Search

Background: In patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, increasing age is concurrently associated with higher risks of ischemic and bleeding events. The objectives are to determine the impact of aspirin dose on clinical outcomes according to age in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease., Methods and Results: In the ADAPTABLE (Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-Centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-Term Effectiveness) trial, patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease were randomized to daily aspirin doses of 81 mg or 325 mg. The primary effectiveness end point was death from any cause, hospitalization for myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for stroke. The primary safety end point was hospitalization for bleeding requiring transfusion. A total of 15 076 participants were randomized to aspirin 81 mg (n=7540) or 325 mg (n=7536) daily (median follow-up: 26.2 months; interquartile range: 19.0-34.9 months). Median age was 67.6 years (interquartile range: 60.7-73.6 years). Among participants aged <65 years (n=5841 [38.7%]), a primary end point occurred in 226 (7.54%) in the 81 mg group, and in 191 (6.80%) in the 325 mg group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.23 [95% CI, 1.01-1.49]). Among participants aged ≥65 years (n=9235 [61.3%]), a primary end point occurred in 364 (7.12%) in the 81 mg group, and in 378 (7.96%) in the 325 mg group (adjusted HR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.82-1.10]). The age-dose interaction was not significant ( P =0.559). There was no significant interaction between age and the randomized aspirin dose for the secondary effectiveness and the primary safety bleeding end points ( P >0.05 for all)., Conclusions: Age does not modify the impact of aspirin dosing (81 mg or 325 mg daily) on clinical end points in secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

Importance: Clinicians recommend enteric-coated aspirin to decrease gastrointestinal bleeding in secondary prevention of coronary artery disease even though studies suggest platelet inhibition is decreased with enteric-coated vs uncoated aspirin formulations., Objective: To assess whether receipt of enteric-coated vs uncoated aspirin is associated with effectiveness or safety outcomes., Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a post hoc secondary analysis of ADAPTABLE (Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-Centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-term Effectiveness), a pragmatic study of 15 076 patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease having data in the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network. Patients were enrolled from April 19, 2016, through June 30, 2020, and randomly assigned to receive high (325 mg) vs low (81 mg) doses of daily aspirin. The present analysis assessed the effectiveness and safety of enteric-coated vs uncoated aspirin among those participants who reported aspirin formulation at baseline. Data were analyzed from November 11, 2019, to July 3, 2023., Intervention: ADAPTABLE participants were regrouped according to aspirin formulation self-reported at baseline, with a median (IQR) follow-up of 26.2 (19.8-35.4) months., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary effectiveness end point was the cumulative incidence of the composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from any cause, and the primary safety end point was major bleeding events (hospitalization for a bleeding event with use of a blood product or intracranial hemorrhage). Cumulative incidence at median follow-up for primary effectiveness and primary safety end points was compared between participants taking enteric-coated or uncoated aspirin using unadjusted and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. All analyses were conducted for the intention-to-treat population., Results: Baseline aspirin formulation used in ADAPTABLE was self-reported for 10 678 participants (median [IQR] age, 68.0 [61.3-73.7] years; 7285 men [68.2%]), of whom 7366 (69.0%) took enteric-coated aspirin and 3312 (31.0%) took uncoated aspirin. No significant difference in effectiveness (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 0.94; 95% CI, 0.80-1.09; P = .40) or safety (AHR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.49-1.37; P = .46) outcomes between the enteric-coated aspirin and uncoated aspirin cohorts was found. Within enteric-coated aspirin and uncoated aspirin, aspirin dose had no association with effectiveness (enteric-coated aspirin AHR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.88-1.45 and uncoated aspirin AHR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.83-1.18; interaction P = .41) or safety (enteric-coated aspirin AHR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.02-5.50 and uncoated aspirin AHR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.49-1.64; interaction P = .07)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this post hoc secondary analysis of the ADAPTABLE randomized clinical trial, enteric-coated aspirin was not associated with significantly higher risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death or with lower bleeding risk compared with uncoated aspirin, regardless of dose, although a reduction in bleeding with enteric-coated aspirin cannot be excluded. More research is needed to confirm whether enteric-coated aspirin formulations or newer formulations will improve outcomes in this population., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02697916.

Background The ADAPTABLE (Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-Centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-Term Effectiveness) was a large, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial that found no difference between high- versus low-dose aspirin for secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Whether concomitant P2Y12 inhibitor therapy modifies the effect of aspirin dose on clinical events remains unclear. Methods and Results Participants in ADAPTABLE were stratified according to baseline use of clopidogrel or prasugrel (P2Y12 group). The primary effectiveness end point was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; and the primary safety end point was major bleeding requiring blood transfusions. We used multivariable Cox regression to compare the relative effectiveness and safety of aspirin dose within P2Y12 and non-P2Y12 groups. Of 13 815 (91.6%) participants with available data, 3051 (22.1%) were receiving clopidogrel (2849 [93.4%]) or prasugrel (203 [6.7%]) at baseline. P2Y12 inhibitor use was associated with higher risk of the primary effectiveness end point (10.86% versus 6.31%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.40 [95% CI, 1.22-1.62]) but was not associated with bleeding (0.95% versus 0.53%; adjusted HR, 1.42 [95% CI, 0.91-2.22]). We found no interaction in the relative effectiveness and safety of high- versus low-dose aspirin by P2Y12 inhibitor use. Overall, dose switching or discontinuation was more common in the high-dose compared with low-dose aspirin group, but the pattern was not modified by P2Y12 inhibitor use. Conclusions In this prespecified analysis of ADAPTABLE, we found that the relative effectiveness and safety of high- versus low-dose aspirin was not modified by baseline P2Y12 inhibitor use. Registration https://www.clinical.trials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02697916.

Cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of death globally and contribute significantly to the cost of healthcare. Artificial intelligence (AI) is poised to reshape cardiology. Using supervised and unsupervised learning, the two main branches of AI, several applications have been developed in recent years to improve risk prediction, allow large-scale analysis of medical data, and phenotype patients for personalized medicine. In this review, we examine the key advances in AI in cardiology and its limitations regarding bias in the data, standardization in reporting, data access, and model trust and accountability in cases of error. Finally, we discuss implementation methods to unleash AI's potential in making healthcare more accurate and efficient. Several steps need to be followed and challenges overcome in order to successfully integrate AI in clinical practice and ensure its longevity., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

The use of the antiplatelet agent aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) was previously routinely recommended for the primary prevention of cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with diabetes, but recent large-scale randomized trials have failed to demonstrate a sizeable net clinical benefit with a once-daily, low-dose (81-100 mg) regimen in this population. Previous pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies have suggested that the aspirin formulation (enteric-coated) and dosing schedule (once daily) studied in randomized trials for primary prevention of CV events defining contemporary clinical practice may not leverage the full potential of the drug, particularly in patients with diabetes. Indeed, the diabetic platelets bear characteristics that increase their thrombotic potential and alter their pharmacologic response to the drug. Consequently, the appropriateness of studying a uniform aspirin regimen in landmark primary prevention trials needs to be revisited. In this review, we present the evidence showing that diabetes not only increases baseline platelet reactivity, but also alters platelet response to aspirin through different mechanisms including a faster platelet turnover rate. Obesity, which is frequently associated with diabetes, also impacts its pharmacokinetics via an increase in distribution volume. Small-scale pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies have suggested that the relative aspirin resistance phenotype observed in patients with diabetes may be reversed with a twice-daily dosing schedule, and with nonenteric-coated aspirin formulations. Properly powered randomized controlled trials investigating the efficacy and safety of aspirin dosing schedules and formulations tailored to the population of patients with diabetes are urgently required to optimize patient care., Competing Interests: M.L. has received speaker honoraria from Bayer; has received research grants to the institution from Idorsia; has served on a national advisory board for Servier; and has received in-kind and financial support for investigator-initiated grants from Leo Pharma, Roche Diagnostics, Aggredyne, and Fujimori Kogyo. G.M-.G. has received speaker honoraria from the Canadian Heart Research Center, the Population Health Research Institute, JAMP Pharma, and Novartis; has served on a national advisory board for Servier, JAMP, and Bayer; and has received research grants from Bayer, the Montreal Heart Institute Foundation, the Canadian Institute of Health Research, Université de Montréal, and the Duke Clinical Research Institute. J-.C.T. has received grant support from Amarin, AstraZeneca, Ceapro, DalCor Pharmaceuticals, Esperion, Ionis, Novartis, Pfizer, RegenXBio, and Sanofi; honoraria from AstraZeneca, DalCor Pharmaceuticals, HLS Pharmaceuticals, Pendopharm, and Sanofi; minor equity interest in DalCor Pharmaceuticals; and patents were submitted on pharmacogenomics-guided CETP inhibition and use of colchicine after myocardial infarction in which he is mentioned as an author. There are no other conflicts of interest to disclose., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Background: ADAPTABLE (Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-Term Effectiveness) is a pragmatic clinical trial examining high-dose versus low-dose aspirin among patients with cardiovascular disease. ADAPTABLE is leveraging novel approaches for clinical trial conduct to expedite study completion and reduce costs. One pivotal aspect of the trial conduct is maximizing clinician engagement., Methods/results: Clinician engagement can be diminished by barriers including time limitations, insufficient research infrastructure, lack of research training, inadequate compensation for research activities, and clinician beliefs. We used several key approaches to boost clinician engagement such as empowering clinician champions, including a variety of clinicians, nurses and advanced practice providers, periodic newsletters and coordinated team celebrations, and deploying novel technological solutions. Specifically, some centers generated electronic health records-based best practice advisories and research dashboards. Future large pragmatic trials will benefit from standardization of the various clinician engagement strategies especially studies leveraging electronic health records-based approaches like research dashboards. Financial or academic "credit" for clinician engagement in clinical research may boost participation rates in clinical studies., Conclusion: Maximizing clinician engagement is important for the success of clinical trials; the strategies employed in the ADAPTABLE trial may serve as a template for future pragmatic studies.

Background: The appropriate dose of aspirin to lower the risk of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke and to minimize major bleeding in patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is a subject of controversy., Methods: Using an open-label, pragmatic design, we randomly assigned patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease to a strategy of 81 mg or 325 mg of aspirin per day. The primary effectiveness outcome was a composite of death from any cause, hospitalization for myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for stroke, assessed in a time-to-event analysis. The primary safety outcome was hospitalization for major bleeding, also assessed in a time-to-event analysis., Results: A total of 15,076 patients were followed for a median of 26.2 months (interquartile range [IQR], 19.0 to 34.9). Before randomization, 13,537 (96.0% of those with available information on previous aspirin use) were already taking aspirin, and 85.3% of these patients were previously taking 81 mg of daily aspirin. Death, hospitalization for myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for stroke occurred in 590 patients (estimated percentage, 7.28%) in the 81-mg group and 569 patients (estimated percentage, 7.51%) in the 325-mg group (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.14). Hospitalization for major bleeding occurred in 53 patients (estimated percentage, 0.63%) in the 81-mg group and 44 patients (estimated percentage, 0.60%) in the 325-mg group (hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.77). Patients assigned to 325 mg had a higher incidence of dose switching than those assigned to 81 mg (41.6% vs. 7.1%) and fewer median days of exposure to the assigned dose (434 days [IQR, 139 to 737] vs. 650 days [IQR, 415 to 922])., Conclusions: In this pragmatic trial involving patients with established cardiovascular disease, there was substantial dose switching to 81 mg of daily aspirin and no significant differences in cardiovascular events or major bleeding between patients assigned to 81 mg and those assigned to 325 mg of aspirin daily. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; ADAPTABLE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02697916.)., (Copyright © 2021 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Aspirin is the cornerstone of the antithrombotic management of patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, but major guidelines provide conflicting recommendations for its use in primary prevention. Findings from recent randomized trials totaling >47 000 patients called into question the net clinical benefits of aspirin in primary prevention for 3 key populations: patients with diabetes mellitus, community-dwelling elderly individuals, and patients without diabetes mellitus who are at intermediate risk for atherosclerotic events. In the context of increasing emphasis on the use of other treatments for primary prevention in patients with moderate-high future risk of developing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, the efficacy and safety of aspirin for primary prevention has become uncertain. Key unresolved questions regarding the role of aspirin in primary prevention include the optimal drug formulation, dosing schedule, weight-based dose selection, and interplay between sex and treatment response. In the current era, most patients without established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease should not be prescribed aspirin. Rather, aggressive management of comorbidities tailored to the expected cardiovascular risk needs to be emphasized. In this context, informed shared decision making between clinicians and patients regarding the use of aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular events is a suitable and laudable approach. In this article, we revisit the role of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases by critically reviewing the key scientific literature, highlight key areas of uncertainties for future research, and propose a decisional framework for clinicians to support prescription of aspirin in primary prevention.