Aspirin lower ris

[Golfer-but-poor]

An interesting piece in the on-line Independent at independent.co.uk/news/scie...

The study found using aspirin was linked to an 11% reduction in risk but it lead to 1 in 200 having a major bleed.

Does anyone have access to the research article? If so is the Independent article an accurate précis?

This next point is of more importance to me. The study had more than 1000 participants, better if it stated a more accurate figure, is that a good enough sized cohort to make any rational assessment? Does anyone know of any study, with a bigger cohort, on the same research area and what the conclusions were?

[bantam12]

My husband has been on Aspirin for some years and has had at least 3 bleeds and last week he nearly died from a perforated ulcer.

[Chappychap]

Here is a link to the original research,

jamanetwork.com/journals/ja...

You're right to always return to the original research. Generally speaking newspaper reporting of medical research is a joke (although this particular Independent article isn't too bad), and as traditional journalism continues to be massacred by the internet it gets worse every year!

[Hidden]

The main issue here is that they were looking at aspirin as a preventative treatment for cardiovascular disease in patients with NO evidence of disease. That meant a number needed to treat of 250 ( for 1 person to benefit 250 people had to take aspirin for no benefit ). Not only did people not benefit they were at risk of a major bleed ( number needed to harm ).

The number needed to treat and harm is different in patients with cardiovascular disease taking aspirin. Every medication is has risk V benefit, being aware of that is important so we can make an informed choice.

[Ashleigh_BHF]

Hi Golfer-but-poor

Here's the abstract: jamanetwork.com/journals/ja...

It was a meta-anaylsis, meaning the researchers analysed the results of multiple other large scale studies (13 in this case) to gain a better consensus. The 1000 participants is a minimum criteria that each study had to meet in order to be included in the meta analysis; but the total participants reviewed for the meta analysis was 164,225.

Hope this helps to answer your questions-please let me know if not!

Ashleigh

[Golfer-but-poor in reply to Ashleigh_BHF]

Ashleigh and chappychap

Thanks for url. I will now study it in detail. I am more comfortable with massive cohorts in several studies.

The Independent journalist clearly failed to make clear the real significance of the 1000 that was stated. I mistakenly thought that was the cohort size and immediately thought the conclusions were very questionable.

My interest is two-fold

One as a retired statistician.

Second, but more importantly, I currently have a problem taking a statin and lansoprazole where one or other, possibly both, give me major diarrhoea needing to go to the toilet up to five times per day. With the GP agreement I am NOT taking either so I can identify which is the problem.

[Ashleigh_BHF in reply to Golfer-but-poor]

Golfer-but-poor That sounds like a sensible approach in the short term, hope you find out which is giving you problems soon so you can be offered an alternative.

Ashleigh

[Hidden]

It's a very tricky question.

I have known someone, who was operated in cardiology in Manchester.

He essentially bled to death in the end. Where?

Literally everywhere.

Something I wouldn't get to hear very often.

The family got traumatised ever since.