4.7 Article

Sex Difference in Effects of Low-Dose Aspirin on Prevention of Dementia in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Long-term Follow-up Study of a Randomized Clinical Trial

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 43, 期 2, 页码 314-320

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/dc19-1188

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan [H16-Junkanki-004, H26-Iryo-Ippan-012, H27-Junkanki-Ippan-001, H28-ICT-Ippan-004]
  2. Japan Heart Foundation
  3. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science KAKENHI [26293159, 16H05297, 17K18278, 18H03032]
  4. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [16H05297, 18H03032, 17K18278] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE To evaluate and compare the efficacy of long-term use of low-dose aspirin for the prevention of dementia in men and women. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS This study is a follow-up cohort study of the Japanese Primary Prevention of Atherosclerosis With Aspirin for Diabetes (JPAD) trial, which was a randomized, open-label, standard care-controlled trial examining the effects of low-dose aspirin on cardiovascular events. We followed up 2,536 Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) enrolled in the JPAD trial from 2002 to 2017. The primary outcome of this post hoc analysis was the incidence of dementia, which was defined by the prescription of antidementia drugs or admission due to dementia. RESULTS Among the originally enrolled patients, 2,121 (84%) retained their original allocation. During a median follow-up of 11.4 years, 128 patients developed dementia. The overall effect of low-dose aspirin on the prevention of dementia adjusted for age, sex, and other established risk factors was not significant (hazard ratio [HR] 0.82, 95% CI 0.58-1.16). However, a significant reduction was seen in the risk of dementia in women (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.36-0.95), but not in men (HR 1.27, 95% CI 0.75-2.13) (P-interaction = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS Long-term use of low-dose aspirin may reduce the risk for dementia in women with T2D.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据