Efficacy and Safety of Adding Clopidogrel to Aspirin on Stroke Prevention among High Vascular Risk Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Objectives

Whether clopidogrel should be added to aspirin for stroke prevention remained controversial for the risk of hemorrhagic complications. This meta-analysis was aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of adding clopidogrel to aspirin on stroke prevention in high vascular risk patients, and to provide evidence for a suitable duration of dual antiplatelet therapy.

Methods

We searched PubMed, EMBase, OVID and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (up to June, 2013) for randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of clopidogrel plus aspirin versus aspirin alone in high vascular risk patients. Comparisons of stroke and hemorrhagic complications between treatment groups were expressed by the pooled Relative Risks (RRs) with 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs).

Results

Fifteen trials with a total of 97692 intention-to-treat participants were included with duration of follow-up ranging from 7 days to 3.6 years. Dual antiplatelet therapy reduced all stroke by 21% (RR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.73–0.85) with no evidence of heterogeneity across the trials (P = 0.27, I ² = 17%).The effects were consistent between short-term subgroup (≤1 month, RR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.67–0.85) and long-term subgroup (≥3 months, RR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.73–0.89). The risk of major bleeding was not significantly increased by dual antiplatelet therapy in short-term subgroup (RR: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.91–1.36), while significantly increased in long-term subgroup (RR: 1.52, 95% CI: 1.36–1.69). Long-term dual antiplatelet therapy substantially increased the risk of intracranial bleeding (RR: 1.76, 95% CI: 1.22–2.54).

Conclusions

This meta-analysis demonstrates that short-term combination of clopidogrel and aspirin is effective and safe for stroke prevention in high vascular risk patients. Long-term combination therapy substantially increases the risk of major bleeding and intracranial bleeding.     

Clopidogrel and Aspirin versus Aspirin Alone for Stroke Prevention: A Meta-Analysis

Background and Purpose

Antiplatelet therapy is widely used for the primary or secondary prevention of stroke. Drugs like clopidogrel have emerged as alternatives for traditional antiplatelet therapy, and dual therapy with clopidogrel and aspirin is of particular interest. We conducted this meta-analysis to systematically review studies about dual therapy comparing monotherapy with aspirin alone.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials were searched in PubMed (1966-May, 2015), EMBASE (1947-May, 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (1948-May, 2015), WHO International Clinical Trial (ICTRP) (2004-May, 2015), China Biology Medicine disc (CBM disc) (1978-May, 2015) and were included into the final analysis according to the definite inclusion criteria mentioned in the study selection section. Risk ratio (RR) was pooled with 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous data. The heterogeneity was considered significant if the χ² test was significant (P value < 0.10) or the I² > 50.00%. Subgroup analyses were carried out on the long and short time periods, the race and region.

Results

We included 5 studies involving 24,084 patients. A pooled analysis showed that dual therapy with clopidogrel and aspirin had a lower stroke incidence than monotherapy in both the short term and long term (RR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.59–0.82, P <0.05; RR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.72–0.98, P = 0.03, respectively). With regard to safety, dual therapy had a higher risk of bleeding than monotherapy for both periods (RR = 1.51, 95% CI: 1.03–2.23, P = 0.04; RR = 1.54, 95% CI: 1.32–1.79, P<0.05, respectively).

Conclusions

Dual therapy with clopidogrel and aspirin could be a preferable choice to prevent stroke in patients who have had a previous stroke or transient ischemic attack, as well as those who are at high risk for stroke. And the effect of dual therapy seems to be more obvious for short-term. However, it is associated with a higher risk of bleeding.     

Effects of combined aspirin and clopidogrel therapy on cardiovascular outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Aspirin and clopidogrel monotherapies are effective treatments for preventing vascular disease. However, new evidence has emerged regarding the use of combined aspirin and clopidogrel therapy to prevent cardiovascular events. We therefore performed a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the benefits and harms of combined aspirin and clopidogrel therapy on major cardiovascular outcomes.

Methodology/Principal Findings

We systematically searched Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, reference lists of articles, and proceedings of major meetings to identify studies to fit our analysis. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of combined aspirin and clopidogrel therapy compared with aspirin or clopidogrel monotherapy. We identified 7 trials providing data with a total of 48248 patients. These studies reported 5134 major cardiovascular events, 1626 myocardial infarctions, 1927 strokes, and 1147 major bleeding events. Overall, the addition of aspirin to clopidogrel therapy as compared to single drug therapy resulted in a 9% RR reduction (95%CI, 2 to 17) in major cardiovascular events, 14% RR reduction (95%CI, 3 to 24) in myocardial infarction, 16% RR reduction (95%CI, 1 to 28) in stroke, and 62% RR increase (95%CI, 26 to 108) in major bleeding events. We also present the data as ARR to explore net value as the reduction in cardiovascular events. Overall, we observed that combined therapy yielded 1.06% decrease (95%CI, 0.23% to 1.99%) in major cardiovascular events and 1.23% increase (95%CI, 0.52% to 2.14%) in major bleeding events.

Conclusion/Significance

Although the addition of aspirin to clopidogrel resulted in small relative reductions in major cardiovascular events, myocardial infarction, and stroke, it also resulted in a relative increase in major bleeding events. In absolute terms the benefits of combined therapy, a 1.06% reduction in major cardiovascular events, does not outweigh the harms, a 1.23% increase in major bleeding events.     

Aspirin Use and Risk of Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Meta-Analysis

Background

Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the main cause of blindness and the curative options are limited. The objective of this meta-analysis was to determine the association between aspirin use and risk of AMD.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and reference lists. A meta-analysis was performed by STATA software.

Results

Ten studies involving 171729 individuals examining the association between aspirin use and risk of AMD were included. Among the included studies, 2 were randomized-controlled trials (RCTs), 4 were case-control studies and 4 were cohort studies. The relative risks (RRs) were pooled using a random-effects model. Relative risks with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of aspirin use as a risk for AMD. The pooled RR of 10 included studies between the use of aspirin and risk of AMD was 1.09 (95% CI, 0.96–1.24). The same result was detected in early and late stage AMD subgroup analysis. In the subgroup analyses, the pooled RR of RCTs, case-control studies and cohort studies were 0.81 (95% CI, 0.64–1.02), 1.02 (95% CI, 0.92–1.14) and 1.08 (95% CI, 0.91–1.28), respectively.

Conclusions

The use of aspirin was not associated with the risk of AMD.     

Safety of Low-Dose Aspirin in Endovascular Treatment for Intracranial Atherosclerotic Stenosis

Objectives

To evaluate the safety of low-dose aspirin plus clopidogrel versus high-dose aspirin plus clopidogrel in prevention of vascular risk within 90 days of duration of dual antiplatelet therapy in patients treated with intracranial endovascular treatment.

Methods

From January 2012 to December 2013, this prospective and observational study enrolled 370 patients with symptomatic intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis of ≥70% with poor collateral undergoing intracranial endovascular treatment. Antiplatelet therapy consists of aspirin, at a low-dose of 100 mg or high-dose of 300 mg daily; clopidogrel, at a dose of 75 mg daily for 5 days before endovascular treatment. The dual antiplatelet therapy continued for 90 days after intervention. The study endpoints include acute thrombosis, subacute thrombosis, stroke or death within 90 days after intervention.

Results

Two hundred and seventy three patients received low-dose aspirin plus clopidogrel and 97 patients received high-dose aspirin plus clopidogrel before intracranial endovascular treatment. Within 90 days after intervention, there were 4 patients (1.5%) with acute thrombosis, 5 patients (1.8%) with subacute thrombosis, 17 patients (6.2%) with stroke, and 2 death (0.7%) in low-dose aspirin group, compared with no patient (0%) with acute thrombosis, 2 patient (2.1%) with subacute thrombosis, 6 patients (6.2%) with stroke, and 2 death (2.1%) in high-dose aspirin group, and there were no significant difference in all study endpoints between two groups.

Conclusion

Low-dose aspirin plus clopidogrel is comparative in safety with high-dose aspirin plus clopidogrel within 90 days of duration of dual antiplatelet therapy in patients treated with intracranial endovascular treatment.     

A randomised controlled trial of triple antiplatelet therapy (aspirin, clopidogrel and dipyridamole) in the secondary prevention of stroke: safety, tolerability and feasibility

Background

Aspirin, dipyridamole and clopidogrel are effective in secondary vascular prevention. Combination therapy with three antiplatelet agents might maximise the benefit of antiplatelet treatment in the secondary prevention of ischaemic stroke.

Methodology/Principal Findings

A randomised, parallel group, observer-blinded phase II trial compared the combination of aspirin, clopidogrel and dipyridamole with aspirin alone. Adult patients with ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA) within 5 years were included. The primary outcome was tolerability to treatment assessed as the number of patients completing randomised treatment. Recruitment was halted prematurely after publication of the ESPRIT trial (which confirmed that combined aspirin and dipyridamole is more effective than aspirin alone). 17 patients were enrolled: male 12 (71%), mean age 62 (SD 13) years, lacunar stroke syndrome 12 (71%), median stroke/TIA onset to randomisation 8 months. Treatment was discontinued in 4 of 9 (44%) patients receiving triple therapy vs. none of 8 taking aspirin (p = 0.08). One recurrent stroke occurred in a patient in the triple group who was noncompliant of all antiplatelet medications. The number of patients with adverse events and bleeding complications, and their severity, were significantly greater in the triple therapy group (p<0.01).

Conclusions/Significance

Long term triple antiplatelet therapy was asociated with a significant increase in adverse events and bleeding rates, and their severity, and a trend to increased discontinuations. However, the patients had a low risk of recurrence and future trials should focus on short term therapy in high risk patients characterised by a very recent event or failure of dual antiplatelet therapy.

Trial Registration

Controlled-Trials.com ISRCTN83673558     

Effect of Prophylactic Low Level Laser Therapy on Oral Mucositis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Objective was to determine whether prophylactic low level laser therapy (LLLT) reduces the risk of severe mucositis as compared to placebo or no therapy.

Methods

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched until February 2014 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing prophylactic LLLT with placebo or no therapy in patients with cancer or undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). All analyses used random effects models.

Results

Eighteen RCTs (1144 patients) were included. Prophylactic LLLT reduced the overall risk of severe mucositis (risk ratio (RR) 0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 0.67; P = 0.001). LLLT also reduced the following outcomes when compared to placebo/no therapy: severe mucositis at the time of anticipated maximal mucositis (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.59), overall mean grade of mucositis (standardized mean difference −1.49, 95% CI −2.02 to −0.95), duration of severe mucositis (weighted mean difference −5.32, 95% CI −9.45 to −1.19) and incidence of severe pain (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.37).

Conclusion

Prophylactic LLLT reduced severe mucositis and pain in patients with cancer and HSCT recipients. Future research should identify the optimal characteristics of LLLT and determine feasibility in the clinical setting.     

High-Maintenance-Dose Clopidogrel in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Despite routine use of clopidogrel, adverse cardiovascular events recur among some patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). To optimize antiplatelet therapies, we performed a meta-analysis to quantify the efficacy of high versus standard-maintenance-dose clopidogrel in these patients.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing high (>75 mg) and standard maintenance doses of clopidogrel in patients undergoing PCI were included. The primary efficacy and safety end-points were major adverse cardiovascular/cerebrovascular events (MACE/MACCE) and major bleeding. The secondary end-points were other ischemic and bleeding adverse effects. The pooled odds ratio (OR) for each outcome was estimated.

Results

14 RCTs with 4424 patients were included. Compared with standard-maintenance-dose clopidogrel, high-maintenance-dose clopidogrel significantly reduced the incidence of MACE/MACCE (OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.83), stent thrombosis (OR 0.56; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.99) and target vessel revascularization (OR 0.38; 95% CI 0.20 to 0.74), without significant decrease of the risk of cardiovascular death (OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.13) and myocardial infarction (OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.51 to 1.33). For safety outcomes, it did not significantly increase the risk of major bleeding (OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.41 to 1.32), minor bleeding (OR 1.29; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.66) and any bleeding (OR 1.14; 95% CI 0.91 to 1.43).

Conclusion

High-maintenance-dose clopidogrel reduces the recurrence of most ischemic events in patients post-PCI without increasing the risk of bleeding complications.     

New Oral Anticoagulants Are Not Superior to Warfarin in Secondary Prevention of Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attacks,but Lower the Risk of Intracranial Bleeding: Insights from a Meta-Analysis and Indirect Treatment Comparisons

Purpose

Patients with Atrial Fibrillation (AF) and prior stroke are classified as high risk in all risk stratification schemes. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of New Oral Anticoagulants (NOACs) to warfarin in patients with AF and previous stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA).

Methods

Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs), including total 14527 patients, comparing NOACs (apixaban, dabigatran and rivaroxaban) with warfarin were included in the analysis. Primary efficacy endpoint was ischemic stroke, and primary safety endpoint was intracranial bleeding. Random-effects models were used to pool efficacy and safety data across RCTs. RevMan and Stata software were used for direct and indirect comparisons, respectively.

Results

In patients with AF and previous stroke or TIA, effects of NOACs were not statistically different from that of warfarin, in reduction of stroke (Odds Ratio [OR] 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73- 1.01), disabling and fatal stroke (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71-1.04), and all-cause mortality (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 -1.02). Randomization to NOACs was associated with a significantly lower risk of intracranial bleeding (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.25-0.70). There were no major differences in efficacy between apixaban, dabigatran (110 mg BID and 150 mg BID) and rivaroxaban. Major bleeding was significantly lower with apixaban and dabigatran (110 mg BID) compared with dabigatran (150 mg BID) and rivaroxaban.

Conclusion

NOACs may not be more effective than warfarin in the secondary prevention of ischemic stroke in patients with a prior history of cerebrovascular ischemia, but have a lower risk of intracranial bleeding.     

A prospective study of aspirin use and the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding in men

Background and Aims

Data regarding the influence of dose and duration of aspirin use on risk of gastrointestinal bleeding are conflicting.

Methods

We conducted a prospective cohort study of 32,989 men enrolled in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS) in 1994 who provided biennial aspirin data. We estimated relative risk of major gastrointestinal bleeding requiring hospitalization or a blood transfusion.

Results

During 14 years of follow-up, 707 men reported an episode of major gastrointestinal bleeding over 377,231 person-years. After adjusting for risk factors, regular aspirin use (≥2 times/week) had a multivariate relative risk (RR) of gastrointestinal bleeding of 1.32 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12–1.55) compared to non-regular use. The association was particularly evident for upper gastrointestinal bleeding (multivariate RR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.16–1.92). Compared to men who denied any aspirin use, multivariate RRs of upper gastrointestinal bleeding were 1.05 (95% CI 0.71–1.52) for men who used 0.5–1.5 standard tablets/week, 1.31 (95% CI 0.88–1.95) for 2–5 aspirin/week, 1.63 (95% CI, 1.15–2.32) for 6–14 aspirin/week and 2.40 (95% CI, 1.10–5.22) for >14 aspirin/week (P_trend<0.001). The relative risk also appeared to be dose-dependent among short-term users <5 years; P_trend<.001) and long-term users (≥5 years; P_trend = 0.015). In contrast, after controlling for dose, increasing duration of use did not appear to be associated with risk (P_trend = 0.749).

Conclusions

Regular aspirin use increases the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding, especially from the upper tract. However, risk of bleeding appears to be more strongly related to dose than to duration of use. Risk of bleeding should be minimized by using the lowest effective dose among short-term and long-term aspirin users.     

Glyceryl Trinitrate for Prevention of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis and Improve the Rate of Cannulation: A Meta-Analysis of Prospective,Randomized, Controlled Trials

Background

Acute pancreatitis is the most common complication of diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Several clinical trials used glyceryl trinitrate (GTN) to prevent the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). However, the results were still controversial.

Objective

To conduct a meta-analysis of published, full-length, randomized controlled trials evaluating the effect of prophylactic GTN on the prevention of PEP, improve the rate of cannulation and the prevention of hyperamylasemia.

Methods

Literature searches were conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and Web of Knowledge databases, using keywords "post-ERCP" and "pancreatitis" and limited in randomized controlled trials.

Results

Twelve RCTs involving 2649 patients were included. Eleven RCTs compared GTN with placebo for PEP prevention. Meta-analysis showed the overall incidence of PEP was significantly reduced by GTN treatment (RR 0.67; 95% CI, 0.52-0.87). Nevertheless, GTN administration did not decrease the incidence of moderate to severe PEP (RR 0.70; 95% CI, 0.42-1.15). Subgroup analyses revealed that GTN administered by sublingual was more effective than transdermal and topical in reducing the incidence of PEP. Besides, the prophylactic effect of GTN was far more obvious in the group of high PEP incidence than in the group of low PEP incidence. Additionally, the incidence of hyperamylasemia was significantly reduced by GTN treatment (RR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.54-0.90). No differences of the successful cannulation rate of bile ducts (RR 1.03; 95% CI, 0.99-1.06) attributable to GTN were observed.

Conclusion

Prophylactic use of GTN reduced the overall incidence of PEP and hyperamylasemia. However, GTN was not helpful for the severity of PEP and the rate of cannulation.     

Effects of Clopidogrel on Mortality,Cardiovascular and Bleeding Outcomes in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease - Data from Taiwan Acute Coronary Syndrome Full Spectrum Registry

Background

The efficacy of clopidogrel is inconclusive in the chronic kidney disease (CKD) population with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Furthermore, CKD patients are prone to bleeding with antiplatelet therapy. We investigated the efficacy and safety of clopidogrel in patients with ACS and CKD.

Methods

In a Taiwan national-wide registry, 2819 ACS patients were enrolled. CKD is defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate of less than 60 ml/min per 1.73 m². The primary endpoints are the combined outcomes of death, non-fatal myocardial infarction and stroke at 12 months.

Results

Overall 949 (33.7%) patients had CKD and 2660 (94.36%) patients received clopidogrel treatment. CKD is associated with increased risk of the primary endpoint at 12 months (HR 2.39, 95% CI 1.82 to 3.15, p<0.01). Clopidogrel use is associated with reduced risk of the primary endpoint at 12 months (HR 0.42, 95% CI: 0.29–0.60, p<0.01). Cox regression analysis showed that clopidogrel reduced death and primary endpoints for CKD population (HR 0.35, 95% CI: 0.21–0.61 and HR 0.48, 95% CI: 0.30–0.77, respectively, both p<0.01). Patients with clopidogrel(−)/CKD(−), clopidogrel(+)/CKD(+) and clopidogrel(−)/CKD(+) have 2.4, 3.0 and 10.4 fold risk to have primary endpoints compared with those receiving clopidogrel treatment without CKD (all p<0.01). Clopidogrel treatment was not associated with increased in-hospital Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) bleeding in CKD population.

Conclusion

Clopidogrel could decrease mortality and improve cardiovascular outcomes without increasing risk of bleeding in ACS patients with CKD.     

Aspirin in Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease and Cancer: A Systematic Review of the Balance of Evidence from Reviews of Randomized Trials

Background

Aspirin has been recommended for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer, but overall benefits are unclear. We aimed to use novel methods to re-evaluate the balance of benefits and harms of aspirin using evidence from randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Methods and Findings

Data sources included ten electronic bibliographic databases, contact with experts, and scrutiny of reference lists of included studies. Searches were undertaken in September 2012 and restricted to publications since 2008. Of 2,572 potentially relevant papers 27 met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of control arms to estimate event rates, modelling of all-cause mortality and L''Abbé plots to estimate heterogeneity were undertaken. Absolute benefits and harms were low: 60-84 major CVD events and 34-36 colorectal cancer deaths per 100,000 person-years were averted, whereas 46-49 major bleeds and 68-117 gastrointestinal bleeds were incurred. Reductions in all-cause mortality were minor and uncertain (Hazard Ratio 0.96; 95% CI: 0.90-1.02 at 20 years, Relative Risk [RR] 0.94, 95% CI: 0.88-1.00 at 8 years); there was a non-significant change in total CVD (RR 0.85, 95% CI: 0.69-1.06) and change in total cancer mortality ranged from 0.76 (95% CI: 0.66-0.88) to 0.93 (95% CI: 0.84-1.03) depending on follow-up time and studies included. Risks were increased by 37% for gastrointestinal bleeds (RR 1.37, 95% CI: 1.15-1.62), 54%-66% for major bleeds (Rate Ratio from IPD analysis 1.54, 95% CI: 1.30-1.82, and RR 1.62, 95% CI: 1.31-2.00), and 32%-38% for haemorrhagic stroke (Rate Ratio from IPD analysis 1.32; 95% CI: 1.00-1.74; RR 1.38; 95% CI: 1.01-1.82).

Conclusions

Findings indicate small absolute effects of aspirin relative to the burden of these diseases. When aspirin is used for primary prevention of CVD the absolute harms exceed the benefits. Estimates of cancer benefit rely on selective retrospective re-analysis of RCTs and more information is needed.     

Aspirin Compared to Low Intensity Anticoagulation in Patients with Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Despite its lack of efficacy, aspirin is commonly used for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. Since prior studies have suggested a benefit of low-intensity anticoagulation over aspirin in the prevention of vascular events, the aim of this systematic review was to compare the outcomes of patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation treated with low-intensity anticoagulation with Vitamin K antagonists or aspirin.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review searching Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from 1946 to October 14^th, 2015. Randomized controlled trials were included if they reported the outcomes of patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation treated with a low-intensity anticoagulation compared to patients treated with aspirin. The primary outcome was a combination of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism. The random-effects model odds ratio was used as the outcome measure.

Results

Our initial search identified 6309relevant articles of which three satisfied our inclusion criteria and were included. Compared to low-intensity anticoagulation, aspirin alone did not reduce the incidence of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism OR 0.94 (95% CI 0.57–1.56), major bleeding OR 1.06 (95% CI 0.42–2.62) or vascular death OR 1.04 (95% CI 0.61–1.75). The use of aspirin was associated with a significant increase in all-cause mortality OR 1.66 (95% CI 1.12–2.48).

Conclusion

In patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation, aspirin provides no benefits over low-intensity anticoagulation. Furthermore, the use of aspirin appears to be associated with an increased risk in all-cause mortality. Our study provides more evidence against the use aspirin in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation.     

Efficacy and Safety of Vitamin K-Antagonists (VKA) for Atrial Fibrillation in Non-Dialysis Dependent Chronic Kidney Disease

Background

Essential information regarding efficacy and safety of vitamin K-antagonists (VKA) treatment for atrial fibrillation (AF) in non-dialysis dependent chronic kidney disease (CKD) is still lacking in current literature. The aim of our study was to compare the risks of stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) and major bleeds between patients without CKD (eGFR >60 ml/min), and those with moderate (eGFR 30–60 ml/min), or severe non-dialysis dependent CKD (eGFR <30 ml/min).

Methods

We included 300 patients without CKD, 294 with moderate, and 130 with severe non-dialysis dependent CKD, who were matched for age and sex. Uni- and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed reporting hazard ratios (HRs) for the endpoint of stroke or TIA and the endpoint of major bleeds as crude values and adjusted for comorbidity and platelet-inhibitor use.

Results

Overall, 6.2% (45/724, 1.7/100 patient years) of patients developed stroke or TIA and 15.6% (113/724, 4.8/100 patient years) a major bleeding event. Patients with severe CKD were at high risk of stroke or TIA and major bleeds during VKA treatment compared with those without renal impairment, HR 2.75 (95%CI 1.25–6.05) and 1.66 (95%CI 0.97–2.86), or with moderate CKD, HR 3.93(1.71–9.00) and 1.86 (95%CI 1.08–3.21), respectively. These risks were similar for patients without and with moderate CKD. Importantly, both less time spent within therapeutic range and high INR-variability were associated with increased risks of stroke or TIA and major bleeds in severe CKD patients.

Conclusions

VKA treatment for AF in patients with severe CKD has a poor safety and efficacy profile, likely related to suboptimal anticoagulation control. Our study findings stress the need for better tailored individualised anticoagulant treatment approaches for patients with AF and severe CKD.     

Association between B Vitamins Supplementation and Risk of Cardiovascular Outcomes: A Cumulative Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Observational studies suggest that B vitamin supplementation reduces cardiovascular risk in adults, but this association remains controversial. This study aimed to summarize the evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating B vitamin supplementation for the primary or secondary prevention of major adverse cardiovascular outcomes and to perform a cumulative meta-analysis to determine the evidence base.

Methodology and Principal Findings

In April 2013, we searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to identify relevant RCTs. We included RCTs investigating the effect of B vitamin supplementation on cardiovascular outcome. Relative risk (RR) was used to measure the effect using a random-effect model. Statistical heterogeneity scores were assessed using the Q statistic. We included data on 57,952 individuals from 24 RCTs: 12 primary prevention trials and 12 secondary prevention trials. In 23 of these trials, 10,917 major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) occurred; in 20 trials, 7,203 deaths occurred; in 15 trials, 3,422 cardiac deaths occurred; in 19 trials, 3,623 myocardial infarctions (MI) occurred; and in 18 trials, 2,465 strokes occurred. B vitamin supplementation had little or no effect on the incidence of MACE (RR, 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.93–1.03; P = 0.37), total mortality (RR, 1.01; 95% CI: 0.97–1.05; P = 0.77), cardiac death (RR, 0.96; 95% CI: 0.90–1.02; P = 0.21), MI (RR, 0.99; 95% CI: 0.93–1.06; P = 0.82), or stroke (RR, 0.94; 95% CI: 0.85–1.03; P = 0.18).

Conclusion/Significance

B vitamin supplementation, when used for primary or secondary prevention, is not associated with a reduction in MACE, total mortality, cardiac death, MI, or stroke.     

Use of Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs and Bladder Cancer Risk: A Meta-Analysis of Epidemiologic Studies

Purpose

Several epidemiologic studies have evaluated the association between nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and bladder cancer risk and the results were varied. Thus, we conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis of studies exclusively dedicated to the relationship between the 3 most commonly used analgesics and bladder cancer risk.

Methods

A systematic literature search up to November 2012 was performed in PubMed database for 3 categories of analgesics: acetaminophen, aspirin or non-aspirin NSAIDs. Study-specific risk estimates were pooled using a random-effects model.

Results

Seventeen studies (8 cohort and 9 case-control studies), involving a total of 10,618 bladder cancer cases, were contributed to the analysis. We found that acetaminophen (relative risk [RR] 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88–1.17) and aspirin (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.91–1.14) were not associated with bladder cancer risk. Although non-aspirin NSAIDs was statistically significantly associated with reduced risk of bladder cancer among case-control studies (but not cohort studies), the overall risk was not statistically significant (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.73–1.05). Furthermore, we also found that non-aspirin NSAIDs use was significantly associated with a 43% reduction in bladder cancer risk among nonsmokers (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.43–0.76), but not among current smokers.

Conclusion

The results of our meta-analysis suggest that there is no association between use of acetaminophen, aspirin or non-aspirin NSAIDs and bladder cancer risk. However, non-aspirin NSAIDs use might be associated with a reduction in risk of bladder cancer for nonsmokers.     

Statins and the Risk of Lung Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Purpose

Several epidemiologic studies have evaluated the association between statins and lung cancer risk, whereas randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on cardiovascular outcomes provide relevant data as a secondary end point. We conducted a meta-analysis of all relevant studies to examine this association.

Methods

A systematic literature search up to March 2012 was performed in PubMed database. Study-specific risk estimates were pooled using a random-effects model.

Results

Nineteen studies (5 RCTs and 14 observational studies) involving 38,013 lung cancer cases contributed to the analysis. They were grouped on the basis of study design, and separate meta-analyses were conducted. There was no evidence of an association between statin use and risk of lung cancer either among RCTs (relative risk [RR] 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76–1.09), among cohort studies (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.82–1.07), or among case-control studies (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.57–1.16). Low evidence of publication bias was found. However, statistically significant heterogeneity was found among cohort studies and among case-control studies. After excluding the studies contributing most to the heterogeneity, summary estimates were essentially unchanged.

Conclusion

The results of our meta-analysis suggest that there is no association between statin use and the risk of lung cancer.