Key result
Derived risk models link the highest quintile to ~4.3-fold greater major bleeding risk than the lowest.
Why the study?
Low-dose aspirin for primary prevention reduces major vascular events but increases major bleeding, requiring an MVE-to-MB ratio >4 for net benefit; this study aimed to derive risk scores for both to identify groups with differing net benefits.
Cohort (n=431,167)
Yes
Effect estimate: HR 4.3 (95% CI 3.87-4.77)
Derived risk models using routine clinical data can identify patients with a high major vascular event to major bleeding ratio (≥4) who are most likely to derive net benefit from primary prevention with low-dose aspirin.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In the primary prevention setting, low-dose aspirin reduces major vascular events (MVEs) by approximately 11% but increases major bleeding (MB) by 40-50%, implying that net benefit will be most evident when the MVE-to-MB ratio is >4. This study aimed to derive cross-validated risk scores for MB and MVE and use the MVE-to-MB ratio to identify groups who may derive differing net benefits from treatment. METHODS: 431 167 UK Biobank participants without known atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease at baseline were followed through record linkage for incident MVEs (myocardial infarction, non-haemorrhagic stroke, transient ischaemic attack, arterial revascularisation or vascular death) and MB (gastrointestinal and intracranial bleeds with hospital admission for ≥2 days). Risk scores were derived for MVE and MB using Cox proportional hazards models with cross-validation. Ratios of observed MVE-to-MB rates were calculated across risk categories. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 12 years, 18 310 participants suffered an MVE and 5352 an MB. MB risk was highest among participants with frailty, prior bleeds, cancer, liver disease or renal dysfunction, with a 4.3-fold difference in risk between the highest and lowest fifths of MB risk (HR 4.3, 95% CI 3.87 to 4.77). The MVE-to-MB ratio was ≤2.6 in the highest MB risk groups and ≥4 in lower MB risk categories. CONCLUSIONS: The derived models using routinely available disease history and laboratory measurements improved distinction of the MVE-to-MB ratio compared with using conventional models for MB risk including vascular risk factors. Such models can help identify those with moderate MVE risk but low MB risk who may benefit from low-dose aspirin.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hammami et al. (2025) conducted a cohort in Without known atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (n=431,167). Risk scores for major bleeding and major vascular events vs. Conventional models for major bleeding risk was evaluated on Incident major vascular events (MVE) and major bleeding (MB) (HR 4.3, 95% CI 3.87-4.77). Derived risk models using disease history and laboratory measurements identified a 4.3-fold difference in major bleeding risk between the highest and lowest fifths (HR 4.3; 95% CI 3.87-4.77).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: