Objective To evaluate the benefits and harms of low dose aspirin in people with diabetes and no cardiovascular disease.
Design Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Data sources Medline (1966-November 2008), the Cochrane central register of controlled trials (Cochrane Library 2008;issue 4), and reference lists of retrieved articles.
Review methods Randomised trials of aspirin compared with placebo or no aspirin in people with diabetes and no pre-existing cardiovascular disease were eligible for inclusion. Data on major cardiovascular events (death from cardiovascular causes, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, and all cause mortality) were extracted and pooled with a random effect model. Results are reported as relative risks with 95% confidence intervals.
Results Of 157 studies in the literature searches, six were eligible (10 117 participants). When aspirin was compared with placebo there was no statistically significant reduction in the risk of major cardiovascular events (five studies, 9584 participants; relative risk 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.81 to 1.00), cardiovascular mortality (four studies, n=8557, 0.94; 0.72 to 1.23), or all cause mortality (four studies, n=8557; 0.93, 0.82 to 1.05). Significant heterogeneity was found in the analysis for myocardial infarction (I2=62.2%; P=0.02) and stroke (I2=52.5%; P=0.08). Aspirin significantly reduced the risk of myocardial infarction in men (0.57, 0.34 to 0.94) but not in women (1.08, 0.71 to 1.65; P for interaction=0.056). Evidence relating to harms was inconsistent.
Conclusions A clear benefit of aspirin in the primary prevention of major cardiovascular events in people with diabetes remains unproved. Sex may be an important effect modifier. Toxicity is to be explored further.
Objectives To develop a new methodology to systematically compare evidence across diverse risk markers for coronary heart disease and to compare this evidence with guideline recommendations.
Design "Horizontal" systematic review incorporating different sources of evidence.
Data sources Electronic search of Medline and hand search of guidelines.
Study selection Two reviewers independently determined eligibility of studies across three sources of evidence (observational studies, genetic association studies, and randomised controlled trials) related to four risk markers: depression, exercise, C reactive protein, and type 2 diabetes.
Data extraction For each risk marker, the largest meta-analyses of observational studies and genetic association studies, and meta-analyses or individual randomised controlled trials were analysed.
Results Meta-analyses of observational studies reported adjusted relative risks of coronary heart disease for depression of 1.9 (95% confidence interval 1.5 to 2.4), for top compared with bottom fourths of exercise 0.7 (0.5 to 1.0), for top compared with bottom thirds of C reactive protein 1.6 (1.5 to 1.7), and for diabetes in women 3.0 (2.4 to 3.7) and in men 2.0 (1.8 to 2.3). Prespecified study limitations were more common for depression and exercise. Meta-analyses of studies that allowed formal Mendelian randomisation were identified for C reactive protein (and did not support a causal effect), and were lacking for exercise, diabetes, and depression. Randomised controlled trials were not available for depression, exercise, or C reactive protein in relation to incidence of coronary heart disease, but trials in patients with diabetes showed some preventive effect of glucose control on risk of coronary heart disease. None of the four randomised controlled trials of treating depression in patients with coronary heart disease reduced the risk of further coronary events. Comparisons of this horizontal evidence review with two guidelines published in 2007 showed inconsistencies, with depression prioritised more in the guidelines than in our review.
Conclusions This horizontal systematic review pinpoints deficiencies and strengths in the evidence for depression, exercise, C reactive protein, and diabetes as unconfounded and unbiased causes of coronary heart disease. This new method could be used to develop a field synopsis and prioritise future development of guidelines and research.
