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.

Objective: Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and concomitant atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) must be on the most effective dose of aspirin to mitigate risk of future adverse cardiovascular events., Research Design and Methods: ADAPTABLE, an open-label, pragmatic study, randomized patients with stable, chronic ASCVD to 81 mg or 325 mg of daily aspirin. The effects of aspirin dosing was assessed on the primary effectiveness outcome, a composite of all-cause death, hospitalization for myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for stroke, and the primary safety outcome of hospitalization for major bleeding. In this prespecified analysis, we used Cox proportional hazards models to compare aspirin dosing in patients with and without DM for the primary effectiveness and safety outcome., Results: Of 15,076 patients, 5,676 (39%) had DM of whom 2,820 (49.7%) were assigned to 81 mg aspirin and 2,856 (50.3%) to 325 mg aspirin. Patients with versus without DM had higher rates of the composite cardiovascular outcome (9.6% vs. 5.9%; P < 0.001) and bleeding events (0.78% vs. 0.50%; P < 0.001). When comparing 81 mg vs. 325 mg of aspirin, patients with DM had no difference in the primary effectiveness outcome (9.3% vs. 10.0%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.98 [95% CI 0.83-1.16]; P = 0.265) or safety outcome (0.87% vs. 0.69%; subdistribution HR 1.25 [95% CI 0.72-2.16]; P = 0.772)., Conclusions: This study confirms the inherently higher risk of patients with DM irrespective of aspirin dosing. Our findings suggest that a higher dose of aspirin yields no added clinical benefit, even in a more vulnerable population., (© 2023 by the American Diabetes Association.)

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: Among patients with established cardiovascular disease, the ADAPTABLE trial found no significant differences in cardiovascular events and bleeding rates between 81 mg and 325 mg of aspirin (ASA) daily. In this secondary analysis from the ADAPTABLE trial, we studied the effectiveness and safety of ASA dosing in patients with a history of chronic kidney disease (CKD)., Methods: ADAPTABLE participants were stratified based on the presence or absence of CKD, defined using ICD-9/10-CM codes. Within the CKD group, we compared outcomes between patients taking ASA 81 mg and 325 mg. The primary effectiveness outcome was defined as a composite of all cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke and the primary safety outcome was hospitalization for major bleeding. Adjusted Cox proportional hazard models were utilized to report differences between the groups., Results: After excluding 414 (2.7%) patients due to missing medical history, a total of 14,662 patients were included from the ADAPTABLE cohort, of whom 2,648 (18%) patients had CKD. Patients with CKD were older (median age 69.4 vs 67.1 years; P < .0001) and less likely to be white (71.5% vs 81.7%; P < .0001) when compared to those without CKD. At a median follow-up of 26.2 months, CKD was associated with an increased risk of both the primary effectiveness outcome (adjusted HR 1.79 [1.57, 2.05] P < .001 and the primary safety outcome (adjusted HR 4.64 (2.98, 7.21), P < .001 and P < .05, respectively) regardless of ASA dose. There was no significant difference in effectiveness (adjusted HR 1.01 95% CI 0.82, 1.23; P = .95) or safety (adjusted HR 0.93; 95% CI 0.52, 1.64; P = .79) between ASA groups., Conclusions: Patients with CKD were more likely than those without CKD to have adverse cardiovascular events or death and were also more likely to have major bleeding requiring hospitalization. However, there was no association between ASA dose and study outcomes among these patients with CKD., Competing Interests: Disclosures The authors have no competing interests to declare regarding the current publication. The authors are solely responsible for the design and conduct of this study; all study analyses, the drafting and editing of the paper and its final contents., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

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.)

Objective: Increasingly, epidemiologic studies use administrative data to identify atrial fibrillation (AF). Capture of incident AF is not well documented. We examined incidence rates and concordance of AF diagnosis based on active cohort follow-up versus surveillance of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study. Methods: Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities cohort participants without prevalent AF enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare, with inpatient and outpatient coverage, for at least 12 continuous months between 1991 and 2009 were included. In active Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study follow-up, annual telephone calls captured hospitalizations and deaths with incident AF diagnosis codes. For Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data, incident AF was defined by billed inpatient and outpatient diagnoses. Results: Of 10,134 eligible cohort participants, 738 developed AF according to both Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data; an additional 93 and 288 incident cases were identified using only Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data, respectively. Incidence rates per 1,000 person-years were 10.8 (95% confidence interval: 10.1–11.6) and 13.6 (95% confidence interval: 12.8–14.4) in Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, respectively; agreement was 96%; kappa was 0.77 (95% confidence interval: 0.75–0.80). Earlier AF ascertainment by one system versus the other was not associated with any cardiovascular disease risk factors, after accounting for sociodemographic factors. Additional Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services events did not alter observed associations between risk factors and AF. Conclusion: Among fee-for-service enrollees, AF incidence rates were slightly lower for active cohort follow-up than for Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services surveillance, because the latter included outpatient atrial fibrillation. Concordance was high and combining the two approaches could provide a more complete picture of newly-diagnosed AF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The ADAPTABLE trial (Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-Centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-Term Effectiveness) is the first randomized trial conducted within the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network to use the electronic health record data formatted into a common data model as the primary source of end point ascertainment, without confirmation by standard adjudication. The objective of this prespecified study is to assess the validity of nonfatal end points captured from the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network, using traditional blinded adjudication as the gold standard.Methods: A total of 15 076 participants with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease were randomized to two doses of aspirin (81 mg and 325 mg once daily). Nonfatal end points (hospitalization for nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and major bleeding requiring transfusion of blood products) were captured with the use of programming algorithms applied to National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network data. A random subset of end points was independently reviewed by a disease-specific expert adjudicator. The positive predictive value of the programming algorithms were calculated separately for end points listed as primary and as nonprimary diagnoses.Results: A total of 225 end points were identified (91 myocardial infarction events, 89 stroke events, and 45 bleeding events), including 142 (63%) that were listed as primary diagnoses. Complete source documents were missing for 14% of events. The positive predictive value were 90%, 72%, and 93% for hospitalizations for myocardial infarction, stroke, and major bleeding, respectively, as compared to adjudication. When only primary diagnoses were considered, positive predictive value were 93%, 91%, and 97%, respectively. When only nonprimary diagnoses were considered, positive predictive value were 82%, 36%, and 71%.Conclusions: As compared with blinded adjudication, clinical end point ascertainment from queries of the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network distributed harmonized data was valid to identify hospitalizations for myocardial infarction in ADAPTABLE. The proportion of contradicted events was high for hospitalizations for bleeding and strokes when nonprimary diagnoses were analyzed, but not when only primary diagnoses were considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cardiovascular disease, including aortic root dilation, dissection, and rupture, is the leading cause of mortality in patients with Marfan syndrome (MFS). The maximal aortic root diameter at the sinuses of Valsalva is considered the best predictor of adverse cardiovascular outcome. Although advances in therapy have improved life expectancy, affected individuals continue to suffer cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Recent studies in an FBN1-targeted mouse model of MFS with aortic disease similar to that seen in humans showed that treatment with losartan normalized aortic root growth and aortic wall architecture.Methods: The Pediatric Heart Network designed a randomized clinical trial to compare aortic root growth and other short-term cardiovascular outcomes in subjects with MFS receiving atenolol or losartan. Individuals 6 months to 25 years of age with a body surface area-adjusted aortic root z score >3.0 will be eligible for inclusion. The primary aim is to compare the effect of atenolol therapy with that of losartan therapy on the rate of aortic root growth over 3 years. Secondary end points include progression of aortic regurgitation; incidence of aortic dissection, aortic root surgery, and death; progression of mitral regurgitation; left ventricular size and function; echocardiographically derived measures of central aortic stiffness; skeletal and somatic growth; and incidence of adverse drug reactions.Conclusion: This randomized trial should make a substantial contribution to the management of individuals with MFS and expand our understanding of the mechanisms responsible for the aortic manifestations of this disorder. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]