Use of aspirin for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in diabetic patients in an ambulatory care setting in Spain

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>This study was conducted in order to determine the use of aspirin and to assess the achievement of therapeutic targets in diabetic patients according to primary (PP) or secondary prevention (SP).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This is a retrospective, observational study including patients ≥18 years with diabetes mellitus followed in four primary care centers. Measurements included demographics, use of aspirin and/or anticoagulant drugs, co-morbidities, clinical parameters and proportion of patient at therapeutic target (TT). Descriptive statistics, chi-square test and logistic regression model were used for significance.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 4,140 patients were analyzed, 79.1% (95% confidence intervals [CI]: 77.7–80.5%) in PP and 20.9% (95% CI: 18.2–23.7%) in SP. Mean age was 64.1 (13.8) years, and 49.3% of patient were men (PP: 46.3, SP: 60.7, p = 0.001). Aspirin was prescribed routinely in 20.8% (95% CI: 19.4–22.2%) in PP and 60.8% (95% CI: 57.6–64.0%) in SP. Proportion of patient at TT was 48.0% for blood pressure and 59.8% for cholesterol. Use of aspirin was associated to increased age [OR = 1.01 (95% CI: 1.00–1.02); p = 0.011], cardiovascular-risk factors [OR = 1.14 (95% CI: 1.03–1.27); p = 0.013], LDL-C [OR = 1.42 (95% CI: 1.06–1.88); p = 0.017] and higher glycated hemoglobin [OR = 1.51 (95% CI: 1.22–1.89); p = 0.000] were covariates associated to the use of aspirin in PP.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Treatment with aspirin is underused for PP in patients with diabetes mellitus in Primary Care. Achievement of TT should be improved.</p

Effect of Including Cancer Mortality on the Cost-Effectiveness of Aspirin for Primary Prevention in Men

BACKGROUND: Recent data suggest that aspirin may be effective for reducing cancer mortality. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether including a cancer mortality-reducing effect influences which men would benefit from aspirin for primary prevention. DESIGN: We modified our existing Markov model that examines the effects of aspirin among middle-aged men with no previous history of cardiovascular disease or diabetes. For our base case scenario of 45-year-old men, we examined costs and life-years for men taking aspirin for 10 years compared with men who were not taking aspirin over those 10 years; after 10 years, we equalized treatment and followed the cohort until death. We compared our results depending on whether or not we included a 22 % relative reduction in cancer mortality, based on a recent meta-analysis. We discounted costs and benefits at 3 % and employed a third party payer perspective. MAIN MEASURE: Cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. KEY RESULTS: When no effect on cancer mortality was included, aspirin had a cost per QALY gained of $22,492 at 5$43,342). Results were somewhat sensitive to utility of taking aspirin daily; risk of death after myocardial infarction; and effects of aspirin on stroke, myocardial infarction, and sudden death. However, aspirin remained cost-saving or cost-effective (< $50,000 per QALY) in probabilistic analyses (59 % with no cancer effect included; 96 % with cancer effect) for men at 5 % risk. CONCLUSIONS: Including an effect of aspirin on cancer mortality influences the threshold for prescribing aspirin for primary prevention in men. If such an effect is real, many middle-aged men at low cardiovascular risk would become candidates for regular aspirin use. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11606-013-2465-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in diabetes mellitus

Aspirin is effective for the prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with a history of vascular disease, as so-called secondary prevention. In general populations with no history of previous myocardial infarction or stroke, aspirin also seems useful for primary prevention of cardiovascular events, although the absolute benefits are smaller than those seen in patients with previous cardiovascular disease. Patients with diabetes mellitus are at an increased risk of cardiovascular events, but new trials have raised questions about the benefit of aspirin for primary prevention in patients with this disorder. This Review comprehensively examines the basic pharmacology of aspirin and provides an overview of the randomized, controlled trials of aspirin therapy that have included patients with diabetes mellitus. On the basis of currently available evidence from primary prevention trials, aspirin is estimated to reduce the relative risk of myocardial infarction and stroke by about 10% in patients with diabetes mellitus; however, aspirin also increases the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. As such, low-dose aspirin therapy (75–162 mg) is reasonable for patients with diabetes mellitus and a 10-year risk of cardiovascular events >10%. Results from upcoming large trials will help clarify the effects of aspirin with greater precision, including whether the benefits differ between men and women

Cost-effectiveness of Screening for Coronary Artery Disease in Asymptomatic Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Additional Atherogenic Risk Factors

OBJECTIVE: Screening for coronary artery disease (CAD) in asymptomatic diabetic patients with two additional atherogenic risk factors has been recommended by the American College of Cardiology/American Diabetes Association, but its cost-effectiveness is yet to be determined. The present study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of screening and determine acceptable strategies. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov model was performed from a societal perspective to measure the clinical benefit and economic consequences of CAD screening in asymptomatic men with diabetes and two additional atherogenic risk factors. We evaluated cohorts of patients stratified by different age groups, and 10 possible combination pairs of atherogenic risks. Incremental cost-effectiveness of no screening, exercise electrocardiography, exercise echocardiography, or exercise single-photon emission-tomography (SPECT) was calculated. Input data were obtained from the published literature. Outcomes were expressed as U.S. dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Compared with no screening, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of exercise electrocardiography was $41,600/QALY in 60-year-old asymptomatic diabetic men with hypertension and smoking, but was weakly dominated by exercise echocardiography. Exercise echocardiography was most cost-effective, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of$40,800/QALY. Exercise SPECT was dominated by other strategies. Sensitivity analyses found that results varied depending on age, combination of additional atherogenic risk factors, and diagnostic test performance. CONCLUSIONS: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CAD screening in asymptomatic patients with diabetes and two or more additional atherogenic risk factors is shown to be acceptable from a societal perspective. Exercise echocardiography was the most cost-effective strategy, followed by exercise electrocardiography