BACKGROUND: The value of aspirin in primary prevention of cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains unclear. The aim of this study was to identify women who benefit from alternate-day aspirin with regard to all relevant outcomes, including cancer, CVD and major gastrointestinal bleeding. METHODS: Long term follow-up data of 27 939 healthy women with baseline plasma samples in the Women's Health Study, a randomised trial of 100 mg alternate-day aspirin versus placebo, were used to develop competing risks models for individualised prediction of absolute risk reduction of the combination of CVD, cancer and major gastrointestinal bleeding by aspirin. RESULTS: Although aspirin was associated with a modestly decreased 15-year risk of colorectal cancer, CVD, and in some women non-colorectal cancer, aspirin treatment resulted in a negative treatment effect in the majority of women if gastrointestinal bleeding was also taken into account. The excess risk of major gastrointestinal bleeding by aspirin increased with age, but the benefits for colorectal cancer and CVD risk were also greater at higher age. Decision curves indicated that selective treatment of women ≥65 years may improve net benefit compared to treating all, none and prediction-based treatment. The observed 15-year number needed to treat to prevent one event among women ≥65 years was 29 (95% CI 12 to 102). CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent evaluation of the absolute effects on cancer, CVD and major gastrointestinal bleeding showed that alternate-day use of low-dose aspirin is ineffective or harmful in the majority of women in primary prevention. Selective treatment of women ≥65 years withaspirin may improve net benefit. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00000479. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The value of aspirin in primary prevention of cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains unclear. The aim of this study was to identify women who benefit from alternate-day aspirin with regard to all relevant outcomes, including cancer, CVD and major gastrointestinal bleeding. METHODS: Long term follow-up data of 27 939 healthy women with baseline plasma samples in the Women's Health Study, a randomised trial of 100 mg alternate-day aspirin versus placebo, were used to develop competing risks models for individualised prediction of absolute risk reduction of the combination of CVD, cancer and major gastrointestinal bleeding by aspirin. RESULTS: Although aspirin was associated with a modestly decreased 15-year risk of colorectal cancer, CVD, and in some womennon-colorectal cancer, aspirin treatment resulted in a negative treatment effect in the majority of women if gastrointestinal bleeding was also taken into account. The excess risk of major gastrointestinal bleeding by aspirin increased with age, but the benefits for colorectal cancer and CVD risk were also greater at higher age. Decision curves indicated that selective treatment of women ≥65 years may improve net benefit compared to treating all, none and prediction-based treatment. The observed 15-year number needed to treat to prevent one event among women ≥65 years was 29 (95% CI 12 to 102). CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent evaluation of the absolute effects on cancer, CVD and major gastrointestinal bleeding showed that alternate-day use of low-dose aspirin is ineffective or harmful in the majority of women in primary prevention. Selective treatment of women ≥65 years with aspirin may improve net benefit. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00000479. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Authors: Johannes A N Dorresteijn; Frank L J Visseren; Paul M Ridker; Nina P Paynter; Annemarie M J Wassink; Julie E Buring; Yolanda van der Graaf; Nancy R Cook Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2011-11-16 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Paul M Ridker; Nancy R Cook; I-Min Lee; David Gordon; J Michael Gaziano; Joann E Manson; Charles H Hennekens; Julie E Buring Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-03-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Peter M Rothwell; F Gerald R Fowkes; Jill F F Belch; Hisao Ogawa; Charles P Warlow; Tom W Meade Journal: Lancet Date: 2010-12-06 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Johannes A N Dorresteijn; Frank L J Visseren; Paul M Ridker; Annemarie M J Wassink; Nina P Paynter; Ewout W Steyerberg; Yolanda van der Graaf; Nancy R Cook Journal: BMJ Date: 2011-10-03
Authors: Driss Ait Ouakrim; Seyedeh Ghazaleh Dashti; Rowena Chau; Daniel D Buchanan; Mark Clendenning; Christophe Rosty; Ingrid M Winship; Joanne P Young; Graham G Giles; Barbara Leggett; Finlay A Macrae; Dennis J Ahnen; Graham Casey; Steven Gallinger; Robert W Haile; Loïc Le Marchand; Stephen N Thibodeau; Noralane M Lindor; Polly A Newcomb; John D Potter; John A Baron; John L Hopper; Mark A Jenkins; Aung Ko Win Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2015-06-24 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Wen-Yi Huang; Sarah E Daugherty; Meredith S Shiels; Mark P Purdue; Neal D Freedman; Christian C Abnet; Albert R Hollenbeck; Richard B Hayes; Debra T Silverman; Sonja I Berndt Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 4.822