Jeremy B Sussman1, Sandeep Vijan, HwaJung Choi, Rodney A Hayward. 1. Department of Veterans Affairs, VA Health Service Research and Development Center of Excellence, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA. jeremysu@med.umich.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines that help clinicians and patients to understand the magnitude of expected individual risks and benefits would help with patient-centered decision-making and prioritization of care. We assessed the net benefit from taking daily aspirin to estimate the individual and public health implications of a more individualized decision-making approach. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey representing all US persons aged 30 to 85 years with no history of myocardial infarction and applied a Markov model based on randomized evidence and published literature to estimate lifetime effects of aspirin treatment in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). We found that treatment benefit varies greatly by an individual's cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Almost all adults have fewer major clinical events on aspirin, but for most, events prevented would be so rare that even a very small distaste for aspirin use would make treatment inappropriate. With minimal dislike of aspirin use (disutility, 0.005 QALY per year), only those with a 10-year cardiac event risk >6.1% would have a net benefit. A disutility of 0.01 QALY moves this benefit cut point to 10.6%. Multiple factors altered the absolute benefit of aspirin, but the strong relationship between CVD risk and magnitude of benefit was robust. CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of aspirin therapy depend substantially on an individual's risk of CVD and adverse treatment effects. Understanding who benefits from aspirin use and how much can help clinicians and patients to develop a more patient-centered approach to preventive therapy.
BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines that help clinicians and patients to understand the magnitude of expected individual risks and benefits would help with patient-centered decision-making and prioritization of care. We assessed the net benefit from taking daily aspirin to estimate the individual and public health implications of a more individualized decision-making approach. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey representing all US persons aged 30 to 85 years with no history of myocardial infarction and applied a Markov model based on randomized evidence and published literature to estimate lifetime effects of aspirin treatment in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). We found that treatment benefit varies greatly by an individual's cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Almost all adults have fewer major clinical events on aspirin, but for most, events prevented would be so rare that even a very small distaste for aspirin use would make treatment inappropriate. With minimal dislike of aspirin use (disutility, 0.005 QALY per year), only those with a 10-year cardiac event risk >6.1% would have a net benefit. A disutility of 0.01 QALY moves this benefit cut point to 10.6%. Multiple factors altered the absolute benefit of aspirin, but the strong relationship between CVD risk and magnitude of benefit was robust. CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of aspirin therapy depend substantially on an individual's risk of CVD and adverse treatment effects. Understanding who benefits from aspirin use and how much can help clinicians and patients to develop a more patient-centered approach to preventive therapy.
Authors: Donald Lloyd-Jones; Robert Adams; Mercedes Carnethon; Giovanni De Simone; T Bruce Ferguson; Katherine Flegal; Earl Ford; Karen Furie; Alan Go; Kurt Greenlund; Nancy Haase; Susan Hailpern; Michael Ho; Virginia Howard; Brett Kissela; Steven Kittner; Daniel Lackland; Lynda Lisabeth; Ariane Marelli; Mary McDermott; James Meigs; Dariush Mozaffarian; Graham Nichol; Christopher O'Donnell; Veronique Roger; Wayne Rosamond; Ralph Sacco; Paul Sorlie; Randall Stafford; Julia Steinberger; Thomas Thom; Sylvia Wasserthiel-Smoller; Nathan Wong; Judith Wylie-Rosett; Yuling Hong Journal: Circulation Date: 2009-01-27 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Mark J Pletcher; Lawrence Lazar; Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo; Andrew Moran; Nicolas Rodondi; Pamela Coxson; James Lightwood; Lawrence Williams; Lee Goldman Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2009-02-17 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Colin Baigent; Lisa Blackwell; Rory Collins; Jonathan Emberson; Jon Godwin; Richard Peto; Julie Buring; Charles Hennekens; Patricia Kearney; Tom Meade; Carlo Patrono; Maria Carla Roncaglioni; Alberto Zanchetti Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-05-30 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Rob C M van Kruijsdijk; Frank L J Visseren; Paul M Ridker; Johannes A N Dorresteijn; Julie E Buring; Yolanda van der Graaf; Nancy R Cook Journal: Heart Date: 2014-12-04 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Michael D Miedema; Daniel A Duprez; Jeffrey R Misialek; Michael J Blaha; Khurram Nasir; Michael G Silverman; Ron Blankstein; Matthew J Budoff; Philip Greenland; Aaron R Folsom Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2014-05-06
Authors: Jeremy B Sussman; Wyndy L Wiitala; Matthew Zawistowski; Timothy P Hofer; Douglas Bentley; Rodney A Hayward Journal: Med Care Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 2.983