Trial reportBMJ open2024
Impact of aspirin dose according to race in secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: a secondary analysis of the ADAPTABLE randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02697916 (Aspirin Dosing), which is not on this 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.
Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-Centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-term Effectiveness
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate whether the effectiveness and safety of low (81 mg daily) versus high-dose (325 mg daily) aspirin is consistent across races among patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).
designA secondary analysis of the randomised controlled trial ADAPTABLE was performed.
settingThe study was conducted in 40 centres and one health plan participating in the National Patient-Centred Clinical Research Network (PCORnet) in the USA.
participantsAmong 15 076 participants with established ASCVD, 14 096 had self-reported race available and were included in the analysis. Participants were divided according to self-reported race as Black (n=1311, 9.3%), White (n=11 990, 85.1%) or other race (n=795, 5.6%).
interventionsParticipants were randomised to open-label daily aspirin doses of 81 mg versus 325 mg in a 1:1 ratio for a median of 26.2 months. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES MEASURES: The primary effectiveness endpoint was a composite of death from any cause, hospitalisation for myocardial infarction or hospitalisation for stroke. The primary safety endpoint was hospitalisation for bleeding requiring blood product transfusion.
resultsEstimated cumulative incidence of the primary effectiveness endpoint at median follow-up with the 81 mg and the 325 mg daily doses were 6.70% and 7.12% in White participants (adjusted HR: 1.00 [95% CI: 0.88 to 1.15]); 12.27% and 10.69% in Black participants (adjusted HR: 1.40 [95% CI: 1.02 to 1.93]); and 6.88% and 7.69% in other participants (adjusted HR: 0.86 [95% CI: 0.54 to 1.39]) (p-interaction=0.12), respectively. There was no significant interaction between self-reported race and assigned aspirin dose regarding the secondary effectiveness and the primary safety endpoints.
conclusionRace is not an effect modifier on the impact of aspirin dosing on effectiveness and safety in patients with established ASCVD. In clinical practice, treatment decisions regarding aspirin dose in secondary prevention of ASCVD should not be influenced by race. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02697916.
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.