PMCCPMCCPMCC

Search tips
Search criteria 

Advanced

 
Logo of bmjBMJ helping doctors make better decisionsSearch bmj.comLatest content
 
BMJ. Nov 11, 2000; 321(7270): 1170–1171.
PMCID: PMC1118944
Aspirin, like all other drugs, is a poison
We do not know who should be given what dose and for how long
Martin R Tramèr, staff anaesthetist
Division of Anaesthesiology, Geneva University Hospitals, CH-1211 Geneva 14, Switzerland (martin.tramer/at/hcuge.ch)
Aspirin is an old drug. Some 2000 years ago the Greeks used the bark and leaves of the willow tree (which contains salicylic acid) to relieve pain and fever. At the end of the 19th century acetyl salicylic acid started being produced on an industrial scale and aspirin soon became a widely used painkiller. In the late 1960s it was found that a single dose of aspirin irreversibly inhibits the normal aggregation of platelets by suppressing the cycloxygenase mediated synthesis of thromboxane A2. The effect of aspirin persists until newly formed platelets have been released; their biological lifespan is about nine days.
Sometimes, adverse drug reactions can be turned to advantage, and the antithrombotic effects of aspirin have been widely exploited. Aspirin has been given successfully both to healthy people and to patients with coronary artery disease to prevent myocardial infarction, to patients with acute myocardial infarction to reduce vascular mortality, to patients with atrial fibrillation to prevent stroke and systemic embolism, and to patients with a history of stroke or transient ischaemic attack to prevent further ischaemic events.15
It has been suggested that aspirin should be given to all men aged 50 years or older and to all women after the menopause.6 There are, however, two related reasons why this enthusiasm needs to be dampened. Firstly, aspirin, through its ability to block the synthesis of prostaglandins, may damage the gastrointestinal mucosa.7 Erosions may be trivial, but they may progress to ulcers, which in turn may bleed or perforate, and may even kill. This happens more often than many doctors like to believe.8 Secondly, reduced thrombus formation results in a greater tendency to bleed. Thus, in a patient who is taking aspirin any ulcer that may arise may bleed even more extensively.
It seems, therefore, a logical aim to use the minimum dose of aspirin that inhibits thrombus formation and also minimises the risk of any gastrointestinal complications. Thus, physicians have been treating their patients with low dose aspirin on the understanding that they did more good than harm to them.
There is now strong evidence in this issue of the BMJ from yet another systematic review of randomised trials that this may not necessarily be so (p 1183).9 These authors tested the risk of gastrointestinal haemorrhage from long term (average duration 28 months) treatment with subanalgesic doses of aspirin used for preventing ischaemic events. There were two main results. Firstly, gastrointestinal haemorrhage occurred on average in 2.5% of patients exposed to aspirin compared with 1.4% who were not; this difference was statistically significant. Secondly, there was no evidence of dose responsiveness over a wide range of doses (50 to 1500 mg/day). How do these numbers compare with others, and what are the implications?
A previous systematic review reported a considerably lower incidence of gastrointestinal bleeds with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs including aspirin, and there was evidence of dose-responsiveness for bleeds that were related to aspirin.8 The difference between the two meta-analyses is probably due to different definitions of adverse events. For instance, in the physician's health study,1 a large randomised trial included in both meta-analyses,8,9 of 11 037 patients given aspirin 325 mg every other day for 60 months, as many as 3.6% had symptoms of haematemesis or melaena. This was the level of harm that Derry and Loke were extracting for the purpose of their systematic review.9 Using this definition throughout, the number needed to harm for haemorrhage with aspirin compared with placebo was about 100, and there was a lack of dose responsiveness.9 However, in the same randomised trial 10 times fewer patients taking aspirin (0.34%) had a potentially fatal haemorrhage compared with those taking a placebo.1 Using this more serious level of harm, there was evidence of dose responsiveness8: the incidence of serious bleeds (and perforations) was 0.3% with 325 mg aspirin every other day for 60 months,1 0.6% with 1 g/day for 36 months,10 and 0.9% with 2.5-5.2 g/day for two months.11 An earlier meta-analysis has also shown a consistent tendency (although not statistically significant) for a smaller risk of gastrointestinal bleeds with smaller doses of aspirin (<300 mg/day).12
The results of these meta-analyses are not contradictory but complementary.8,9,12 Indeed, the most important message in Derry and Loke's paper is that there is no gain without pain. And as with many systematic reviews, their's leaves more questions open than it answers. Thus, the research agenda is set: Who should be given what dose of aspirin, and for how long? In patients with a history of stroke or transient ischaemic attack, the minimal effective dose of aspirin to prevent further vascular accidents remains unknown.13 Nor do we know how long patients have to take aspirin. In the prevention of recurrent stroke aspirin seems to be of benefit independent of the patient's age.5 However, in elderly patients with atrial fibrillation the benefit of prophylactic aspirin to prevent strokes is unproved.4 Also the risk of both gastrointestinal complications and perhaps congestive heart failure with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs may increase with increasing age.14,15
Finally, there is a methodological message. Derry and Loke analysed data from almost 66 000 patients chronically exposed to a wide range of different doses of aspirin. It is unlikely that the same body of data would ever be tested in a single randomised controlled trial. Innovative models are needed to estimate rare events with confidence, and systematic reviews currently provide the best solution. In the light of Derry and Loke's analyses, it may be more appropriate for some people to eat an apple rather than an aspirin a day.6
Notes
Papers p 1183
1. Steering Committee of the Physician's Health Study Research Group. Final report on the aspirin component of the ongoing physicians' health study. N Engl J Med. 1989;321:129–135. [PubMed]
2. The RISC Group. Risk of myocardial infarction and death during treatment with low dose aspirin and intravenous heparin in men with unstable coronary artery disease. Lancet. 1991;336:827–830. [PubMed]
3. ISIS-2 (Second International Study of Infarct Survival) Collaborative Group. Randomised trial of intravenous streptokinase, oral aspirin, both, or neither among 17 187 cases of suspected acute myocardial infarction: ISIS-2. Lancet. 1988;336:349–360. [PubMed]
4. Preliminary report of the stoke prevention in atrial fibrillation study. N Engl J Med. 1990;322:863–868. [PubMed]
5. Chen ZM, Sandercock P, Pan HC, Counsell C, Collins R, Liu LS, et al. Indications for early aspirin use in acute ischemic stroke. A combined analysis of 40,000 randomized patients from the Chinese Acute Stroke Trial and the International Stroke Trial. Stroke. 2000;31:1240–1249. [PubMed]
6. Dalen JE. An apple a day or an aspirin a day? Arch Int Med. 1991;151:1066–1068. [PubMed]
7. Henry D, Lim LLY, Rodriquez LAG, Gutthann SP, Carson JL, Griffin M, et al. Variability in risk of gastrointestinal complications with individual non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: results of a collaborative meta-analysis. BMJ. 1996;312:1563–1566. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
8. Tramèr MR, Moore RA, Reynolds DJ, McQuay HJ. Quantitative estimation of rare adverse events which follow a biological progression: a new model applied to chronic NSAID use. Pain. 2000;85:169–182. [PubMed]
9. Derry S, Loke YK. Risk of gastrointestinal haemorrhage with long-term use of aspirin: meta-analysis. BMJ. 2000;321:1183–1187. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
10. Kurata JH, Abbey DE. The effect of chronic aspirin use on duodenal and gastric ulcer hospitalizations. J Clin Gastroenterol. 1990;12:260–266. [PubMed]
11. Roth S, Agrawal N, Mahowald M, Montoya H, Robbins D, Miller S, et al. Misoprostol heals gastroduodenal injury in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving aspirin. Arch Intern Med. 1989;149:775–779. [PubMed]
12. Roderick PJ, Wilkes HC, Meade TW. The gastrointestinal toxicity of aspirin: an overview of randomised controlled trials. Br J Clin Pharmaco. 1993;35:219–226. [PubMed]
13. Johnson ES, Lanes SF, Wentworth CE, III, Satterfield MH, Abebe BL, Dicker LW. A Metaregression analysis of the dose-response effect of aspirin on stroke. Arch Int Med. 1999;159:1248–1253. [PubMed]
14. Hawkey CJ. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and peptic ulcers. Facts and figures multiply, but do they add up? BMJ. 1990;300:278–284. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
15. Page J, Henry D. Consumption of NSAIDs and the development of congestive heart failure in elderly patients. Arch Int Med. 2000;160:777–784. [PubMed]
Articles from BMJ : British Medical Journal are provided here courtesy of
BMJ Group