2 articles on aspirin and colon/breast cancer


1. looked at 5 trials using aspirin, at least 75mg/d, to decrease vasc events, with 6.5 yrs followup.  Many old studies suggested dec in colon ca with asa or nsaids, most with positive results. This study of 17K pts found 36% dec risk of distant mets overall in pts with cancer, with the vast majority of effect in adenoca -- 48% dec risk of metastases in those with adenoca. Esp effective in those without mets at diagnosis (50% decrease). Essentially all of the graphs show continuing divergence of curves for the first approx 8 years, then plateauing, for lung, bone, brain, and other mets.  The total number of cancers detected and elligible for analysis was 775. (they do not give absolute risk reductions, but to my simplistic analysis, about 5% of pts had cancer, about 50% reduction, so on the order of 2.5% of population with benefit).
Those on lower dose aspirin did the best.  For the most common adenocarcinomas (esp those without mets already), the results were consistent (colorectal 73% reduction, breast 84% reduction, prostate 66% reduction). Pretty impressive. See aspirin cancer mets lancet 2012 in dropbox.

2. study on cancer incidence in pts taking daily aspirin, short-term effects. In 34 trials of 69K pts, 15% dec cancer deaths, esp after 5 yrs. In primary prevention trials of low dose asa (6 trials, 36K pts), after 3 years cancer incidence dec 24%. Initially the benefit of asa was offset by inc bleeding, but that outcome diminished after 3 years, with continuing benefit in cancer incidence. For some reason (??) case-fatality rate from major extracranial bleeds lower on asa, though there was twice the risk of extracranial bleeds in the 1st 3 yrs, no increased risk afterwards.(intracranial bleeds included in "major vascular events" category). Curves on cancer incidence ess the same for first 4 years, then diverge and stay diverged, demonstrating consistent benefit from aspirin. Subgroup analyses (men/women, age more or less than 60, smoker) all show the same, with no real effect for 1st 3 years, but after 3 years there is a consistent absolute reduction of 3 cancers/1000-patient years.  See aspirin and cancer incidence lancet 2012 in dropbox.


Comments

Post a Comment

if you would like to receive the near-daily emails regularly, please email me at gmodest@uphams.org

Popular posts from this blog

cystatin c: better predictor of bad outcomes than creatinine

  another article found significant discordance between creatinine and cystatin C in assessing renal function,  finding that the latter correlated most strongly with both renal and non-renal adverse clinical outcomes (see   ckd cystatin c better than creat AJKD2023  in  dropbox or doi: 10.1053/ j.ajkd.2023.04.002)   Details: -- 158,601 adults who were in the Stockholm Creatinine Measurements (SCREAM) project and had testing of creatinine and cystatin C on the same day during a healthcare encounter, from 2010-2018     -- >400,000 outpatient tests were done for both creatinine and cystatin C levels -- mean age 62, 48% female -- mean eGFR by creatinine (   eGFR cr ) 80; mean eGFR by cystatin C ( eGFR cys  ) 73 -- mean stage of renal insufficiency: 39%  eGFR cr   90+; 38%  eGFR cr  60-89; 12%  eGFR cr  45-59; 7.1%  eGFR cr  30-44; 3.2%  eGFR cr  15-29, 0.7%  eGFR cr ...
Read more

diabetes DPP-4 inhibitors and the risk of heart failure

the FDA just came out with a safety alert about 2 DPP-4 inhibitors and the increased risk of heart failure (released 04/05/2016)(see  http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm494252.htm?source=govdelivery&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery ​ ). details: --saxagliptin and alogliptin were singled out because of 2 clinical trials in diabetic patients with heart disease. in each trial more patients taking these meds were hospitalized for heart failure vs those on placebo     --in the saxagliptin trial: 3.5% were hospitalized for heart failure (vs 2.8% on placebo). risk factors included prior heart failure or kidney disease     --in the alogliptin trial: 3.9% were hospitalized for heart failure (vs 3.3% on placebo) --recommendation by the FDA:     -- we should consider stopping these drugs if the patient develops heart failure ...
Read more

UPDATE: ASCVD risk factor critique

I decided to do an extensive update of my prior ASCVD (atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease) risk analysis and critique of risk calculators, with much more information about the “non-traditional” risk factors. I felt that there should be more data/clarification, since I think we are really undertreating/not preventing the most common cause of death by relying on the current ASCVD risk calculators   -- Cardiovascular risk models:      -- many of us rely on the various cardiovascular risk models to determine the appropriate approach to patients, and these are often integrated into the electronic medical records      -- these risk models have several very important limitations:          -- they are typically based on community data, eg from the Framingham study etc. But, in clinical practice, we are dealing with the individual and not the community:          ...
Read more