Estimates of benefits and harms of prophylactic use of aspirin in the general population

Background: Accumulating evidence supports an effect of aspirin in reducing overall cancer incidence and mortality in the general population. We reviewed current data and assessed the benefits and harms of prophylactic use of aspirin in the general population. Methods: The effect of aspirin for site-specific cancer incidence and mortality, cardiovascular events was collated from the most recent systematic reviews. Studies identified through systematic Medline search provided data regarding harmful effects of aspirin and baseline rates of harms like gastrointestinal bleeding and peptic ulcer. Results: The effects of aspirin on cancer are not apparent until at least 3 years after the start of use, and some benefits are sustained for several years after cessation in long-term users. No differences between low and standard doses of aspirin are observed, but there were no direct comparisons. Higher doses do not appear to confer additional benefit but increase toxicities. Excess bleeding is the most important harm associated with aspirin use, and its risk and fatality rate increases with age. For average-risk individuals aged 50–65 years taking aspirin for 10 years, there would be a relative reduction of between 7% (women) and 9% (men) in the number of cancer, myocardial infarction or stroke events over a 15-year period and an overall 4% relative reduction in all deaths over a 20-year period. Conclusions: Prophylactic aspirin use for a minimum of 5 years at doses between 75 and 325 mg/day appears to have favourable benefit–harm profile; longer use is likely to have greater benefits. Further research is needed to determine the optimum dose and duration of use, to identify individuals at increased risk of bleeding, and to test effectiveness of Helicobacter pylori screening–eradication before starting aspirin prophylaxis

Nut consumption and risk of atrial fibrillation in the Physicians' Health Study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Atrial Fibrillation is highly prevalent in clinical practice affecting approximately 2.3 million people in USA and 4.5 million people in European Union. The aim of the study was to examine the association between nut consumption and incident atrial fibrillation.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Prospective cohort of 21,054 male participants of Physicians' Health Study I. Nut consumption was estimated using food frequency questionnaire and incident atrial fibrillation was ascertained through yearly follow-up questionnaires. Cox regression was used to estimate relative risks of atrial fibrillation.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The average age was 54.6 ± 9.5 years (40.7-87.1). During a mean follow up of 20 years (median 24 years), 3,317 cases of atrial fibrillation occurred. The crude incidence rate was 7.6, 7.4, 8.2, 7.9, and 6.8 cases/1000 person-years for people reporting nut consumption of rarely/never, 1-3/month, 1/per week, 2-6/week, and ≥ 7/week, respectively. Multivariable adjusted hazard ratios (95% CI) for incident atrial fibrillation were 1.00 (ref), 1.00 (0.90-1.11), 1.09 (0.97-1.21), 1.07 (0.95-1.21), and 0.91 (0.70-1.17) for nut consumption from the lowest to the highest category of nut consumption (p for trend 0.26). No statistically significant association between nut consumption and atrial fibrillation was found when stratified by body mass index (BMI < 25 vs ≥ 25 kg/m²) or age (< 65 vs. ≥ 65 years).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Our data did not show an association between nut consumption and incident atrial fibrillation among US male physicians.</p

The Oslo Health Study: The impact of self-selection in a large, population-based survey

BACKGROUND: Research on health equity which mainly utilises population-based surveys, may be hampered by serious selection bias due to a considerable number of invitees declining to participate. Sufficient information from all the non-responders is rarely available to quantify this bias. Predictors of attendance, magnitude and direction of non-response bias in prevalence estimates and association measures, are investigated based on information from all 40 888 invitees to the Oslo Health Study. METHODS: The analyses were based on linkage between public registers in Statistics Norway and the Oslo Health Study, a population-based survey conducted in 2000/2001 inviting all citizens aged 30, 40, 45, 59–60 and 75–76 years. Attendance was 46%. Weighted analyses, logistic regression and sensitivity analyses are performed to evaluate possible selection bias. RESULTS: The response rate was positively associated with age, educational attendance, total income, female gender, married, born in a Western county, living in the outer city residential regions and not receiving disability benefit. However, self-rated health, smoking, BMI and mental health (HCSL) in the attendees differed only slightly from estimated prevalence values in the target population when weighted by the inverse of the probability of attendance. Observed values differed only moderately provided that the non-attending individuals differed from those attending by no more than 50%. Even though persons receiving disability benefit had lower attendance, the associations between disability and education, residential region and marital status were found to be unbiased. The association between country of birth and disability benefit was somewhat more evident among attendees. CONCLUSIONS: Self-selection according to sociodemographic variables had little impact on prevalence estimates. As indicated by disability benefit, unhealthy persons attended to a lesser degree than healthy individuals, but social inequality in health by different sociodemographic variables seemed unbiased. If anything we would expect an overestimation of the odds ratio of chronic disease among persons born in non-western countries

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

An assessment of the cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance, including diffusion-weighted imaging in patients with transient ischaemic attack and minor stroke : a systematic review, meta-analysis and economic evaluation

Erratum issued September 2015 Erratum DOI: 10.3310/hta18270-c201509Peer reviewedPublisher PD

A review of gene-drug interactions for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use in preventing colorectal neoplasia.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been shown to be effective chemopreventive agents for colorectal neoplasia. Polymorphisms in NSAID targets or metabolizing enzymes may affect NSAID efficacy or toxicity. We conducted a literature review to summarize current evidence of gene-drug interactions between NSAID use and polymorphisms in COX1, COX2, ODC, UGT1A6 and CYP2C9 on risk of colorectal neoplasia by searching OVID and PubMed. Of 134 relevant search results, thirteen investigated an interaction. One study reported a significant interaction between NSAID use and the COX1 Pro17Leu polymorphism (P=0.03) whereby the risk reduction associated with NSAID use among homozygous wild-type genotypes was not observed among NSAID users with variant alleles. Recent pharmacodynamic data support the potential for gene-drug interactions for COX1 Pro17Leu. Statistically significant interactions have also been reported for ODC (315G>A), UGT1A6 (Thr181Ala+Arg184Ser or Arg184Ser alone), and CYP2C9 (*2/*3). No statistically significant interactions have been reported for polymorphisms in COX2; however, an interaction with COX2 -765G>C approached significance (P=0.07) in one study. Among seven remaining studies, reported interactions were not statistically significant for COX1, COX2 and ODC gene polymorphisms. Most studies were of limited sample size. Definitions of NSAID use differed substantially between studies. The literature on NSAID-gene interactions to date is limited. Reliable detection of gene-NSAID interactions will require greater sample sizes, consistent definitions of NSAID use and evaluation of clinical trial subjects of chemoprevention studies