Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
We do not know who should be given what dose and for how long
Aspirin is an old drug. Some 2000 years ago the
Greeks used the bark and leaves of the willow tree (which contains
salicylic acid) to relieve pain and fever. At the end of the 19th
century acetyl salicylic acid started being produced on an industrial scale and aspirin soon became a widely used painkiller. In the late
1960s it was found that a single dose of aspirin irreversibly inhibits
the normal aggregation of platelets by suppressing the cycloxygenase
mediated synthesis of thromboxane A2. The effect of aspirin persists
until newly formed platelets have been released; their biological
lifespan is about nine days.
Sometimes, adverse drug reactions can be turned to advantage, and the
antithrombotic effects of aspirin have been widely exploited. Aspirin
has been given successfully both to healthy people and to patients with
coronary artery disease to prevent myocardial infarction, to patients
with acute myocardial infarction to reduce vascular mortality, to
patients with atrial fibrillation to prevent stroke and systemic
embolism, and to patients with a history of stroke or transient
ischaemic attack to prevent further ischaemic events.1-5
It has been suggested that aspirin should be given to all men aged 50 years or older and to all women after the menopause.6 There are, however, two related reasons why this enthusiasm needs to be
dampened. Firstly, aspirin, through its ability to block the synthesis
of prostaglandins, may damage the gastrointestinal mucosa.7 Erosions may be trivial, but they may progress to ulcers, which in turn may bleed or perforate, and may even kill. This
happens more often than many doctors like to believe.8 Secondly, reduced thrombus formation results in a greater tendency to
bleed. Thus, in a patient who is taking aspirin any ulcer that may
arise may bleed even more extensively.
It seems, therefore, a logical aim to use the minimum dose of
aspirin that inhibits thrombus formation and also minimises the risk of
any gastrointestinal complications. Thus, physicians have been treating
their patients with low dose aspirin on the understanding that they did
more good than harm to them.
There is now strong evidence in this issue of the BMJ from
yet another systematic review of randomised trials that this may not
necessarily be so (p 1183).9 These authors tested the
risk of gastrointestinal haemorrhage from long term (average duration 28 months) treatment with subanalgesic doses of aspirin used for preventing ischaemic events. There were two main results. Firstly, gastrointestinal haemorrhage occurred on average in 2.5% of patients exposed to aspirin compared with 1.4% who were not; this difference was statistically significant. Secondly, there was no evidence of dose
responsiveness over a wide range of doses (50 to 1500 mg/day). How do
these numbers compare with others, and what are the implications?
A previous systematic review reported a considerably lower incidence of
gastrointestinal bleeds with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs
including aspirin, and there was evidence of dose-responsiveness for
bleeds that were related to aspirin.8 The difference
between the two meta-analyses is probably due to different definitions of adverse events. For instance, in the physician's health
study,1 a large randomised trial included in both
meta-analyses,
8 9
of 11 037 patients given aspirin
325 mg every other day for 60 months, as many as 3.6% had symptoms of
haematemesis or melaena. This was the level of harm that Derry and Loke
were extracting for the purpose of their systematic
review.9 Using this definition throughout, the number
needed to harm for haemorrhage with aspirin compared with placebo was
about 100, and there was a lack of dose responsiveness.9
However, in the same randomised trial 10 times fewer patients taking
aspirin (0.34%) had a potentially fatal haemorrhage compared with
those taking a placebo.1 Using this more serious level of
harm, there was evidence of dose responsiveness8: the
incidence of serious bleeds (and perforations) was 0.3% with 325 mg
aspirin every other day for 60 months,1 0.6% with 1 g/day
for 36 months,10 and 0.9% with 2.5-5.2 g/day for two
months.11 An earlier meta-analysis has also shown a
consistent tendency (although not statistically significant) for a
smaller risk of gastrointestinal bleeds with smaller doses of aspirin
(<300 mg/day).12
The results of these meta-analyses are not contradictory but
complementary.
8 9 12
Indeed, the most important message in Derry and Loke's paper is that there is no gain without pain. And
as with many systematic reviews, their's leaves more questions open
than it answers. Thus, the research agenda is set: Who should be given
what dose of aspirin, and for how long? In patients with a history of
stroke or transient ischaemic attack, the minimal effective dose of
aspirin to prevent further vascular accidents remains
unknown.13 Nor do we know how long patients have to take
aspirin. In the prevention of recurrent stroke aspirin seems to be of
benefit independent of the patient's age.5 However, in
elderly patients with atrial fibrillation the benefit of prophylactic aspirin to prevent strokes is unproved.4 Also the risk of
both gastrointestinal complications and perhaps congestive heart
failure with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs may increase with
increasing age.
14 15
Finally, there is a methodological message. Derry and Loke
analysed data from almost 66 000 patients chronically exposed to a
wide range of different doses of aspirin. It is unlikely that the same
body of data would ever be tested in a single randomised controlled
trial. Innovative models are needed to estimate rare events with
confidence, and systematic reviews currently provide the best solution.
In the light of Derry and Loke's analyses, it may be more appropriate
for some people to eat an apple rather than an aspirin a
day.6
Division of Anaesthesiology, Geneva University Hospitals,
CH-1211 Geneva 14, Switzerland (martin.tramer{at}hcuge.ch)
| 1. | Steering Committee of the Physician's Health Study Research Group. Final report on the aspirin component of the ongoing physicians' health study. N Engl J Med 1989; 321: 129-135[Abstract]. |
| 2. | The RISC Group. Risk of myocardial infarction and death during treatment with low dose aspirin and intravenous heparin in men with unstable coronary artery disease. Lancet 1991; 336: 827-830. |
| 3. | ISIS-2 (Second International Study of Infarct Survival) Collaborative Group. Randomised trial of intravenous streptokinase, oral aspirin, both, or neither among 17 187 cases of suspected acute myocardial infarction: ISIS-2. Lancet 1988; 336: 349-360. |
| 4. | Preliminary report of the stoke prevention in atrial fibrillation study. N Engl J Med 1990; 322: 863-868[Abstract]. |
| 5. |
Chen ZM, Sandercock P, Pan HC, Counsell C, Collins R, Liu LS, et al.
Indications for early aspirin use in acute ischemic stroke. A combined analysis of 40,000 randomized patients from the Chinese Acute Stroke Trial and the International Stroke Trial.
Stroke
2000;
31:
1240-1249 |
| 6. | Dalen JE. An apple a day or an aspirin a day? Arch Int Med 1991; 151: 1066-1068[Medline]. |
| 7. |
Henry D, Lim LLY, Rodriquez LAG, Gutthann SP, Carson JL, Griffin M, et al.
Variability in risk of gastrointestinal complications with individual non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: results of a collaborative meta-analysis.
BMJ
1996;
312:
1563-1566 |
| 8. | Tramèr MR, Moore RA, Reynolds DJ, McQuay HJ. Quantitative estimation of rare adverse events which follow a biological progression: a new model applied to chronic NSAID use. Pain 2000; 85: 169-182[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 9. |
Derry S, Loke YK.
Risk of gastrointestinal haemorrhage with long-term use of aspirin: meta-analysis.
BMJ
2000;
321:
1183-1187 |
| 10. | Kurata JH, Abbey DE. The effect of chronic aspirin use on duodenal and gastric ulcer hospitalizations. J Clin Gastroenterol 1990; 12: 260-266[Medline]. |
| 11. | Roth S, Agrawal N, Mahowald M, Montoya H, Robbins D, Miller S, et al. Misoprostol heals gastroduodenal injury in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving aspirin. Arch Intern Med 1989; 149: 775-779[Abstract]. |
| 12. | Roderick PJ, Wilkes HC, Meade TW. The gastrointestinal toxicity of aspirin: an overview of randomised controlled trials. Br J Clin Pharmaco 1993; 35: 219-226[Medline]. |
| 13. |
Johnson ES, Lanes SF, Wentworth III CE, Satterfield MH, Abebe BL, Dicker LW.
A Metaregression analysis of the dose-response effect of aspirin on stroke.
Arch Int Med
1999;
159:
1248-1253 |
| 14. | Hawkey CJ. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and peptic ulcers. Facts and figures multiply, but do they add up? BMJ 1990; 300: 278-284. |
| 15. |
Page J, Henry D.
Consumption of NSAIDs and the development of congestive heart failure in elderly patients.
Arch Int Med
2000;
160:
777-784 |
Read all Rapid Responses
UK medical students have published unreleased government plans to restrict failed asylum seekers' access to medical care