Long-term aspirin adherence following myocardial infarction and risk of cardiovascular events.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Aspirin is considered mandatory after myocardial infarction (MI). However, its long-term efficacy has been questioned. This study investigated the effectiveness of long-term aspirin after MI. METHODS: Patients ≥ 40 years with MI from 2004-2017 who were adherent to aspirin one year after MI were included from Danish nationwide registries. At 2, 4, 6, and 8 years after MI, continued adherence to aspirin was evaluated. Absolute and relative risks of MI, stroke, or death at 2 years from each timepoint were calculated using multivariable logistic regression analysis with average treatment effect modeling standardized for age, sex, and comorbidities. Subgroup analyses were stratified by sex and age > and ≤ 65 years. RESULTS: Among 40 114 individuals included, the risk of the composite endpoint was significantly higher for nonadherent patients at all timepoints. The absolute risk was highest at 2-4 years after MI for both adherent (8.34%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.05-8.64%) and nonadherent patients (10.72%, 95% CI: 9.78-11.66%). The relative risk associated with nonadherence decreased from 4 years after index-MI and onwards: 1.41 (95% CI: 1.27-1.55) at 4-6 years and 1.21 (95% CI: 1.06-1.36) at 8-10 years (Ptrend = 0.056). Aspirin nonadherence in women and individuals > 65 years was not associated with increased risk. Pinteraction at each of the timepoints: Age-<0.001, <0.001, 0.002, 0.51; Sex - 0.25, 0.02, 0.02, 0.82. CONCLUSION: Nonadherence to long-term aspirin was associated with increased risk of MI, stroke, or death, but not in women or individuals > 65 years. The risk decreased from 4 years after MI with near statistical significance.

Temporal trends in low-dose aspirin therapy for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in European adults with and without diabetes.

AIMS: Aspirin therapy for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is controversial, and guideline recommendations have changed throughout the last decades. We report temporal trends in primary prevention aspirin use among persons with and without diabetes and describe characteristics of incident aspirin users. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using Danish nationwide registries, we identified incident and prevalent aspirin users in a population of subjects ≥40 years without CVD eligible for primary preventive aspirin therapy from 2000 through 2020. Temporal trends in aspirin users with and without diabetes were assessed, as were CVD risk factors among incident users. A total of 522 680 individuals started aspirin therapy during the study period. The number of incident users peaked in 2002 (39 803 individuals, 1.78% of the eligible population) and was the lowest in 2019 (11 898 individuals, 0.49%), with similar trends for subjects with and without diabetes. The percentage of incident users with no CVD risk factors [diabetes, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a proxy for smoking)] decreased from 53.9% in 2000 to 30.9% in 2020. The temporal trends in prevalent aspirin users followed a unimodal curve, peaked at 7.7% in 2008, and was 3.3% in 2020. For subjects with diabetes, the peak was observed in 2009 at 38.5% decreasing to 17.1% in 2020. CONCLUSION: Aspirin therapy for primary prevention of CVD has decreased over the last two decades. However, the drug remained used in individuals with and without diabetes, and a large proportion of individuals started on aspirin therapy had no CVD risk factors.

One sentence summaryThis study investigated the temporal trends in aspirin use for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in individuals with and without diabetes and found that even though the number of aspirin users has declined, the drug remains prescribed, and individuals even without cardiovascular risk factors were started on aspirin therapy. Lay summary key findingsThe number of aspirin users with and without diabetes for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease has decreased over the last two decades. Nevertheless, individuals with a low burden of cardiovascular risk factors were started on aspirin therapy.Efforts to inform appropriate use of aspirin are needed.

Unstable Angina as a Component of Primary Composite Endpoints in Clinical Cardiovascular Trials: Pros and Cons.

BACKGROUND: Unstable angina (UA) is a component of acute coronary syndrome that is only occasionally included in primary composite endpoints in clinical cardiovascular trials. The aim of this paper is to elucidate the potential benefits and disadvantages of including UA in such contexts. SUMMARY: UA comprises <10% of patients with acute coronary syndromes in contemporary settings. Based on the pathophysiological similarities, it is ideal as a part of a composite endpoint along with myocardial infarction (MI). By adding UA as a component of a primary composite endpoint, the number of events and feasibility of the trial should increase, thus decreasing its size and cost. Furthermore, UA has both economic and quality of life implications on a societal and an individual level. However, there are important challenges associated with the use of UA as an endpoint. With the introduction of high-sensitivity troponins, the number of individuals diagnosed with UA has decreased to rather low levels, with a reciprocal increase in the number of MI. In addition, UA is particularly challenging to define given the subjective assessment of the index symptoms, rendering a high risk of bias. To minimize bias, strict criteria are warranted, and events should be adjudicated by a blinded endpoint adjudication committee. KEY MESSAGES: UA should only be chosen as a component of a primary composite endpoint in cardiovascular trials after thoroughly evaluating the pros and cons. If it is chosen to include UA, appropriate precautions should be taken to minimize possible bias.

Electronic cigarettes and health with special focus on cardiovascular effects: position paper of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology (EAPC).

BACKGROUND: Tobacco use is the single largest preventable risk factor for premature death of non-communicable diseases and the second leading cause of cardiovascular disease. In response to the harmful effects of tobacco smoking, the use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) has emerged and gained significant popularity over the past 15 years. E-cigarettes are promoted as safe alternatives for traditional tobacco smoking and are often suggested as a way to reduce or quit smoking. However, evidence suggests they are not harmless. DISCUSSION: The rapid evolution of the e-cigarette market has outpaced the legislator's regulatory capacity, leading to mixed regulations. The increasing use of e-cigarettes in adolescents and young individuals is of concern. While the long-term direct cardiovascular effects of e-cigarettes remain largely unknown, the existing evidence suggests that the e-cigarette should not be regarded as a cardiovascular safe product. The contribution of e-cigarette use to reducing conventional cigarette use and smoking cessation is complex, and the impact of e-cigarette use on long-term cessation lacks sufficient evidence. CONCLUSION: This position paper describes the evidence regarding the prevalence of e-cigarette smoking, uptake of e-cigarettes in the young, related legislations, cardiovascular effects of e-cigarettes and the impact of e-cigarettes on smoking cessation. Knowledge gaps in the field are also highlighted. The recommendations from the population science and public health section of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology are presented.