Key result
Low-dose aspirin reduced the incidence of preeclampsia in high-risk women (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.79-0.96), but had no significant effect in low-risk women.
Why the study?
Does low-dose aspirin reduce the incidence of preeclampsia in low-risk and high-risk women?
Meta-Analysis (n=33,598)
Does low-dose aspirin reduce the incidence of preeclampsia in low-risk and high-risk women?
Relative Risk: 0.87 (95% CI 0.79–0.96)
Low-dose aspirin provides a mild but significant benefit in preventing preeclampsia among high-risk women, whereas it does not significantly reduce risk in low-risk pregnancies.
Supports targeted aspirin use in high-risk pregnancies; reinforces guidelines and questions routine prophylaxis in low-risk women.
The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the effectiveness of low-dose aspirin in the prevention of preeclampsia in low-risk and high-risk women. We identified randomized clinical trials of the use of low-dose aspirin to prevent preeclampsia through the PUBMED search engine, and through the Cochran Library database. Twenty-two studies met our inclusion criteria, and were divided according to the studied population into 2 groups: trials with women at low risk for preeclampsia and trials with women at high risk. Effects were measured through the incidence of preeclampsia in women taking either placebo or aspirin, in studies where the relative risks and the 95% confidence intervals were calculated for both groups. A total of 33,598 women were studied, comprising 5 trials with 16,700 women at low-risk and 17 trials including 16,898 women at high risk. The incidence of preeclampsia was 3.75% (626/17,700), in the low-risk group, 9.01% (1,524/16,898) in the high-risk group, and 6.40% (2,150/33,598) overall. Low-dose aspirin had no statistically significantly effect on the incidence of preeclampsia in the low-risk group (RR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.81-1.11), but had a small beneficial effect in the high-risk group (RR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.79-0.96). Therefore, low-dose aspirin is mildly beneficial in terms of reducing the incidence of preeclampsia in women at high risk of developing preeclampsia. Esta revisão busca reúne estudos sobre a eficácia da aspirina em baixas doses na prevenção da pré-eclâmpsia em pacientes de alto e baixo risco. Identificamos estudos clínicos randomizados controlados usando baixas doses de aspirina para prevenir a pré-eclâmpsia, publicados no MEDLINE. Vinte e dois estudos preencheram nossos critérios de inclusão. Dividimos os estudos de acordo com a população estudada em dois grupos: estudos com mulheres de baixo risco para pré-eclâmpsia e estudos com pacientes de alto risco. A principal medida de efeito foi a incidência de pré-eclâmpsia em pacientes que usaram placebo ou aspirina, na qual os riscos relativos e os intervalos de confiança de 95% foram calculados para os grupos de pacientes de baixo e de alto risco para pré-eclâmpsia. Um total de 33.598 pacientes foram estudadas, dentre as quais cinco estudos com 16.700 pacientes de baixo risco e 17 estudos incluindo 16.898 pacientes de alto risco. As incidências de pré-eclâmpsia no geral, no grupo de baixo e no de alto risco foram de 6,40% (2.150/33.598), 3,75% (626/17.700), e 9,01% (1.524/16.898), respectivamente. Baixas doses de aspirina não tiveram efeito estatístico significante na redução da incidência de pré-eclâmpsia em pacientes de baixo risco (RR=0.95, 95%CI = 0.81-1.11), porém apresentaram pequenos benefícios em mulheres de alto risco (RR=0.87, 95%CI=0.79-0.96). Esta análise leva à conclusão de que baixas doses de aspirina têm pequeno efeito na redução da incidência da pré-eclâmpsia em pacientes com alto risco de desenvolver a doença.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ruano et al. (2005) conducted a meta-analysis in Preeclampsia (n=33,598). Low-dose aspirin vs. Placebo was evaluated on Incidence of preeclampsia in high-risk women (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79-0.96). Low-dose aspirin reduced the incidence of preeclampsia in high-risk women (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.79-0.96), but had no significant effect in low-risk women.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: