4.6 Review

Aspirin in primary prevention for patients with diabetes: Still a matter of debate

Journal

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/eci.13001

Keywords

aspirin; cardiovascular disease; diabetes; inflammation; platelets; primary prevention

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundPatients with diabetes are at high cardiovascular (CV) risk due to an exaggerated platelet activation and aggregation. In the first 2000s low-dose aspirin was first recommended for primary prevention, but then re-discussed. MethodsThis short narrative review, based on the material searched for and obtained via PubMed up to February 2018, aims at clarifying this controversial topic. ResultsThe JPAD2 study has been designed to evaluate the occurrence of any CV event in a cohort of patients with diabetes and concluded that low-dose aspirin did not influence the risk for CV events while increasing the risk for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Reasons for this result can be found in the role of diabetic platelets, which are known to be hyperreactive, thus producing intensified adhesion, activation, and aggregation. In this setting, other associated metabolic conditions can concur to enhance platelet adhesion and activation. Aspirin resistance has been often considered a guilty actor, although many mechanisms have been mistaken for true aspirin resistance, such as patient poor compliance, inadequate dosing, drug interactions, and high-platelet turnover. However, the mere presence of diabetes is not likely to give a net benefit for CV protection with respect to GI bleeding. ConclusionIt appears advisable to follow current guidelines addressing first of all classical risk factors and evaluate aspirin therapy in primary prevention only for patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes at increased CV risk and no risk for GI bleeding. Anyway, additional clinical trials are needed to address the current topic.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available