Cited by 307Antiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular DiseasesAcute Myocardial Infarction ResearchInflammatory mediators and NSAID effects

Comparative Effectiveness of Aspirin Dosing in Cardiovascular Disease

Open access
Jones, W. Schuyler, Mulder, Hillary, Wruck, Lisa M., Pencina, Michael J., Kripalani, Sunil, Muñoz, Daniel, Crenshaw, David L., Effron, Mark B. +62 more·2021·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The appropriate dose of aspirin to lower the risk of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke and to minimize major bleeding in patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is a subject of controversy. METHODS: Using an open-label, pragmatic design, we randomly assigned patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease to a strategy of 81 mg or 325 mg of aspirin per day. The primary effectiveness outcome was a composite of death from any cause, hospitalization for myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for stroke, assessed in a time-to-event analysis. The primary safety outcome was hospitalization for major bleeding, also assessed in a time-to-event analysis. RESULTS: A total of 15,076 patients were followed for a median of 26.2 months (interquartile range [IQR], 19.0 to 34.9). Before randomization, 13,537 (96.0% of those with available information on previous aspirin use) were already taking aspirin, and 85.3% of these patients were previously taking 81 mg of daily aspirin. Death, hospitalization for myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for stroke occurred in 590 patients (estimated percentage, 7.28%) in the 81-mg group and 569 patients (estimated percentage, 7.51%) in the 325-mg group (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.14). Hospitalization for major bleeding occurred in 53 patients (estimated percentage, 0.63%) in the 81-mg group and 44 patients (estimated percentage, 0.60%) in the 325-mg group (hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.77). Patients assigned to 325 mg had a higher incidence of dose switching than those assigned to 81 mg (41.6% vs. 7.1%) and fewer median days of exposure to the assigned dose (434 days [IQR, 139 to 737] vs. 650 days [IQR, 415 to 922]). CONCLUSIONS: In this pragmatic trial involving patients with established cardiovascular disease, there was substantial dose switching to 81 mg of daily aspirin and no significant differences in cardiovascular events or major bleeding between patients assigned to 81 mg and those assigned to 325 mg of aspirin daily. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; ADAPTABLE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02697916.).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmoa2102137

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In the ADAPTABLE trial of individuals with established CVD (38% with diabetes), there were no significant differences in cardiovascular events or major bleeding between individuals assigned to 81 mg and those assigned to 325 mg aspirin daily.

    “In the ADAPTABLE (Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-Centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-term Effectiveness) trial of individuals with established CVD, 38% of whom had diabetes, there were no significant differences in cardiovascular events or major bleeding between individuals assigned to 81 mg and those assigned to 325 mg aspirin daily (185).”

    From 10. Cardiovascular Disease and Risk Management: Standards of Care in Diabetes—2026 (2026) · cites this paper as [185]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In the ADAPTABLE trial, there were no significant differences in cardiovascular events or major bleeding between individuals assigned to 81 mg and those assigned to 325 mg of aspirin daily.

    “In the ADAPTABLE (Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-Centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-term Effectiveness) trial of individuals with established cardiovascular disease, 38% of whom had diabetes, there were no significant differences in cardiovascular events or major bleeding between individuals assigned to 81 mg and those assigned to 325 mg of aspirin daily (191).”
  • In ADAPTABLE, cardiovascular events and major bleeding did not differ significantly between aspirin 81 mg and 325 mg daily.

    “In the ADAPTABLE (Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-Centric Trial Assessing Benefi ts and Long-term Effectiveness) trial of individuals with established cardiovascular disease, 38% of whom had diabetes, there were no signi fi cant differences in cardiovascular events or major bleeding between patients assigned to 81 mg and those assigned to 325 mg of aspirin daily (156).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. [6]Xian Y, Wang TY, McCoy LA, Association of discharge aspirin dose with outcomes after acute myocardial infarction: insights from the Treatment with ADP Receptor Inhibitors: Longitudinal Assessment of Treatment Patterns and Events after Acute Coronary Syndrome (TRANSLATE-ACS) Study. Circulation 2015; 132: 174– 81. 25995313
  2. [8]Kohli P, Udell JA, Murphy SA, Discharge aspirin dose and clinical outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndromes treated with prasugrel versus clopidogrel: an analysis from the TRITON-TIMI 38 study (trial to assess improvement in therapeutic outcomes by optimizing platelet inhibition with prasugrel-thrombolysis in myocardial infarction 38). J Am Coll Cardiol 2014; 63: 225– 32. 24140678
  3. [10]Amsterdam EA, Wenger NK, Brindis RG, 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation 2014; 130: 2354– 94. 25249586
  4. [11]Smith SC Jr, Benjamin EJ, Bonow RO, AHA/ACCF secondary prevention and risk reduction therapy for patients with coronary and other atherosclerotic vascular disease: 2011 update: a guideline from the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology Foundation. Circulation 2011; 124: 2458– 73. 22052934
  5. [12]Montalescot G, Sechtem U, Achenbach S, 2013 ESC guidelines on the management of stable coronary artery disease: the Task Force on the Management of Stable Coronary Artery Disease of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J 2013; 34: 2949– 3003. 23996286
  6. [13]Hall HM, de Lemos JA, Enriquez JR, Contemporary patterns of discharge aspirin dosing after acute myocardial infarction in the United States: results from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR). Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2014; 7: 701– 7. 25116897
  7. [18]Ahmad FS, Ricket IM, Hammill BG, Computable phenotype implementation for a national, multicenter pragmatic clinical trial: lessons learned from ADAPTABLE. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2020; 13(6): e006292. 32466729 PMC7321832
  8. [20]Levine GN, Bates ER, Bittl JA, 2016 ACC/AHA guideline focused update on duration of dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with coronary artery disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 2016; 68: 1082– 115. 27036918

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jones, W. S., Mulder, H., Wruck, L. M., Pencina, M. J., Kripalani, S., Muñoz, D., Crenshaw, D. L., Effron, M. B., Re, R. N., Gupta, K., Anderson, R. D., Pepine, C. J., Handberg, E. M., Manning, B. R., Jain, S. K., Girotra, S., Riley, D., DeWalt, D. A., Whittle, J., Goldberg, Y. H., Roger, V. L., Hess, R., Benziger, C. P., Farrehi, P., Zhou, L., Ford, D. E., Haynes, K., VanWormer, J. J., Knowlton, K. U., Kraschnewski, J. L., Polonsky, T. S., Fintel, D. J., Ahmad, F. S., McClay, J. C., Campbell, J. R., Bell, D. S., Fonarow, G. C., Bradley, S. M., Paranjape, A., Roe, M. T., Robertson, H. R., Curtis, L. H., Sharlow, A. G., Berdan, L. G., Hammill, B. G., Harris, D. F., Qualls, L. G., Marquis-Gravel, G., Modrow, M. F., Marcus, G. M., Carton, T. W., Nauman, E., Waitman, L. R., Kho, A. N., Shenkman, E. A., McTigue, K. M., Kaushal, R., Masoudi, F. A., Antman, E. M., Davidson, D. R., Edgley, K., Merritt, J. G., Brown, L. S., Zemon, D. N., McCormick, T. E., Alikhaani, J. D., Gregoire, K. C., Rothman, R. L., Harrington, R. A., & Hernandez, A. F.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • From Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham (W.S.J., H.M., L.M.W., M.J.P., M.T.R., H.R.R., L.H.C., A.G.S., L.G.B., B.G.H., D.F.H., L.G.Q., G.M.-G., A.F.H.), University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill (D.A.D.), and Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem (L.Z.) — all in North Carolina; Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville (S.K., D.M., D.L.C., R.L.R.); Ochsner Health (M.B.E., R.N.R.) and Louisiana Public Health Institute (T.W.C., E.N.) — both in New Orleans; University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City (K.G.); University of Florida, Gainesville (R.D.A., C.J.P., E.M.H., B.R.M., E.A.S.); University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh (S.K.J., K.M.M.), Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey (J.L.K.), and Temple University, Philadelphia (A.P.) — all in Pennsylvania; University of Iowa, Iowa City (S.G., D.R.); Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee (J.W.), and Marshfield Clinic Research Institute, Marshfield (J.J.V.) — both in Wisconsin; Albe...
  • Northwestern University (US)
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2021-05-27
Volume
384
Issue
21
Pages
1981-1990
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W3162833931
Cited by
307
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 37 · 2025: 63 · 2024: 63 · 2023: 56 · 2022: 51 · 2021: 36
FWCI
34.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • ScholarSphere (Penn State Libraries) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (Award (ASP-1502-27029))
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Antiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular Diseases
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Acute Myocardial Infarction Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Inflammatory mediators and NSAID effects
Keywords
aspirin dosing, low-dose aspirin, high-dose aspirin, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, major bleeding, myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular mortality, secondary prevention, antiplatelet therapy, bleeding risk, hospitalization
MeSH terms
Assessment of Medication Adherence, Aged, Aspirin, Cardiovascular Diseases, Female, Hemorrhage, Hospitalization, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Myocardial Infarction, Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors, Drug Monitoring, Stroke, Atherosclerosis, Medication Adherence, Secondary Prevention

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review