4.7 Article

Aspirin in Alzheimer's Disease Increased Risk of Intracerebral Hemorrhage: Cause for Concern?

期刊

STROKE
卷 41, 期 11, 页码 2690-2692

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.109.576975

关键词

Alzheimer's disease; aspirin; dementia; ICH; intracerebral hemorrhage

资金

  1. Dutch national dementia and stroke initiative, the Parelsnoer Initiatief (PSI)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Purpose-In a randomized controlled trial in Alzheimer's disease (AD), we found a higher number of intracerebral hemorrhages (ICHs) in patients randomized to aspirin treatment. Here, we evaluate the literature on the risk of ICH as a complication in patients with AD treated with aspirin. Methods-Systematic review and comparison of the occurrence of events over time between the aspirin and control group in each trial using Cox regression analysis. Estimated hazard ratios (HRs) were combined in a pooled HR. Results-Two randomized controlled trials on aspirin for AD were found. In the Evaluation of Vascular Care in Alzheimer's Disease (EVA) trial (conducted in our center), 4.6% of patients in the group receiving a multicomponent treatment that included aspirin had an ICH (3/65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0 to 12.9) versus 0% in the control group (0/58; 95% CI, 0 to 6.2). In the Aspirin in Alzheimer's Disease (AD2000) trial, these proportions were, respectively, 2.6% (4/156; 95% CI, 0.7 to 6.4) and 0% (0/154; 95% CI, 0 to 2.4). The pooled proportion of ICHs in the aspirin group is 3.2% (7/221; 95% CI, 1.3 to 6.4) versus 0% in the control group (0/212; 95% CI, 0 to 1.7). The pooled HR for an ICH in AD patients using aspirin is 7.63 (95% CI, 0.72 to 81.00; P=0.09). Conclusions-Although the number of cases in both trials is small, our findings suggest that aspirin use in AD might pose an increased risk of ICH, whereas it has no effect on cognition. If there is an unequivocal cardiovascular indication for aspirin, it should not be withheld in AD patients. (Stroke. 2010; 41: 2690-2692.)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据