ReviewPharmacoEconomics1997
Is aspirin underused in myocardial infarction?
Review in PharmacoEconomics, 1997. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Economic assessment of the secondary prevention of ischaemic events with lysine acetylsalicylate.PharmacoEconomics · 2000Article
- Angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and heart failure. The consequences of underprescribing.PharmacoEconomics · 1999Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article reviews the relevant published literature in order to assess whether aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid; ASA) is underused in myocardial infarction (MI), taking into account: (i) the evidence of efficacy and safety from clinical trials; (ii) authoritative recommendations about its use; and (iii) published drug-utilisation studies. The use of low-dosage aspirin in the acute phase of MI, and as secondary prevention, should be recommended to all patients who do not have contraindications to the drug. This is a solid evidence-based recommendation with potential benefits that are, at least, similar to those obtained with other standard treatments. As this treatment is well tolerated and inexpensive, it is also assumed that net savings can be achieved. No conventionally used prophylactic aspirin regimen seems to be free from the risk of serious gastrointestinal toxicity. This is especially important in primary prevention, in which the benefits are small; there is, as yet, no clear evidence that aspirin is indicated for routine use in patients at low risk of occlusive vascular events. We have identified 21 published drug-utilisation studies, and the potential underuse of aspirin in MI was not properly assessed in most of them. In these studies, fairly high aspirin prescription rates were usually documented. However, it seems clear that there is room for improvement, and that a significant proportion of patients who could have benefited from aspirin did not receive it or received less well-studied and more costly drugs. The prescription rates for other drugs with proven efficacy have been lower, and the potential underuse greater, than those documented for aspirin.
Indexed as
Identifiers
10174319What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.