Skip to main content
main-content
Top

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

Gepubliceerd in: Netherlands Heart Journal 3/2014

Open Access 01-03-2014 | EDITORIAL COMMENT

Buffered aspirin: what is your gut feeling?

Auteurs: B. C. du Pré, L. W. van Laake

Gepubliceerd in: Netherlands Heart Journal | Uitgave 3/2014

share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
insite
ZOEKEN
Aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid, ASA) is one of the oldest and most commonly used drugs in the world. In the 5th century BC, Hippocrates already prescribed leaves and bark of the willow tree, consisting of ASA precursor salicin, to patients with high fever and extreme pains. Nowadays, chronic low-dose ASA is widely prescribed as a platelet aggregation inhibitor in patients at risk for myocardial infarction or stroke. In the Netherlands, it is the second most used drug with 7.6 million prescriptions in 2012 [1]. One of the main disadvantages of ASA, however, is up-regulation of COX-2 in the stomach, which may result in gastrointestinal side effects including dyspepsia, gastrointestinal ulcers, and bleeding [2]. These side effects instigated the development of alternatives such as effervescent carbasalate calcium (ECC). ECC is a salt formulation of ASA, which makes it more soluble and theoretically prevents contact of high drug concentrations with the gastric mucosa. Initial animal and clinical studies in volunteers with high-dose drug administration indeed showed a reduced incidence of gastrointestinal side effects in ECC users [3, 4]. Later, however, patient studies with low-dose drugs showed that the risk of ulcer development and bleeding is similar for ECC and ASA [5, 6].
In the current issue of the Netherlands Heart Journal, Focks et al. [7] describe that in addition to ulcer development and bleeding, the risk of self-reported gastrointestinal symptoms of ECC and ASA is also comparable. In their observational study using questionnaires, gastrointestinal symptoms were similar in patients receiving ECC and ASA. As the authors acknowledge in the discussion, the study design involves the risk of response bias and confounding by indication. Although the authors corrected for potential confounders, it might still be possible that response bias and confounding mask a small advantage of ECC. In combination with previous studies comparing ECC and ASA on ulcer development, however, this study supports the hypothesis that gastrointestinal side effects of ASA are mainly attributed to the systemic presence of ASA rather than the local effect on the gastric mucosa [5].
This article is a fine example of a phase 5 study; a relatively new term referring to studies that investigate effectiveness and side effects in a community after a therapy has proven to work in large clinical trials [8, 9]. Conditions such as comorbidities, decision-making of the practitioner, and patient compliance, which are excluded or minimised in the previous phases but play an important role in daily practice, are taken into account. The first four study phases investigate whether a new therapy works in defined –and often highly selected patient groups; phase 5 analyses whether a community benefits from the new therapy in daily practice. Although phase 5 studies are essential, they are infrequently conducted. Companies invest a lot of money in new therapies and do not want to risk negative consequences once a therapy is on the market. Researchers may be less interested because the appreciation of phase 5 studies is generally lower due to the observational study design and its inherent risk of bias, which will likely be emphasised by colleagues and the company selling the therapy.
The impact of this kind of research is nonetheless large. As Focks et al. point out, ECC costs twice as much as ASA. In the Netherlands, this results in 5 million euros annually (on top of ASA costs) for a therapy, which in multiple studies shows no additional beneficial effects. Focks and colleagues nicely demonstrated that although ECC works better in theory, in pre-clinical studies, and even in some clinical studies, in daily practice it is not superior to the cheaper ASA. In an era with loads of new, expensive therapies and more cost-awareness, community-based effectiveness studies are vital to gain maximum profit out of the available healthcare budget.

Funding

None.

Conflict of interests

None declared.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
Literatuur
2.
go back to reference Scheiman JM. Prevention of damage induced by aspirin in the GI tract. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2012;26:153–62. PubMedCrossRef Scheiman JM. Prevention of damage induced by aspirin in the GI tract. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2012;26:153–62. PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Murray FE, Hudson N, Atherton JC, et al. Comparison of effects of calcium carbasalate and aspirin on gastroduodenal mucosal damage in human volunteers. Gut. 1996;38:11–4. PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Murray FE, Hudson N, Atherton JC, et al. Comparison of effects of calcium carbasalate and aspirin on gastroduodenal mucosal damage in human volunteers. Gut. 1996;38:11–4. PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Florent C, Flourie B, Pfeiffer A, et al. Measurement of gastric transepithelial potential difference. Effect of provocative agents (aspirin, alcohol) and gastric dressings. Gastroenterol Clin Biol. 1985;9:58–64. Mesure de la difference de potentiel transepitheliale gastrique. Effet des agents agressifs (aspirine, alcool) et des pansements gastriques. PubMed Florent C, Flourie B, Pfeiffer A, et al. Measurement of gastric transepithelial potential difference. Effect of provocative agents (aspirin, alcohol) and gastric dressings. Gastroenterol Clin Biol. 1985;9:58–64. Mesure de la difference de potentiel transepitheliale gastrique. Effet des agents agressifs (aspirine, alcool) et des pansements gastriques. PubMed
5.
go back to reference van Oijen MG, Dieleman JP, Laheij RJ, et al. Peptic ulcerations are related to systemic rather than local effects of low-dose aspirin. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008;6:309–13. PubMedCrossRef van Oijen MG, Dieleman JP, Laheij RJ, et al. Peptic ulcerations are related to systemic rather than local effects of low-dose aspirin. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008;6:309–13. PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Kelly JP, Kaufman DW, Jurgelon JM, et al. Risk of aspirin-associated major upper-gastrointestinal bleeding with enteric-coated or buffered product. Lancet. 1996;348:1413–16. PubMedCrossRef Kelly JP, Kaufman DW, Jurgelon JM, et al. Risk of aspirin-associated major upper-gastrointestinal bleeding with enteric-coated or buffered product. Lancet. 1996;348:1413–16. PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Focks JJ, Tielemans MM, van Rossum LGM, et al. Gastrointestinal symptoms in low-dose aspirin users: a comparison between plain and buffered aspirin. Neth Heart J. 2014. doi: 10.​1007/​s12471-014-0522-3. Focks JJ, Tielemans MM, van Rossum LGM, et al. Gastrointestinal symptoms in low-dose aspirin users: a comparison between plain and buffered aspirin. Neth Heart J. 2014. doi: 10.​1007/​s12471-014-0522-3.
8.
go back to reference Rohilla A, Sharma D, Keshari R. Phases of clinical trials: a review. IJPCBS. 2013;3:700–3. Rohilla A, Sharma D, Keshari R. Phases of clinical trials: a review. IJPCBS. 2013;3:700–3.
9.
Metagegevens
Titel
Buffered aspirin: what is your gut feeling?
Auteurs
B. C. du Pré
L. W. van Laake
Publicatiedatum
01-03-2014
Uitgeverij
Bohn Stafleu van Loghum
Gepubliceerd in
Netherlands Heart Journal / Uitgave 3/2014
Print ISSN: 1568-5888
Elektronisch ISSN: 1876-6250
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12471-014-0516-1

Andere artikelen Uitgave 3/2014

Netherlands Heart Journal 3/2014 Naar de uitgave

Rhythm Puzzle - Answer

Should you be worried?

Rhythm Puzzle - Question

Should you be worried?