-
Journal of Clinical Medicine Feb 2024: Aspirin at 150 mg daily, initiated in the 1st trimester of pregnancy, prevents preterm pre-eclampsia. We aimed to estimate whether a dose of 75 to 81 mg daily can help... (Review)
Review
: Aspirin at 150 mg daily, initiated in the 1st trimester of pregnancy, prevents preterm pre-eclampsia. We aimed to estimate whether a dose of 75 to 81 mg daily can help to prevent preterm pre-eclampsia as well. : A systematic search was conducted using multiple databases and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared aspirin initiated in the first trimester of pregnancy to placebo or no treatment, following the PRISMA guidelines and the Cochrane risk of bias tool. : We retrieved 11 RCTs involving 13,981 participants. Five RCTs had a low risk of bias, one at unclear risk, and fiver had a high risk of bias. A pooled analysis demonstrated that doses of 75 to 81 mg of aspirin, compared to a placebo or no treatment, was not associated with a significant reduction in preterm pre-eclampsia (8 studies; 12,391 participants; relative risk, 0.66; 95% confidence interval: 0.27 to 1.62; = 0.36), but there was a significant heterogeneity across the studies (I = 61%, = 0.02). : It cannot be concluded that taking 75 to 81 mg of aspirin daily reduces the risk of preterm pre-eclampsia. However, given the significant heterogeneity between the studies, the true effect that such a dose of aspirin would have on pregnancy outcomes could not be properly estimated.
PubMed: 38398335
DOI: 10.3390/jcm13041022 -
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics May 2024To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy of low-dose aspirin (LDA, ≤ 160 mg/day) on... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy of low-dose aspirin (LDA, ≤ 160 mg/day) on preventing preterm birth (PB).
METHODS
Five databases were screened from inception until June 25, 2023. The RCTs were assessed for quality according to Cochrane's risk of bias tool. The endpoints were summarized as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS
Overall, 40 RCTs were analyzed. LDA significantly decreased the risk of PB < 37 weeks (RR: 0.91, 95% CI 0.87, 0.96, p < 0.001, moderate certainty of evidence) with low between-study heterogeneity (I = 23.2%, p = 0.11), and PB < 34 weeks (RR: 0.78, 95% CI 0.61, 0.99, p = 0.04, low certainty of evidence) with high between-study heterogeneity (I = 58.3%, p = 0.01). There were no significant differences between both groups regarding the risk of spontaneous (RR: 0.94, 95% CI 0.83, 1.07, p = 0.37) and medically indicated (RR: 1.28, 95% CI 0.87, 1.88, p = 0.21) BP < 37 weeks. Sensitivity analysis revealed robustness for all outcomes, except for the risk of PB < 34 weeks. For PB < 37 weeks and PB < 34 weeks, publication bias was detected based on visual inspection of funnel plots for asymmetry and statistical significance for Egger's test (p = 0.009 and p = 0.0012, respectively).
CONCLUSION
LDA can significantly reduce the risk of PB < 37 and < 34 weeks. Nevertheless, further high-quality RCTs conducted in diverse populations, while accounting for potential confounding factors, are imperative to elucidate the optimal aspirin dosage, timing of initiation, and treatment duration for preventing preterm birth and to arrive at definitive conclusions.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Female; Humans; Premature Birth; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Aspirin
PubMed: 38372754
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-024-07373-w -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Apr 2024The aim of this study was to systematically review whether concurrent treatment with an SSRI and low-dose ASA increases the risk of bleeding compared with treatment with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Bleeding in patients on concurrent treatment with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) and low-dose acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) compared with SSRI or low-dose ASA alone-A systematic review and meta-analysis.
AIMS
The aim of this study was to systematically review whether concurrent treatment with an SSRI and low-dose ASA increases the risk of bleeding compared with treatment with an SSRI alone or ASA alone.
METHODS
Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO and Web of Science (from database inception to January 2023) were searched according to PICO: P = patients on treatment with an SSRI and/or low-dose ASA; I = intervention: SSRI + ASA; C = comparison: ASA or SSRI alone; O = outcomes: bleeding/major bleeding. The included articles were assessed using checklists. Studies without major risk of bias formed the basis for the conclusions. Extracted data were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses. Certainty of evidence was assessed according to GRADE.
RESULTS
Twenty-four studies met the PICO and were included. One randomized and six nonrandomized studies were assessed not to have major risk of bias. Regarding SSRI + ASA vs. ASA only, the pooled hazard ratio of three nonrandomized studies (n = 38 467) was 1.37 (95% confidence interval: 1.10; 1.70; I = 0%), and the pooled odds ratio of two nonrandomized studies (n = 28 296) was 0.95 (0.77; 1.19; I = 0%). Regarding SSRI + ASA vs. SSRI only, the randomized controlled trial (n = 1048) reported a hazard ratio of 1.82 (0.66; 5.02), the hazard ratio being 1.60 (1.24; 2.06) for ASA vs. placebo in patients without SSRI treatment; and one nonrandomized controlled study (n = 18 920) reported an incidence rate ratio of 1.03 (0.96; 1.12).
CONCLUSIONS
The compiled evidence was too uncertain to support an interaction when an SSRI is added to low-dose ASA. Low-dose ASA added to an SSRI may imply an increased risk of bleeding primarily attributable to the initiation of ASA.
Topics: Humans; Aspirin; Drug Therapy, Combination; Hemorrhage; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors
PubMed: 38351575
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.16000 -
Revista Espanola de Cirugia Ortopedica... Feb 2024The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of aspirin versus low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) for the prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE), deep vein... (Review)
Review
[Translated article] Risk of venous thromboembolism in thromboprophylaxis between aspirin and low molecular weight heparins after total hip arthroplasty or total knee arthroplasty: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
INTRODUCTION
The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of aspirin versus low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) for the prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE), deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and/or total hip arthroplasty (THA).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Systematic review and meta-analysis. Sixteen studies were selected. The risk of VTE, DVT and PE were analysed. Mortality, risk of bleeding and surgical wound complications was also analysed.
RESULTS
248,461 patients were included. 176,406 patients with thromboprophylaxis with LMWH and 72,055 patients with aspirin thromboprophylaxis. There were no significant differences in the risk of VTE (OR=0.93; 95% CI: 0.69-1.26; p=0.64), DVT (OR=0.72; 95% CI: 0.43-1.20; p=0.21) or PE (OR=1.13; 95% CI: 0.86-1.49; p=0.38) between both groups. No significant differences were found in mortality (p=0.30), bleeding (p=0.22), or complications in the surgical wound (p=0.85) between both groups. These same findings were found in the sub-analysis of only randomised clinical trials (p>0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
No increased risk of PE, DVT, or VTE was found among patients with aspirin thromboprophylaxis versus patients with LMWH thromboprophylaxis. There was also no greater mortality, greater bleeding, or greater complications in the surgical wound found among patients with aspirin thromboprophylaxis versus patients with LMWH thromboprophylaxis.
PubMed: 38325570
DOI: 10.1016/j.recot.2024.01.024 -
Effect of aspirin on blood pressure in hypertensive patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC Cardiovascular Disorders Feb 2024Aspirin is widely used for secondary prevention in patients with hypertension. However, previous studies mainly focused on the preventive effects of aspirin, and there... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Aspirin is widely used for secondary prevention in patients with hypertension. However, previous studies mainly focused on the preventive effects of aspirin, and there has been a lack of reliable evidence on whether taking aspirin affects blood pressure This study aimed to investigate whether aspirin would affect the blood pressure in patients with hypertension.
METHODS
PubMed, Cochrane database, Embase, Scopus and Medline databases were searched until September 2023. For continuous variables (e.g., blood pressure reduction), the mean difference (MD) was selected as the effect magnitude indices. We used the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool to assess the risk of bias.
RESULT
A total of five studies were included, comprising 20,312 patients. We found that aspirin did not affect SBP (MD = -0.78, 95% CI: - 2.41, 0.84). A similar result was found for DBP (MD = -0.86, 95% CI: - 2.14, 0.42).
CONCLUSION
This study showed no significant difference in blood pressure between the aspirin and control groups, suggesting that aspirin does not affect blood pressure.
Topics: Humans; Blood Pressure; Hypertension; Hypotension; Aspirin
PubMed: 38321368
DOI: 10.1186/s12872-024-03737-x -
American Journal of Cardiovascular... Mar 2024Chronic kidney disease is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular diseases (CVD). This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of aspirin... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIM
Chronic kidney disease is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular diseases (CVD). This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of aspirin administered for primary prevention of CVD in patients with chronic kidney disease.
METHODS
PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CENTRAL and Clinicaltrials.gov were systematically searched from inception to 22 June 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies evaluating aspirin as primary prevention of CVD in chronic kidney disease were included. Meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects models.
RESULTS
Overall, 11 studies (6 RCTs and 5 cohort studies) with 24,352 patients were included. The meta-analysis of RCTs indicated that aspirin was associated with lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular events [hazard ratio (HR): 0.79; 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.64-0.97] and higher risk of major bleeding [risk ratio (RR): 1.35; 95% CI 1.15-1.58]. Incorporating observational evidence led to statistically non-significant findings in terms of risk of both cardiovascular events (pooled HR: 0.97; 95% CI 0.75-1.25; low certainty) and major bleeding (pooled RR: 1.21; 95% CI 0.99-1.48; moderate certainty). No statistically significant differences between aspirin and placebo were observed in the outcomes of mortality, coronary heart disease, stroke and renal events.
CONCLUSIONS
RCT evidence points to a possible benefit in cardiovascular event reduction from aspirin administration, at the cost of increased major bleeding risk. This finding was not confirmed when the existing observational evidence was incorporated. Further research should determine the most appropriate subpopulation of chronic kidney disease patients that would benefit the most from prophylactic aspirin therapy.
REGISTRATION
The study protocol has been prospectively registered and is publicly available from: https://doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.261ged63jv47/v1 .
Topics: Humans; Cardiovascular Diseases; Aspirin; Hemorrhage; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic; Primary Prevention
PubMed: 38296933
DOI: 10.1007/s40256-024-00630-y -
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases Jan 2024The aetiology of gastroschisis is considered multifactorial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess whether the use of medications during... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
The aetiology of gastroschisis is considered multifactorial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess whether the use of medications during pregnancy, is associated with the risk of gastroschisis in offspring.
METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus were searched from 1st January 1990 to 31st December 2020 to identify observational studies examining the association between medication use during pregnancy and the risk of gastroschisis. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used for the quality assessment of the individual studies. We pooled adjusted measures using a random-effect model to estimate relative risk [RR] and the 95% confidence interval [CI]. I statistic for heterogeneity and publication bias was calculated.
RESULTS
Eighteen studies providing data on 751,954 pregnancies were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled RRs showed significant associations between aspirin (RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.16-2.38; I = 58.3%), oral contraceptives (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.21-1.92; I = 22.0%), pseudoephedrine and phenylpropanolamine (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.16-1.97; I = 33.2%), ibuprofen (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.26-1.60; I = 0.0%), and gastroschisis. No association was observed between paracetamol and gastroschisis (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.96-1.41; I = 39.4%).
CONCLUSIONS
These results suggest that the exposure in the first trimester of pregnancy to over the counter medications (OTC) such as aspirin, ibuprofen, pseudoephedrine and phenylpropanolamine as well as to oral contraceptives, was associated with an increased risk of gastroschisis. However, these associations are significant only in particular subgroups defined by geographic location, adjustment variables and type of control. Therefore, further research is needed to investigate them as potential risk factors for gastroschisis, to assess their safety in pregnancy and to develop treatment strategies to reduce the risk of gastroschisis in offspring. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021287529.
Topics: Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Aspirin; Contraceptives, Oral; Gastroschisis; Ibuprofen; Phenylpropanolamine; Pseudoephedrine; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 38287353
DOI: 10.1186/s13023-023-02992-z -
Research and Practice in Thrombosis and... Jan 2024The effects of antiplatelet therapy on menstrual bleeding have not been well characterized.
BACKGROUND
The effects of antiplatelet therapy on menstrual bleeding have not been well characterized.
OBJECTIVES
To systematically review the effects of antiplatelet therapy on menstrual bleeding.
METHODS
A literature search was performed for studies of reproductive-aged women who received antiplatelet therapy. Characteristics of menstrual bleeding both before and after initiation of antiplatelet therapy and from comparison groups were collected. Two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias in individual studies.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies with a total of 611 women who received antiplatelet therapy were included. Types of antiplatelet drugs used were aspirin ( = 8), aspirin and/or clopidogrel ( = 2), prasugrel ( = 1), and not specified ( = 2). Risk of bias was assessed at moderate ( = 1), serious ( = 8), critical ( = 2), and no information ( = 2). Three studies reported changes in menstrual blood loss volume. One of these showed no increase during antiplatelet therapy; the other 2 studies suggested that aspirin may increase menstrual blood loss volume. In 3 studies that assessed the duration of menstrual bleeding, up to 13% of women reported an increased duration of menstruation. In 5 studies that reported the intensity of menstrual flow, 13% to 38% of women experienced an increase in the intensity of flow. Five studies reported the prevalence of heavy menstrual bleeding in women who received antiplatelet therapy, with estimates ranging from 7% to 38%.
CONCLUSION
There is lack of high-quality data on the effects of antiplatelet therapy on menstrual bleeding. Aspirin may increase menstrual blood loss, at least in a minority of women, whereas the effects of P2Y12 inhibitors are unknown.
PubMed: 38268520
DOI: 10.1016/j.rpth.2023.102295 -
American Journal of Health-system... Jun 2024Oral anticoagulants (OACs) and aspirin can trigger bleeding events when used alone or in combination. The purpose of this study was to compare the risk of any type of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Oral anticoagulants (OACs) and aspirin can trigger bleeding events when used alone or in combination. The purpose of this study was to compare the risk of any type of bleeding in individuals exposed to a combination of OAC and aspirin with the risk in those taking an OAC or aspirin alone.
METHODS
MEDLINE and Web of Science were queried in January 2021 for eligible articles. Studies were included if they were either randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or observational studies and evaluated the number of any bleeding events in two groups, one with exposure to both OAC and aspirin and one with exposure to OAC alone or aspirin alone. Pooled odds ratios were calculated using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
Forty-two studies were included. In an analysis of 15 RCTs and 19 observational studies evaluating OAC plus aspirin versus OAC alone, a significant difference in the risk of bleeding was observed in the combination groups, with an odds ratio [OR] of, 1.36 (95% CI, 1.15-1.59) for RCTs and an OR of 1.42 (95% CI-, 1.09-1.87) for observational studies. When OAC plus aspirin was compared to aspirin alone, a higher rate of bleeding was found in the combination group (OR, 2.36; 95%CI, 1.91-2.92) in the analysis of 15 RCTs, but no significant difference was found among 10 observational studies (OR, 1.93; 95% Cl, 0.99-3.75).
CONCLUSION
The risk of any type of bleeding was significantly increased among patients taking aspirin plus OAC compared to those taking OAC alone in both RCTs and observational studies. Evaluation of RCTs comparing OAC plus aspirin to aspirin alone suggests increased bleeding risk as well.
Topics: Aspirin; Humans; Anticoagulants; Hemorrhage; Administration, Oral; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Drug Therapy, Combination; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 38263263
DOI: 10.1093/ajhp/zxae010 -
Journal of Cardiovascular Computed... 2024Coronary computed tomography angiogram (CCTA) is a crucial tool for diagnosing CAD, but its impact on altering preventive medications is not well-documented. This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Coronary computed tomography angiogram (CCTA) is a crucial tool for diagnosing CAD, but its impact on altering preventive medications is not well-documented. This systematic review aimed to compare changes in aspirin and statin therapy following CCTA and functional stress testing in patients with suspected CAD, and in those underwent CCTA when stratified by the presence/absence of plaque.
RESULTS
Eight studies involving 42,812 CCTA patients and 64,118 cardiac stress testing patients were analyzed. Compared to functional testing, CCTA led to 66 % more changes in statin therapy (pooled RR, 95 % CI [1.28-2.15]) and a 74 % increase in aspirin prescriptions (pooled RR, 95 % CI [1.34-2.26]). For medication modifications based on CCTA results, 13 studies (47,112 patients with statin data) and 11 studies (12,089 patients with aspirin data) were included. Patients with any plaque on CCTA were five times more likely to use or intensify statins compared to those without CAD (pooled RR, 5.40, 95 % CI [4.16-7.00]). Significant heterogeneity remained, which decreased when stratified by diabetes rates. Aspirin use increased eightfold after plaque detection (pooled RR, 8.94 [95 % CI, 4.21-19.01]), especially with obstructive plaque findings (pooled RR, 9.41, 95 % CI [2.80-39.02]).
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, CCTA resulted in higher changes in statin and aspirin therapy compared to cardiac stress testing. Detection of plaque by CCTA significantly increased statin and aspirin therapy.
Topics: Aged; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Angina Pectoris; Aspirin; Computed Tomography Angiography; Coronary Angiography; Coronary Artery Disease; Coronary Vessels; Exercise Test; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Plaque, Atherosclerotic; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Practice Patterns, Physicians'; Predictive Value of Tests; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38262852
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcct.2024.01.006