Effectiveness and Safety of Enteric-Coated vs Uncoated Aspirin in Patients With Cardiovascular Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: Clinicians recommend enteric-coated aspirin to decrease gastrointestinal bleeding in secondary prevention of coronary artery disease even though studies suggest platelet inhibition is decreased with enteric-coated vs uncoated aspirin formulations. Objective: To assess whether receipt of enteric-coated vs uncoated aspirin is associated with effectiveness or safety outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a post hoc secondary analysis of ADAPTABLE (Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-Centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-term Effectiveness), a pragmatic study of 15 076 patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease having data in the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network. Patients were enrolled from April 19, 2016, through June 30, 2020, and randomly assigned to receive high (325 mg) vs low (81 mg) doses of daily aspirin. The present analysis assessed the effectiveness and safety of enteric-coated vs uncoated aspirin among those participants who reported aspirin formulation at baseline. Data were analyzed from November 11, 2019, to July 3, 2023. Intervention: ADAPTABLE participants were regrouped according to aspirin formulation self-reported at baseline, with a median (IQR) follow-up of 26.2 (19.8-35.4) months. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary effectiveness end point was the cumulative incidence of the composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from any cause, and the primary safety end point was major bleeding events (hospitalization for a bleeding event with use of a blood product or intracranial hemorrhage). Cumulative incidence at median follow-up for primary effectiveness and primary safety end points was compared between participants taking enteric-coated or uncoated aspirin using unadjusted and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. All analyses were conducted for the intention-to-treat population. Results: Baseline aspirin formulation used in ADAPTABLE was self-reported for 10 678 participants (median [IQR] age, 68.0 [61.3-73.7] years; 7285 men [68.2%]), of whom 7366 (69.0%) took enteric-coated aspirin and 3312 (31.0%) took uncoated aspirin. No significant difference in effectiveness (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 0.94; 95% CI, 0.80-1.09; P = .40) or safety (AHR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.49-1.37; P = .46) outcomes between the enteric-coated aspirin and uncoated aspirin cohorts was found. Within enteric-coated aspirin and uncoated aspirin, aspirin dose had no association with effectiveness (enteric-coated aspirin AHR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.88-1.45 and uncoated aspirin AHR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.83-1.18; interaction P = .41) or safety (enteric-coated aspirin AHR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.02-5.50 and uncoated aspirin AHR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.49-1.64; interaction P = .07). Conclusions and Relevance: In this post hoc secondary analysis of the ADAPTABLE randomized clinical trial, enteric-coated aspirin was not associated with significantly higher risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death or with lower bleeding risk compared with uncoated aspirin, regardless of dose, although a reduction in bleeding with enteric-coated aspirin cannot be excluded. More research is needed to confirm whether enteric-coated aspirin formulations or newer formulations will improve outcomes in this population. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02697916.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".