig =0·0002, phet =0·45). Similarly consistent reductions were seen in risks of oesophageal, gastric, biliary, and breast cancer. Overall, estimates of effect of aspirin on individual cancers in case–control studies were highly correlated with those in randomised trials ( r2 =0·71, p=0·0006), with largest effects on risk of gastrointestinal cancers (case–control studies, OR 0·62, 95% CI 0·55–0·70, p<0·0001, 41 studies; randomised trials, OR 0·54, 95% CI 0·42–0·70, p<0·0001). Estimates of effects in cohort studies were similar when analyses were stratified by frequency and duration of aspirin use, were based on updated assessments of use during follow-up, and were appropriately adjusted for baseline characteristics. Although fewer observational studies stratified analyses by the stage of cancer at diagnosis, regular use of aspirin was associated with a reduced proportion of cancers with distant metastasis (OR 0·69, 95% CI 0·57–0·83, psig <0·0001, phet =0·89, five studies), but not with any reduction in regional spread (OR 0·98, 95% CI 0·88–1·09, psig =0·71, phet =0·88, seven studies), consistent again with the findings in randomised trials. Interpretation Observational studies show that regular use of aspirin reduces the long-term risk of several cancers and the risk of distant metastasis. Results of methodologically rigorous studies are consistent with those obtained from randomised controlled trials, but sensitivity is particularly dependent on appropriately detailed recording and analysis of aspirin use. Funding None.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
Summary Background High-dose aspirin (≥500 mg daily) reduces long-term incidence of colorectal cancer, but adverse effects might limit its potential for long-term prevention. The long-term ...effectiveness of lower doses (75–300 mg daily) is unknown. We assessed the effects of aspirin on incidence and mortality due to colorectal cancer in relation to dose, duration of treatment, and site of tumour. Methods We followed up four randomised trials of aspirin versus control in primary (Thrombosis Prevention Trial, British Doctors Aspirin Trial) and secondary (Swedish Aspirin Low Dose Trial, UK-TIA Aspirin Trial) prevention of vascular events and one trial of different doses of aspirin (Dutch TIA Aspirin Trial) and established the effect of aspirin on risk of colorectal cancer over 20 years during and after the trials by analysis of pooled individual patient data. Results In the four trials of aspirin versus control (mean duration of scheduled treatment 6·0 years), 391 (2·8%) of 14 033 patients had colorectal cancer during a median follow-up of 18·3 years. Allocation to aspirin reduced the 20-year risk of colon cancer (incidence hazard ratio HR 0·76, 0·60–0·96, p=0·02; mortality HR 0·65, 0·48–0·88, p=0·005), but not rectal cancer (0·90, 0·63–1·30, p=0·58; 0·80, 0·50–1·28, p=0·35). Where subsite data were available, aspirin reduced risk of cancer of the proximal colon (0·45, 0·28–0·74, p=0·001; 0·34, 0·18–0·66, p=0·001), but not the distal colon (1·10, 0·73–1·64, p=0·66; 1·21, 0·66–2·24, p=0·54; for incidence difference p=0·04, for mortality difference p=0·01). However, benefit increased with scheduled duration of treatment, such that allocation to aspirin of 5 years or longer reduced risk of proximal colon cancer by about 70% (0·35, 0·20–0·63; 0·24, 0·11–0·52; both p<0·0001) and also reduced risk of rectal cancer (0·58, 0·36–0·92, p=0·02; 0·47, 0·26–0·87, p=0·01). There was no increase in benefit at doses of aspirin greater than 75 mg daily, with an absolute reduction of 1·76% (0·61–2·91; p=0·001) in 20-year risk of any fatal colorectal cancer after 5-years scheduled treatment with 75–300 mg daily. However, risk of fatal colorectal cancer was higher on 30 mg versus 283 mg daily on long-term follow-up of the Dutch TIA trial (odds ratio 2·02, 0·70–6·05, p=0·15). Interpretation Aspirin taken for several years at doses of at least 75 mg daily reduced long-term incidence and mortality due to colorectal cancer. Benefit was greatest for cancers of the proximal colon, which are not otherwise prevented effectively by screening with sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy. Funding None.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
Summary Background Treatment with daily aspirin for 5 years or longer reduces subsequent risk of colorectal cancer. Several lines of evidence suggest that aspirin might also reduce risk of other ...cancers, particularly of the gastrointestinal tract, but proof in man is lacking. We studied deaths due to cancer during and after randomised trials of daily aspirin versus control done originally for prevention of vascular events. Methods We used individual patient data from all randomised trials of daily aspirin versus no aspirin with mean duration of scheduled trial treatment of 4 years or longer to determine the effect of allocation to aspirin on risk of cancer death in relation to scheduled duration of trial treatment for gastrointestinal and non-gastrointestinal cancers. In three large UK trials, long-term post-trial follow-up of individual patients was obtained from death certificates and cancer registries. Results In eight eligible trials (25 570 patients, 674 cancer deaths), allocation to aspirin reduced death due to cancer (pooled odds ratio OR 0·79, 95% CI 0·68–0·92, p=0·003). On analysis of individual patient data, which were available from seven trials (23 535 patients, 657 cancer deaths), benefit was apparent only after 5 years' follow-up (all cancers, hazard ratio HR 0·66, 0·50–0·87; gastrointestinal cancers, 0·46, 0·27–0·77; both p=0·003). The 20-year risk of cancer death (1634 deaths in 12 659 patients in three trials) remained lower in the aspirin groups than in the control groups (all solid cancers, HR 0·80, 0·72–0·88, p<0·0001; gastrointestinal cancers, 0·65, 0·54–0·78, p<0·0001), and benefit increased (interaction p=0·01) with scheduled duration of trial treatment (≥7·5 years: all solid cancers, 0·69, 0·54–0·88, p=0·003; gastrointestinal cancers, 0·41, 0·26–0·66, p=0·0001). The latent period before an effect on deaths was about 5 years for oesophageal, pancreatic, brain, and lung cancer, but was more delayed for stomach, colorectal, and prostate cancer. For lung and oesophageal cancer, benefit was confined to adenocarcinomas, and the overall effect on 20-year risk of cancer death was greatest for adenocarcinomas (HR 0·66, 0·56–0·77, p<0·0001). Benefit was unrelated to aspirin dose (75 mg upwards), sex, or smoking, but increased with age—the absolute reduction in 20-year risk of cancer death reaching 7·08% (2·42–11·74) at age 65 years and older. Interpretation Daily aspirin reduced deaths due to several common cancers during and after the trials. Benefit increased with duration of treatment and was consistent across the different study populations. These findings have implications for guidelines on use of aspirin and for understanding of carcinogenesis and its susceptibility to drug intervention. Funding None.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
Summary Background Daily aspirin reduces the long-term risk of death due to cancer. However, the short-term effect is less certain, especially in women, effects on cancer incidence are largely ...unknown, and the time course of risk and benefit in primary prevention is unclear. We studied cancer deaths in all trials of daily aspirin versus control and the time course of effects of low-dose aspirin on cancer incidence and other outcomes in trials in primary prevention. Methods We studied individual patient data from randomised trials of daily aspirin versus no aspirin in prevention of vascular events. Death due to cancer, all non-vascular death, vascular death, and all deaths were assessed in all eligible trials. In trials of low-dose aspirin in primary prevention, we also established the time course of effects on incident cancer, major vascular events, and major extracranial bleeds, with stratification by age, sex, and smoking status. Results Allocation to aspirin reduced cancer deaths (562 vs 664 deaths; odds ratio OR 0·85, 95% CI 0·76–0·96, p=0·008; 34 trials, 69 224 participants), particularly from 5 years onwards (92 vs 145; OR 0·63, 95% CI 0·49–0·82, p=0·0005), resulting in fewer non-vascular deaths overall (1021 vs 1173; OR 0·88, 95% CI 0·78–0·96, p=0·003; 51 trials, 77 549 participants). In trials in primary prevention, the reduction in non-vascular deaths accounted for 87 (91%) of 96 deaths prevented. In six trials of daily low-dose aspirin in primary prevention (35 535 participants), aspirin reduced cancer incidence from 3 years onwards (324 vs 421 cases; OR 0·76, 95% CI 0·66–0·88, p=0·0003) in women (132 vs 176; OR 0·75, 95% CI 0·59–0·94, p=0·01) and in men (192 vs 245; OR 0·77, 95% CI 0·63–0·93, p=0·008). The reduced risk of major vascular events on aspirin was initially offset by an increased risk of major bleeding, but effects on both outcomes diminished with increasing follow-up, leaving only the reduced risk of cancer (absolute reduction 3·13 95% CI 1·44–4·82 per 1000 patients per year) from 3 years onwards. Case-fatality from major extracranial bleeds was also lower on aspirin than on control (8/203 vs 15/132; OR 0·32, 95% CI 0·12–0·83, p=0·009). Interpretation Alongside the previously reported reduction by aspirin of the long-term risk of cancer death, the short-term reductions in cancer incidence and mortality and the decrease in risk of major extracranial bleeds with extended use, and their low case-fatality, add to the case for daily aspirin in prevention of cancer. Funding None.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
PDF
