ReviewThrombosis and haemostasis2019
Aspirin and Primary Prevention in Patients with Diabetes-A Critical Evaluation of Available Randomized Trials and Meta-Analyses.
Review in Thrombosis and haemostasis, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- The virtual patient - Estimating the health utility of aspirin in simulated populations.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2021Article
- The Use of Aspirin in Contemporary Primary Prevention of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Diseases Revisited: The Increasing Need and Call for a Personalized Therapeutic Approach.American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedErratum.2019
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.