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 % 10-year coronary heart disease (CHD) risk; at 2.5 % risk or below, no treatment was favored. When we included a reduction in cancer mortality, aspirin became cost-effective for men at 2.5 % risk as well (cost per QALY, $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.
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 % 10-year coronary heart disease (CHD) risk; at 2.5 % risk or below, no treatment was favored. When we included a reduction in cancer mortality, aspirin became cost-effective for men at 2.5 % risk as well (cost per QALY, $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.
Authors: Jeffrey S Berger; Maria C Roncaglioni; Fausto Avanzini; Ierta Pangrazzi; Gianni Tognoni; David L Brown Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-01-18 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Peter M Rothwell; Jacqueline F Price; F Gerald R Fowkes; Alberto Zanchetti; Maria Carla Roncaglioni; Gianni Tognoni; Robert Lee; Jill F F Belch; Michelle Wilson; Ziyah Mehta; Tom W Meade Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-03-21 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Sreenivasa Rao Kondapally Seshasai; Shanelle Wijesuriya; Rupa Sivakumaran; Sarah Nethercott; Sebhat Erqou; Naveed Sattar; Kausik K Ray Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2012-01-09
Authors: Diana I Brixner; David D Stenehjem; Cornelia M Ulrich; Eman Biltaji; Brandon Walker; Trang H Au; Zachary Rivers; Jennifer Ose; Christopher I Li Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2021-04-13 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Peter C Elwood; Gareth Morgan; Julieta Galante; John W K Chia; Sunil Dolwani; J Michael Graziano; Mark Kelson; Angel Lanas; Marcus Longley; Ceri J Phillips; Janet Pickering; Stephen E Roberts; Swee S Soon; Will Steward; Delyth Morris; Alison L Weightman Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-11-15 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: J Cuzick; M A Thorat; C Bosetti; P H Brown; J Burn; N R Cook; L G Ford; E J Jacobs; J A Jankowski; C La Vecchia; M Law; F Meyskens; P M Rothwell; H J Senn; A Umar Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2014-08-05 Impact factor: 32.976