-
European Journal of Surgical Oncology :... Oct 2023Breast Cancer (BC) is the most common cancer amongst women. The chemo-preventative effects of aspirin on breast cancer have been demonstrated in several longitudinal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Breast Cancer (BC) is the most common cancer amongst women. The chemo-preventative effects of aspirin on breast cancer have been demonstrated in several longitudinal studies however previous meta-analysis have shown inconsistent results. This study aimed to assess the relationship between aspirin use and BC risk, and to determine if there is a dose-response relationship between aspirin and BC risk. Studies incorporating BC risk with aspirin use published within the last twenty years were included. The study report is based on the guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology. Twenty-eight cohort studies that reported BC incidence during a follow up of 4.4-32 years were included. Compared to non-users, aspirin users had a reduced risk of BC (HR = 0.91, c.i 0.81-0.97, p = 0.002). There was no obvious association between BC risk reduction and aspirin dose (HR = 0.94, c.i 0.85-1.04) or duration (HR = 0.86, c.i 0.71-1.03). Frequency, however, was associated with a reduced risk of BC (HR = 0.90, c.i 0.82-0.98). A risk reduction was observed in oestrogen receptor (ER) positive tumours (HR = 0.90, c.i 0.86-0.96, p = 0.0004) while no relationship was observed with ER negative tumours (HR = 0.94, c.i 0.85-1.05). This meta-analysis found an association between aspirin intake and BC risk reduction. A more favourable outcome was noted with ingestion of greater than 6 tablets of aspirin per week. Aspirin had a significant risk reduction in patients with ER positive tumours compared to ER negative BC.
Topics: Humans; Female; Aspirin; Breast Neoplasms; Risk; Cohort Studies; Incidence; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 37321932
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2023.05.015 -
Aspirin use and risk of breast cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers &... Nov 2015Previous studies concerning the association between aspirin use and breast cancer risk yielded inconsistent results. We aimed to investigate the association by... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Previous studies concerning the association between aspirin use and breast cancer risk yielded inconsistent results. We aimed to investigate the association by meta-analysis. PubMed and EMBASE were searched for relevant studies. We calculated the summary relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random-effects models. Seventeen cohort studies and 15 case-control studies were included. The overall result showed that aspirin use decreased risk of breast cancer (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.85-0.95). However, there was evidence of publication bias and heterogeneity and the association disappeared after correction using the trim-and-fill method. When stratified by study design, a significant benefit for aspirin users was only found in population-based and hospital-based case-control studies but not in cohort or nest case-control studies. Further subgroup analyses showed that aspirin use could decrease risk of in situ breast tumors or hormone receptor-positive tumors and reduce risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women. Aspirin use may not affect overall risk of breast cancer, but decrease risk of in situ breast tumors or hormone receptor-positive tumors and reduce risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women. Considering between-study significant heterogeneity and publication bias, confirmation in future studies is also essential.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Aspirin; Breast Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Observational Studies as Topic; Risk
PubMed: 26315555
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-15-0452 -
Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular... Mar 2021Cilostazol has promise as an alternative to aspirin for secondary stroke prevention given its vasodilatory and anti-inflammatory properties in addition to platelet... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Cilostazol has promise as an alternative to aspirin for secondary stroke prevention given its vasodilatory and anti-inflammatory properties in addition to platelet aggregation inhibition. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the efficacy and safety of cilostazol compared to aspirin for stroke prevention in patients with previous stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We searched PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1996 to 2019. Randomized clinical trials that compared cilostazol to aspirin and reported the endpoints of ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage and any bleeding were included. A random-effects estimate was computed based on the Mantel-Haenszel method. The pooled risk estimates with 95% confidence intervals were compared between cilostazol and aspirin.
RESULTS
The search identified 5 randomized clinical trials comparing cilostazol vs. aspirin for secondary stroke prevention that collectively enrolled 7240 patients, all from Asian countries (3615 received cilostazol and 3625 received aspirin). Pooled results from the random-effects model showed that cilostazol was associated with significantly lower risk of recurrent ischemic stroke (RR 0.68; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.87), intracranial hemorrhage (RR 0.42; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.65) and any bleeding (RR 0.71; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.91).
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis suggests that cilostazol is more effective than aspirin in preventing recurrent ischemic stroke with lower risk of intracranial hemorrhage and other bleeding. Since all trials to date are from Asian countries, confirmatory trials of cilostazol for secondary stroke prevention in other populations are needed.
Topics: Aged; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Aspirin; Cilostazol; Female; Humans; Intracranial Hemorrhages; Ischemic Stroke; Male; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Secondary Prevention; Treatment Outcome; Vasodilator Agents
PubMed: 33388632
DOI: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2020.105581 -
Journal of the American College of... Jun 2019The efficacy and safety of aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) remain debatable. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The efficacy and safety of aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) remain debatable.
OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this study was to examine the clinical outcomes with aspirin for primary prevention of CVD after the recent publication of large trials adding >45,000 individuals to the published data.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials comparing clinical outcomes with aspirin versus control for primary prevention with follow-up duration of ≥1 year were included. Efficacy outcomes included all-cause death, cardiovascular (CV) death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), and major adverse cardiovascular events. Safety outcomes included major bleeding, intracranial bleeding, fatal bleeding, and major gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Random effects DerSimonian-Laird risk ratios (RRs) for outcomes were calculated.
RESULTS
A total of 15 randomized controlled trials including 165,502 participants (aspirin n = 83,529, control n = 81,973) were available for analysis. Compared with control, aspirin was associated with similar all-cause death (RR: 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.93 to 1.01), CV death (RR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.00), and non-CV death (RR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.92 to 1.05), but a lower risk of nonfatal MI (RR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.72 to 0.94), TIA (RR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.71 to 0.89), and ischemic stroke (RR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.79 to 0.95). Aspirin was associated with a higher risk of major bleeding (RR: 1.5; 95% CI: 1.33 to 1.69), intracranial bleeding (RR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.12 to 1.55), and major GI bleeding (RR: 1.52; 95% CI: 1.34 to 1.73), with similar rates of fatal bleeding (RR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.78 to 1.55) compared with the control subjects. Total cancer and cancer-related deaths were similar in both groups within the follow-up period of the study.
CONCLUSIONS
Aspirin for primary prevention reduces nonfatal ischemic events but significantly increases nonfatal bleeding events.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Aspirin; Cardiovascular Diseases; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Humans; Primary Prevention; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31196447
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.03.501 -
Expert Review of Gastroenterology &... Oct 2022Current guidelines recommend aspirin maintenance for high-risk endoscopic procedures. Some Asian physicians noticed increasing postoperative bleeding in patients taking... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
Current guidelines recommend aspirin maintenance for high-risk endoscopic procedures. Some Asian physicians noticed increasing postoperative bleeding in patients taking aspirin. We aimed to explore whether risk of postoperative hemorrhage due to aspirin differs in the East and the West.
METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane library database were systematically reviewed. We only included trials that met our criteria.
RESULTS
There is significant association between aspirin and postoperative bleeding (P < 0.001), especially in Eastern population (data from Japan, Korea, Turkey and China, P < 0.001). Result from the West (data from America, Canada and Australia) had no statistical significance (P = 0.07). For Easterners, aspirin increased bleeding risk after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST). For Westerners, aspirin increased bleeding risk post endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). For patients undergoing ESD, those who continued to receive aspirin had higher bleeding risk than patients who interrupted it for more than 7 days (P = 0.005).
CONCLUSION
Aspirin increases risk of postoperative hemorrhage. Easterners are more likely to suffer from bleeding after aspirin administration than Westerners. Stopping aspirin for more than 7 days may be advisable to control bleeding post ESD for patients with low risk of thrombosis.
Topics: Humans; Aspirin; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Retrospective Studies; Postoperative Hemorrhage; Endoscopic Mucosal Resection; Stomach Neoplasms; Gastric Mucosa
PubMed: 36245097
DOI: 10.1080/17474124.2022.2137489 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2020Aspirin and heparin are widely used as preventive strategy to reduce the high risk of recurrent pregnancy loss in women with antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Aspirin and heparin are widely used as preventive strategy to reduce the high risk of recurrent pregnancy loss in women with antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). This review supersedes a previous, out-of-date review that evaluated all potential therapies for preventing recurrent pregnancy loss in women with aPL. The current review focusses on a narrower scope because current clinical practice is restricted to using aspirin or heparins, or both for women with aPL in an attempt to reduce pregnancy complications.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of aspirin or heparin, or both for improving pregnancy outcomes in women with persistent (on two separate occasions) aPL, either lupus anticoagulant (LAC), anticardiolipin (aCL) or aβ-glycoprotein-I antibodies (aβGPI) or a combination, and recurrent pregnancy loss (two or more, which do not have to be consecutive).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (3 June 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies. Where necessary, we attempted to contact trial authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised, cluster-randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that assess the effects of aspirin, heparin (either low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) or unfractionated heparin (UFH]), or a combination of aspirin and heparin compared with no treatment, placebo or another, on pregnancy outcomes in women with persistent aPL and recurrent pregnancy loss were eligible. All treatment regimens were considered.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion criteria and risk of bias. Two review authors independently extracted data and checked them for accuracy and the certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
Eleven studies (1672 women) met the inclusion criteria; nine randomised controlled trials and two quasi-RCTs. The studies were conducted in the USA, Canada, UK, China, New Zealand, Iraq and Egypt. One included trial involved 1015 women, all other included trials had considerably lower numbers of participants (i.e. 141 women or fewer). Some studies had high risk of selection and attrition bias, and many did not include sufficient information to judge the risk of reporting bias. Overall, the certainty of evidence is low to very low due to the small numbers of women in the studies and to the risk of bias. The dose and type of heparin and aspirin varied among studies. One study compared aspirin alone with placebo; no studies compared heparin alone with placebo and there were no trials that had a no treatment comparator arm during pregnancy; five studies explored the efficacy of heparin (either UFH or LMWH) combined with aspirin compared with aspirin alone; one trial compared LMWH with aspirin; two trials compared the combination of LMWH plus aspirin with the combination of UFH plus aspirin; two studies evaluated the combination of different doses of heparin combined with aspirin. All trials used aspirin at a low dose. Aspirin versus placebo We are very uncertain if aspirin has any effect on live birth compared to placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 1.25, 1 trial, 40 women, very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain if aspirin has any effect on the risk of pre-eclampsia, pregnancy loss, preterm delivery of a live infant, intrauterine growth restriction or adverse events in the child, compared to placebo. We are very uncertain if aspirin has any effect on adverse events (bleeding) in the mother compared with placebo (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.77, 1 study, 40 women). The certainty of evidence for these outcomes is very low because of imprecision, due to the low numbers of women involved and the wide 95% CIs, and also because of risk of bias. Venous thromboembolism and arterial thromboembolism were not reported in the included studies. Heparin plus aspirin versus aspirin alone Heparin plus aspirin may increase the number of live births (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.49, 5 studies, 1295 women, low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if heparin plus aspirin has any effect on the risk of pre-eclampsia, preterm delivery of a live infant, or intrauterine growth restriction, compared with aspirin alone because of risk of bias and imprecision due to the low numbers of women involved and the wide 95% CIs. We are very uncertain if heparin plus aspirin has any effect on adverse events (bleeding) in the mother compared with aspirin alone (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.19 to 14.03, 1 study, 31 women). No women in either the heparin plus aspirin group or the aspirin alone group had heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, allergic reactions, or venous or arterial thromboembolism. Similarly, no infants had congenital malformations. Heparin plus aspirin may reduce the risk of pregnancy loss (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.71, 5 studies, 1295 women, low-certainty evidence). When comparing LMWH plus aspirin versus aspirin alone the pooled RR for live birth was 1.20 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.38, 3 trials, 1155 women). In the comparison of UFH plus aspirin versus aspirin alone, the RR for live birth was 1.74 (95% CI 1.28 to 2.35, 2 trials, 140 women).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The combination of heparin (UFH or LMWH) plus aspirin during the course of pregnancy may increase live birth rate in women with persistent aPL when compared with aspirin treatment alone. The observed beneficial effect of heparin was driven by one large study in which LMWH plus aspirin was compared with aspirin alone. Adverse events were frequently not, or not uniformly, reported in the included studies. More research is needed in this area in order to further evaluate potential risks and benefits of this treatment strategy, especially among women with aPL and recurrent pregnancy loss, to gain consensus on the ideal prevention for recurrent pregnancy loss, based on a risk profile.
Topics: Abortion, Habitual; Antibodies, Anticardiolipin; Antibodies, Antiphospholipid; Anticoagulants; Aspirin; Bias; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Heparin; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight; Humans; Live Birth; Lupus Coagulation Inhibitor; Placebos; Pre-Eclampsia; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications, Hematologic; Pregnancy Outcome; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; beta 2-Glycoprotein I
PubMed: 32358837
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012852.pub2 -
Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery Oct 2021Aspirin has been suggested as a potential therapeutic strategy to prevent the growth and rupture of unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIAs), but there is still... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Aspirin has been suggested as a potential therapeutic strategy to prevent the growth and rupture of unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIAs), but there is still controversy. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to determine the association between aspirin use and growth, rupture of UIAs.
METHODS
We performed a systematic literature search of electronic databases to identify cohort and case-control studies investigating the relationship between aspirin use and growth or rupture of UIAs. Pooled odds ratio (OR) with corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a random effects model. Heterogeneity among studies was quantified using the I statistic, and potential publication bias was assessed using funnel plots. Sensitivity analysis was performed to verify the robustness of the intention-to-treat results. Subgroup analysis was conducted according to the frequency of aspirin use.
RESULTS
We identified 8 studies comprising 10,518 participants. The risk of bias was low to moderate. The pooled estimate showed that aspirin use was associated with a lower likelihood of growth of UIAs (OR = 0.25, 95% CI = 0.11-0.55; p = 0.0005) without statistical heterogeneity (p for Cochran Q statistic = 0.62, I = 0%). Likewise, aspirin intake also significant decreased 58% risk of intracranial aneurysms rupture (OR = 0.42, 95% CI = 0.29-0.60; p < 0.00001) with moderate heterogeneity (p for Cochran Q statistic = 0.005, I = 66%). Similar results were observed in the sensitivity analysis. Pooled OR of aspirin frequency subgroup analysis for less than or equal to 2 times per week was 0.82 (95%CI = 0.40-1.72; I = 0%), for at least 3 times per week to daily was 0.25 (95%CI = 0.12-053; I = 0%), for daily was 0.59 (95%CI: 0.47-0.74; I = 0%), and for unknown was 0.26 (95%CI: 0.15-0.45; I = 51%).
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis indicates a beneficial effect of aspirin on growth and rupture of UIAs.
Topics: Aneurysm, Ruptured; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Aspirin; Humans; Intracranial Aneurysm; Risk Factors
PubMed: 34562772
DOI: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2021.106949 -
Otolaryngology--head and Neck Surgery :... Jul 2023Previous studies have suggested that patients with aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease (AERD) have a high likelihood of alcohol intolerance. The purpose of this... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Previous studies have suggested that patients with aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease (AERD) have a high likelihood of alcohol intolerance. The purpose of this systematic review is to identify if there is sufficient evidence to confirm this correlation and the impact of medical therapy on subsequent alcohol tolerance.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, EBSCO, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, and Grey literature. We also performed snowballing on the identified observational studies (OS) for additional data.
REVIEW METHODS
A systematic review was conducted from 1968 to 2022 to identify those studies describing AERD symptomatology triggered by alcohol intake. The primary outcome was to analyze the current literature for the association between alcohol intolerance and AERD symptoms. The secondary outcome looked for improvement in alcohol tolerance after aspirin desensitization or biological therapy.
RESULTS
A total of 775 studies were identified and 40 abstracts were evaluated. From these, 5 studies met the inclusion criteria. Of the 5 manuscripts, there was 1 case-control, 2 cohort, and 2 cross-sectional studies. A total of 522 participants with AERD and a history of alcohol consumption were included, with 52.8% reporting at least 1 sinopulmonary exacerbation after alcohol intake. One of 3 studies noted improvement in alcohol tolerance after medical therapy with aspirin desensitization.
CONCLUSION
The current literature suggests that patients with AERD have a high risk of alcohol intolerance. Additionally, aspirin desensitization may improve alcohol tolerance in this patient population.
Topics: Humans; Aspirin; Cross-Sectional Studies; Asthma, Aspirin-Induced; Sinusitis; Desensitization, Immunologic; Nasal Polyps
PubMed: 36939486
DOI: 10.1002/ohn.248 -
The Spine Journal : Official Journal of... Dec 2017Aspirin is typically discontinued in spinal surgery because of increased risk of hemorrhagic complications. The risk of perioperative continuation of aspirin in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND CONTEXT
Aspirin is typically discontinued in spinal surgery because of increased risk of hemorrhagic complications. The risk of perioperative continuation of aspirin in neurosurgery needed to be evaluated.
PURPOSE
This study aimed to evaluate all available evidence about continuation of aspirin and to compare peri- and postoperative blood loss and complication rates between patients that continued aspirin and those who discontinued aspirin perioperatively in spinal surgery.
STUDY SETTING
Systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out.
METHOD
A meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies comparing aspirin continuation with discontinuation were included. Studies using a combination of anticlotting agents or non-spinal procedures were excluded. Operative outcomes (blood loss and operative length) and different complications (surgical site infection [SSI]), stroke, myocardial infarction within 30 days postoperatively) were extracted. Overall prevalence and means were calculated for the reported outcomes in fixed-effects models with heterogeneity (I-squared [I]) and effect modification (P-interaction) assessment.
RESULTS
Out of 1,339 studies, three case series were included in the meta-analysis. No significant differences in mean operating time were seen between the aspirin-continuing group (mean=201.8 minutes, 95% confidence interval [CI]=193.3; 210.3; I=95.4%; 170 patients) and the aspirin-discontinuing group (mean=178.4 minutes, 95% CI=119.1; 237.6; I=93.5%; 200 patients); (P-interaction=0.78). No significant differences in mean perioperative blood loss were seen between the aspirin-continuing group (mean=553.9 milliliters, 95% CI=468.0; 639.9; I=83.4%; 170 patients) and the aspirin-discontinuing group (mean=538.7 milliliters, 95% CI=427.6; 649.8; I=985.5%; 200 patients); (P-interaction=0.96). Similar non-significant differences between the two groups were found for cardiac events, stroke, and surgical site infections.
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis showed an absence of significant differences in perioperative complications between aspirin continuation and discontinuation. Because of the paucity of included studies, further well-designed prospective trials are imperative to demonstrate potential benefit and safety.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Aspirin; Humans; Neurosurgical Procedures; Postoperative Hemorrhage; Risk; Spinal Diseases
PubMed: 28823937
DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2017.08.238 -
BMJ Open Feb 2020This review provides insights into the potential for aspirin to preserve bone mineral density (BMD) and reduce fracture risk, building knowledge of the risk-benefit... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
This review provides insights into the potential for aspirin to preserve bone mineral density (BMD) and reduce fracture risk, building knowledge of the risk-benefit profile of aspirin.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and exploratory meta-analysis of observational studies. Electronic searches of MEDLINE and Embase, and a manual search of bibliographies was undertaken for studies published to 28 March 2018. Studies were included if: participants were men or women aged ≥18 years; the exposure of interest was aspirin; and relative risks, ORs and 95% CIs for the risk of fracture or difference (percentage or absolute) in BMD (measured by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry) between aspirin users and non-users were presented. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklists for observational studies. Pooled ORs for any fracture and standardised mean differences (SMDs) for BMD outcomes were calculated using random-effects models.
RESULTS
Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Aspirin use was associated with a 17% lower odds for any fracture (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.99; I=71%; six studies; n=511 390). Aspirin was associated with a higher total hip BMD for women (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.07; I=0%; three studies; n=9686) and men (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.13, I=0%; two studies; n=4137) although these associations were not significant. Similar results were observed for lumbar spine BMD in women (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.09; I=34%; four studies; n=11 330) and men (SMD 0.08; 95% CI -0.01 to 0.18; one study; n=432).
CONCLUSIONS
While the benefits of reduced fracture risk and higher BMD from aspirin use may be modest for individuals, if confirmed in prospective controlled trials, they may confer a large population benefit given the common use of aspirin in older people.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Aspirin; Bone Density; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Fractures, Bone; Humans; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 32086348
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026876