Risks of long-term aspirin use ‘outweighed by cancer benefits’

Past research has linked long-term aspirin use to adverse side effects, such as internal bleeding. But according to a new study, the benefits of longstanding aspirin therapy outweigh such risks; it can significantly reduce the risk of major cancers of the digestive tract, including stomach, bowel and esophageal cancers.

 

The research team, led by Prof. Jack Cuzick, head of the Centre for Cancer Prevention at the Queen Mary University of London in the UK, recently published their findings in the journal Annals of Oncology.

Aspirin, also known as acetlylsalicylic acid (ASA), is a salicylate drug commonly used to reduce minor aches and pains, inflammation and fever. In long-term low doses, the drug is also used as an antiplatelet for patients at high risk of heart attackand stroke.

There has been much debate surrounding the benefits of long-term aspirin therapy. Previous studies have suggested it can reduce risk of ovarian cancer and improve colon cancer survival, while others claim it can cause harm, with one study suggesting it increases the risk of age-related macular degeneration.

In this latest research, Prof. Cuzick and his team set out to determine whether the health benefits of continued aspirin use outweigh the risks.

Taking daily aspirin ‘important for reducing cancer risk’

To reach their findings, the team conducted an analysis of all available evidence from an array of studies looking at the beneficial and harmful effects of aspirin use.

The researchers estimated that if individuals aged 50-65 took a daily 75-100 mg dose of aspirin for 5-10 years, the number of bowel cancer cases could be reduced by 35% and deaths by 40%, while rates of stomach and esophageal cancers could be cut by 30% and deaths by 35-50%.

Overall, they estimate that daily aspirin use for 5-10 years could provide a 9% reduction in the number of cancers, strokes and heart attacks in men, and a 7% reduction in women. Over a 20-year period, they estimate the number of deaths from all causes could be reduced by 4%. No benefits were found until individuals used aspirin for a minimum of 3 years.

But the researchers note that continued aspirin use does increase the risk of bleeding in the digestive tract. They found that individuals aged 60 who took aspirin daily for 10 years increased their risk of gastrointestinal bleeding by 1.4%, from 2.2% to 3.6%. However, they note that this is only likely to be life-threatening in around 5% of people.

“The risk of bleeding depends on a number of known factors which people need to be aware of before starting regular aspirin, and it would be advisable to consult with a doctor before embarking on daily medication,” notes Prof. Cuzick.

In addition, they found that continuing aspirin use increased the risk of peptic ulcer by 30-60%.

But despite these side effects, Prof. Cuzick believes that long-term aspirin therapy could be vital to cancer prevention:

“It has long been known that aspirin – one of the cheapest and most common drugs on the market – can protect against certain types of cancer. But until our study, where we analyzed all the available evidence, it was unclear whether the pros of taking aspirin outweighed the cons.

Whilst there are some serious side effects that can’t be ignored, taking aspirin daily looks to be the most important thing we can do to reduce cancer after stopping smoking and reducing obesity, and will probably be much easier to implement.”

The team notes that further research is warranted to better pinpoint those who are most likely to benefit from long-term aspirin use and who is at highest risk of gastrointestinal bleeding.

Earlier this year, Medical News Today reported on a consumer update from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), stating that while daily low-dose aspirin use can prevent heart attack or stroke for those who have already had one, there is insufficient evidence to support its use for prevention of first-time heart attack or stroke.

Written by Honor Whiteman

 

Improved survival with earlier intervention for common form of heart attack

Changes in the treatment of the most common form of heart attack over the past decade have been associated with higher survival rates for men and women regardless of age, race and ethnicity, according to a UCLA-led analysis.

But the study also suggests that there is room for improvement in how current treatment guidelines are applied among specific patient groups.

The researchers reviewed records for 6.5 million people who were treated for heart attacks between 2002 and 2011. The analysis was among the first and largest national studies to assess the impact of the trend toward more aggressive care for patients who experience the type of heart attack known as non-ST elevation myocardial infarction, or NSTEMI.

Their findings are reported in the current online edition of the peer-reviewed Journal of the American Heart Association.

“The substantial reductions in in-hospital mortality observed for NSTEMI patients nationwide over the last decade reflect greater adherence to evidence-based, guideline-directed therapies,” said Dr. Gregg C. Fonarow, the study’s senior author and UCLA’s Eliot Corday Professor of Cardiovascular Medicine and Science.

“Nevertheless, there may be further opportunities to improve care and outcomes for patients with NSTEMI, who represent the greater proportion of patients presenting with myocardial infarction,” said Fonarow, who also is director of the Ahmanson-UCLA Cardiomyopathy Center at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA.

Heart attacks are broadly classified into two types. The more severe form, ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), involves complete blockage of an artery supplying blood to the heart muscle. The less severe type, NSTEMI, involves partial or temporary blockage of the artery. Studies in the U.S. and Europe have found that although the incidence of STEMI heart attacks is declining, the number of NSTEMI heart attacks increased in the past decade.

Guidelines issued in 2012 by the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association recommended initiating cardiac catheterization in high-risk NSTEMI patients within 12 to 24 hours after the patient arrives at the hospital. This strategy had been evolving since 2009 following publication of the Timing of Intervention in Acute Coronary Syndromes trial. Previously, the recommendation was to begin catheterization in high-risk NSTEMI patients within 48 hours.

Fonarow and his colleagues examined trends in the use of cardiac catheterization for people who had been hospitalized after suffering an NSTEMI, within 24 hours and within 48 hours of presentation, seeking to determine whether changes in their care may have resulted in better outcomes.

The researchers analyzed publicly available records from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, the largest U.S. database of hospitalized individuals. Of the 6.5 million patients whose records they examined, 3.98 million were admitted to hospitals with NSTEMI diagnoses.

The study tracked the proportion of those patients who underwent cardiac catheterization each year, and their outcomes – how many died in the hospital, the average length of their hospital stays, and the cost of hospitalization. They found that as the trend toward earlier intervention in NSTEMI patients took hold – with doctors beginning treatment within 24 hours after patients arrived at the hospital, rather than within 48 hours – the rate of in-hospital death declined from 5.5 percent in 2002 to 3.9 percent in 2011. Improvements were found for men and women, older and younger patients, and across all races and ethnic groups.

In addition, the average length of patients’ hospital stays decreased during the decade-long study, from 5.7 days to 4.8 days. NSTEMI patients who underwent cardiac catheterization within the first 24 hours had the shortest average stays.

Although more NSTEMI patients in all demographic groups received early cardiac catheterization as the study progressed, there were still significant differences across age, gender, and racial and ethnic groups in how frequently early intervention was used. Men, for example, were more likely to receive earlier catheterization than women.

“Despite the improvement, there are significant differences in the age-, gender-, and ethnicity-specific trends in the use of invasive management of NSTEMI, and these findings may help guide further improvements in care and outcomes for male and female patients of all ages, races and ethnicities,” said New York Medical College’s Dr. Sahil Khera, the study’s first author. “Further efforts are needed to enhance the quality of care for patients with NSTEMI and to develop strategies to ensure more equitable care for patients with this type of heart attack.”

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/280651.php