The answer is not entirely straightforward. Aspirin has been shown to reduce the risk of cardiovascular
disease, including heart attack and stroke. Aspirin inhibits the function of
platelets, the blood cell line responsible for clot formation. When a heart attack or stroke occur the cholesterol
plaque that lines an artery ruptures and platelets aggregate, resulting in a
cascade that results in acute occlusion of a blood vessel. Patients who are treated with aspirin are
less likely to clot. However, the
effects of aspirin are not entirely benign. With its platelet inhibition it
also confers a higher risk of bleeding—in particular gastrointestinal bleeding
and hemorrhagic stroke, which also may be life threatening.
Clinical trials have looked at aspirin intake,
cardiovascular outcomes, and bleeding risk. Aspirin for acute cardiovascular
events and for “secondary prevention” (prevention after the diagnosis of
coronary artery disease or cerebrovascular disease has been established) is
undisputed. Trials suggest that the
benefits of therapy outweigh the risks of bleeding.
However, whether or not aspirin should be prescribed for
“primary prevention” (prevention in a person who is disease-free) is more
ambiguous. In 2009 a meta-analysis of
existing study data looking at this question was published in Lancet.
The analysis found that aspirin reduced
the risk of non-fatal myocardial infarction by one fifth, but that aspirin
therapy also significantly increased risk of major gastrointestinal and
extracranial bleeding and did not improve overall mortality. In 2009 the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)
reviewed the existing data and concluded that while aspirin reduces the risk of
myocardial infarction in men and ischemic stroke in women, it increases the
risk of major extracranial bleeding. The
USPSTF recommended that the decision to use aspirin therapy for the purpose of
primary prevention should take into account an individualized assessment of cardiovascular
risk and also bleeding risk. Patients with higher cardiovascular risk may
benefit most from therapy.
Patients considering aspirin therapy for primary prevention
should assess their cardiovascular risk profile with their personal physician.
The Framingham Risk Calculator is a recommended tool for estimating one’s ten
year risk of having a major cardiovascular event.
However, Framingham may not be as useful for women as it is for men, and some
recommend use of the Reynolds Risk Calculator. The Reynolds Calculator incorporates
the inflammatory marker hs-crp into its calculation of ten year risk.
In a similar vein, in 2010 the American Diabetes Association,
the American Heart Association, and the American College of Cardiology issued a
joint statement revising their recommendations for use of aspirin for thepurpose of primary prevention amongst diabetic patients. In contrast to old guidelines, the new
recommendations do not advise that all diabetics over age 40 receive aspirin
therapy. Rather, they advise aspirin therapy
for primary prevention in male diabetics under 50 and female diabetics under 60
only if one additional cardiac risk factor is present (hypertension, high
cholesterol, smoking, family history, microalbuminuria)
The new recommendation is based in part on a subgroup analyses of diabetic
patients in the meta-analysis of the Antithrombotic Trialists’ Collaboration showing
that diabetic patients benefited less from
aspirin therapy than non-diabetics. In addition, several smaller studies
conducted specifically on diabetics and looking at primary prevention failed to
demonstrate a significant benefit of aspirin therapy in those without diagnosed
cardiovascular disease. Further study is
ongoing to research the issue of primary prevention of cardiovascular disease
with aspirin in diabetic patients. For
now the therapy is recommended for diabetics who are determined to be
intermediate to high risk (Framingham risk of 10% or higher).
Who is most likely to suffer a complication related to daily
use of aspirin? Risk factors for gastrointestinal bleeding with aspirin therapy
have been identified:
- Non-steroid anti-inflammatory (NSAID) use (in particular, high dose NSAID use)
- Chronic steroid use
- Prior history of peptic ulcer disease (PUD)
- Advanced age (>60-65 years old)
- GERD or dyspepsia (less risk than PUD)
- Concomitant use of another anti-coagulant
It’s interesting to
me that simultaneous with a growing emphasis on incorporating population-based
strategies into healthcare delivery we are also becoming increasingly aware of
the importance of identifying personalized risk factors in order to best counsel
individual patients on medical care and prevention. Aspirin therapy for primary prevention is an
example of how a one-size-fits-all population-based strategy is hard to
apply. We have seen similar recent
trends with mammography screening recommendations, using PSA for prostate
cancer screening, and will likely soon be hearing more about using a personalized
approach to recommending statins for the purpose of primary prevention of
cardiovascular disease (given recent associations between statin use and reversible
cognitive complaints and diabetes). How population medicine, its associated
quality reporting, and pay-for-performance on the one hand, and personalized
medicine on the other, are reconciled in medical practice will be a challenge to
be dealt on the level of policy, practice, and reimbursement in years to come.