Key result
A systematic review of 28 studies on aspirin dosing frequency and timing revealed an evidence gap, as only two studies reported long-term cardiovascular outcomes.
Why the study?
Do different aspirin regimens in terms of timing or frequency of dosing improve outcomes in the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease?
Systematic Review
Do different aspirin regimens in terms of timing or frequency of dosing improve outcomes in the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease?
There is a significant evidence gap regarding the long-term cardiovascular effects of different aspirin dosing frequencies and timing, as most current studies rely on surrogate outcomes.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Standard aspirin regimens should continue unchanged; leaves open optimal dosing frequency and timing for prevention.
Enhancing the effectiveness of aspirin by tailoring administration regimens is an important question among health professionals. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the evidence on the effects of different aspirin regimens in terms of timing (chronotherapy) or frequency of dosing in the prevention of cardiovascular disease. Only two out of the 28 included studies reported long-term cardiovascular outcomes, highlighting an evidence gap that future research should address. The remaining 26 studies used surrogate outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bem et al. (2016) conducted a systematic review in Cardiovascular disease. Different aspirin dosing frequencies and timing was evaluated on Long-term cardiovascular outcomes. A systematic review of 28 studies on aspirin dosing frequency and timing revealed an evidence gap, as only two studies reported long-term cardiovascular outcomes.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: