4.6 Article

The effect of low-dose aspirin on colorectal cancer prevention and gastrointestinal bleeding according to bodyweight and body mass index: Analysis of UK primary care data

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 297, Issue -, Pages 135-139

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2019.08.001

Keywords

Aspirin; Colorectal cancer; Gastrointestinal bleeding; Observational; Bodyweight; Body mass index

Funding

  1. Bayer AG

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Meta-analysis of trial data suggests that in primary cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention bodyweight modifies low-dose aspirin's effects on colorectal cancer (CRC) and major bleeding risk. We sought to investigate whether these effects are seen in patients with or without CVD in routine clinical practice by undertaking sub-analyses of data from two cohort studies with nested-case-control analyses. Methods: We followed similar to 200,000 new users of low-dose aspirin (75-300 mg/day) and a matched cohort of nonusers to identify incident cases of CRC/upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). Adjusted relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for current vs. non-use of low-dose aspirin using logistic regression stratified by bodyweight/body mass index (BMI) strata. Results: RRs (95% CIs) for CRC by bodyweight were: 0.60 (0.50-0.72) for <= 70 kg, 0.68 (0.60-0.76) for >70 kg; and by BMI were 0.60 (0.52-0.68) for <= 28 kg/m(2), 0.76 (0.64-0.89) for >28 kg/m(2). For UGIB, estimates were: 1.49 (1.28-1.74) for <= 90 kg, 1.78 (1.29-2.45) for >90 kg/m(2), 1.44 (1.21-1.72) for <= 28 kg/m(2), 1.72 (1.38-2.16) for >28 kg/m(2). Results were similar in the primary CVD prevention population. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that the effects of low-dose aspirin in reducing CRC risk and increasing UGIB risk are not modified by bodyweight/BMI. (C) 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available