4.3 Article

The impact of enteric coating of aspirin on aspirin responsiveness in patients with suspected or newly diagnosed ischemic stroke: prospective cohort study: results from the (ECASIS) study

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
Volume 78, Issue 11, Pages 1801-1811

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00228-022-03391-2

Keywords

Plain aspirin; Enteric-coated aspirin; Aspirin response; Thromboxane B2; Stroke

Funding

  1. Qatar National Library
  2. Qatar National library (QNL)
  3. MRC of Hamad Medical Corporation (HMC)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to compare the effects of enteric-coated aspirin and plain aspirin on patients with ischemic stroke. The results showed no significant difference in aspirin non-responsiveness between the two formulations. Further research is needed to explore the risk of aspirin non-responsiveness in diabetic patients.
Background and purpose Uncertainty remains regarding the impact of enteric-coated aspirin (EC-ASA) on secondary prevention of ischemic stroke compared to plain aspirin (P-ASA). Hence, this study was designed to investigate the effect of EC formulation on ASA response via evaluating thromboxane B2 (TXB2) levels in patients with suspected or newly diagnosed stroke. Methods A prospective cohort study on suspected or newly diagnosed ischemic stroke patients who are aspirin-naive was conducted. Patients were received either EC aspirin or plain aspirin for at least 3 days. The primary outcome was the proportion of aspirin non-responsiveness between two groups (level of residual serum TXB2 associated with elevated thrombotic risk (< 99.0% inhibition or TXB2 > 3.1 ng/ml) within 72 h after three daily aspirin doses, while secondary outcomes were the incidence of early gastrointestinal tract (GIT) bleeding with the various aspirin preparations. (Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04330872 registered on 02 April 2020). Results Of 42 patients, ischemic strokes were confirmed in both P-ASA (81%) and EC-ASA (67%) arms. ASA non-responsiveness showed no significant difference between the two formulations (P-ASA vs. EC-ASA; 28.6% vs 23.8%; P = 0.726). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that patients treated with EC-ASA were more likely to have a lower rate of non-responders compared to P-ASA (unadjusted OR 0.78; 95% CI 0.20, 3.11); with the risk highest in type 2 diabetic patients with HBA1c > 6.5% (adjusted OR 6; 95% CI 1.02, 35.27; P = 0.047). No incidence of GIT bleeding observed throughout the study. Conclusion A significant proportion of ASA non-responsiveness was recorded regardless of ASA formulation administered. The increased risk of ASA non-responsiveness in diabetic patients needs further exploration by larger prospective studies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available