Prevalence of Acetylsalicylic Acid Use for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease Amongst Older Adults From 2017—2021: a Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundThree landmark trials on the use of acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) were published in 2018. Since then, major clinical practice guidelines have been updated with recommendations against the routine use of ASA for primary CVD prevention, particularly in older adults. However, little is known about the uptake of this evidence into real world practice. The purpose of this study was to assess the change in ASA usage for primary prevention of CVD in older adults between 2017 and 2021. Methods A retrospective cross-sectional study of ASA use for primary prevention in ambulatory older adults without known CVD in an urban Canadian city was conducted. Results Seven hundred and fifty-six participants were included. The mean age was 78.9 years (standard deviation 7.9) and 64.8% were female. One hundred and thirty (17.2%) participants used ASA for primary prevention, including 20.3% in 2017, 17.0% in 2018, 21.8% in 2019, 16.3% in 2020, and 11.0% in 2021 (p = .061). Female sex was associated with lower ASA use (odds ratio [OR] 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.29-0.68) and hypertension was associated with higher ASA use (OR 2.72, 95% CI 1.73-4.29). Conclusions Use of ASA for primary CVD prevention in older Canadians decreased between 2017 and 2021, suggesting an uptake of clinical trial data and practice guideline recommendations. Focusing on deprescribing of ASA for primary CVD prevention continues to be warranted, given the risks associated with ASA in this population.
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 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".