Alexander Chaitoff Profile picture
Dec 21, 2021 21 tweets 11 min read Read on X
In Oct, the #USPSTF released draft guidelines addressing aspirin (ASA) use for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD).

Why is ASA falling more out of favor? Join me for a #MedTwitter #Tweetorial about the hx of ASA use in *primary* prevention of CVD 1/20
We'll answer a few questions on this journey:

1) What is new in the USPSTF draft update?

2) What trials informed the old practice patterns and guidelines?

3) What new trials have caused such a shift in how we think about ASA for the primary prevention of CVD?
2/20
First, what is in the USPSTF update?

ASA would now be recommended only after a shared-decision making conversation in those 40-59, at ⬆️risk of CVD (ASCVD risk >10%), at low risk for bleeding.

The recommendation grade is a "C", suggesting any net benefit is likely small. 3/20
So is this new?

Well since 2002, the USPSTF has more widely recommended ASA for the primary prevention of CVD.

More specifically, the recommendation has previously gotten an "A" or "B" rating (i.e. high certainty of at least moderate benefit). 4/20
Second, so why was ASA previously so beloved?

The modern hx of ASA began in the 1980s with the Physicians Health Study (PHS). In this study, docs were randomized to ASA vs placebo and followed.

Most notably, the PHS reported a 44% reduction in MI! 5/20
nejm.org/doi/full/10.10…
After the study was published, the @nytimes wrote an article with the headline "Doctors Confirm Benefits Of Aspirin"

....so if the benefit was confirmed, why have we kept studying ASA and its role in the primary prevention of CVD? 6/20
nytimes.com/1989/07/20/us/…
Well, because another similar study conducted at the same time, the British Male Doctor (BMD) study, didn't show any benefit. Furthermore, neither the BMD nor PHS study showed any CV mortality benefit, and there was bleeding risk for those on ASA in both studies. 7/20
The inconsistent results led to questions.

Were the same populations captured by both trials? Were events being classified the same way?

...Are all people who get CVD men...

Also, with time more folks were on statins and fewer smoked. Could this make ASA unnecessary? 8/20
So from 1990-2014, eight major (but flawed) trials studied if ASA could prevent CVD.

Results showed ASA possibly⬇️CVD events (but not mortality) and definitely⬆️bleeds

Despite the trials' flaws, many docs recommended ASA due to positive secondary endpoints in the trials. 9/20
Finally, this brings us to 2018, the golden year of ASA trials.

Three excellent trials were conducted 1) those at moderate risk of ASCVD (ARRIVE), 2) healthy older adults (ASPREE), 3) adults with diabetes (ASCEND).

Summary of the results below: 10/20
First, ARRIVE - ASA 100mg vs placebo did not reduce the risk of major CVD events, but did increase the risk of bleeding in patients. 11/20

thelancet.com/article/S0140-…
Next, ASPREE - ASA 100mg vs placebo did not reduce the risk of major CVD events, but increased the risk of bleeding in healthy, older adults. 12/20

nejm.org/doi/full/10.10…
And ASCEND - ASA 100mg vs placebo reduced the risk of major CV events, but increased the risk of bleeding in patients with diabetes. 13/20

nejm.org/doi/full/10.10…
However, even in ASCEND, the only trial to meet its primary endpoint, only select patients clearly benefitted from ASA.

➡️Those under 60 had fewer CVD events and less bleeding risk (tying back to the USPSTF guideline age cutoff). 14/20
So where are we?

13 major trials looking at ASA for the primary prevention of CVD.

2 old trials w/o women and before the statin era showing mixed results.

8 more contemporary flawed trials showing mixed results

3 new well-done trials suggesting minimal net benefit 14/20
And so since that first trial was published in 1988:

-ASA has inconsistently shown benefit for CVD prevention depending on the population and study.

-ASA has consistent shown harm via ⬆️bleeding risk. 15/20
Ultimately meta-analyses results are in:

-11% (95% CI 6-15%) ⬇️in odds of CVD Mortality, Nonfatal Stroke, or Nonfatal MI
-No significant association with CVD or all-cause mortality
-45% (95% CI 33-58%) ⬆️in odds of major bleeds

16/20
uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/documen…
The case for ASA was never particularly strong before the 2018 trials, so why was ASA use so seared into the public consciousness?

Partly inconsistent trial results, but partly because companies like Bayer used media to propagate its use.

17/20

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…
So now you know how we got to the place where we can say:

ASA may have benefit in primary prevention of CVD for some patients <60 with⬆️CVD risk and ⬇️bleed risk.

But the benefit is likely small, the risks are real, and there is likely no mortality benefit. 18/20
Hope this contextualization of the evidence for ASA in primary prevention of CVD was helpful! To learn more, this is a great paper.

Of course, this is ONLY for PRIMARY prevention. 19/20

thelancet.com/journals/lance…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Alexander Chaitoff

Alexander Chaitoff Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @AlexChaitoff

Feb 9, 2021
Just finished a month on inpatient medicine. We often overlook all that we're learning because a service is busy, but our fearless leader, @hcricketfisher, compiled a list of the topics we covered and I'm inspired!

So, some #MedTwitter #MedEd from our team @BrighamMedRes to you:
Why basal-bolus insulin in the hospital? RABBITs, that’s why:

i.e. in an RCT basal-bolus insulin provides better glycemic control than sliding scale alone in non-critically ill, hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes (and is safe).

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17513708/
When should we stop broad-spectrum antibiotics? Probably sooner than we do.

i.e. in multiple cohort studies, the probability of true bacteremia if a blood culture has remained negative for 24 hours is reported to be as low as 1.8%!

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…
Read 26 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(