4.6 Review

Low-Dose Aspirin Use and Cognitive Function in Older Age: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY
卷 65, 期 8, 页码 1763-1768

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jgs.14883

关键词

aspirin; dementia; cognitive impairment; meta-analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectivesTo investigate whether low-dose aspirin (<300 mg/d) can influence the onset of cognitive impairment or dementia in observational studies and improve cognitive test scores in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in participants without dementia. DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis. SettingObservational and interventional studies. ParticipantsIndividuals with no dementia or cognitive impairment initially. MeasurementsOdds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), adjusted for the maximum number of covariates from each study, were used to summarize data on the incidence of dementia and cognitive impairment in observational studies. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) were used for cognitive test scores in RCTs. ResultsOf 2,341 potentially eligible articles, eight studies were included and provided data for 36,196 participants without dementia or cognitive impairment at baseline (mean age 66, 63% female). After adjusting for a median of three potential confounders over a median follow-up period of 6 years, chronic use of low-dose aspirin was not associated with onset of dementia or cognitive impairment (5 studies, N = 26,159; OR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.55-1.22, P = .33, I-2 = 67%). In three RCTs (N = 10,037; median follow-up 5 years), the use of low-dose aspirin was not associated with significantly better global cognition (SMD=0.005, 95% CI=-0.04-0.05, P = .84, I-2 = 0%) in individuals without dementia. Adherence was lower in participants taking aspirin than in controls, and the incidence of adverse events was higher. ConclusionThis review found no evidence that low-dose aspirin buffers against cognitive decline or dementia or improves cognitive test scores in RCTs.

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

4.6
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