Jul 2026· Journal of Clinical Medicine· Vol 15, pp. 5936· 0 citations· 39 references
Medicine
TL;DR
This narrative review and pragmatic clinical guide presents an illustrative tiered framework based on clinical, imaging, and biomarker markers—such as coronary artery calcium score, carotid plaque score, and lipoprotein(a)—to support individualized discussion of preventive aspirin therapy.
Abstract
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading global cause of morbidity and mortality. While low-dose aspirin is well established for secondary prevention, its role in primary prevention is controversial because modest benefits in cardiovascular benefits must be balanced against increased bleeding risk, as highlighted by recent large trials. Current guidelines recommend restricting aspirin use to individuals at higher cardiovascular risk without elevated bleeding risk, yet significant heterogeneity persists in defining these thresholds. Evidence from randomized trials, guidelines, cohort and modeling analyses, and post hoc or observational subgroup studies suggests that selected patients with advanced subclinical atherosclerosis or specific high-risk markers may have a more favorable risk–benefit profile, although the certainty and directness of evidence vary across subgroups. This narrative review and pragmatic clinical guide presents an illustrative tiered framework based on clinical, imaging, and biomarker markers—such as coronary artery calcium score, carotid plaque score, and lipoprotein(a)—to support individualized discussion of preventive aspirin therapy. The framework is not a validated risk calculator or standalone treatment algorithm, and decisions should balance absolute cardiovascular risk, major bleeding risk, evidence certainty, and patient preferences.
The available evidence linking CAC burden to aspirin benefit is examined, the limitations of CAC-guided treatment decisions are discussed, and a practical framework that integrates ASCVD risk, bleeding risk, and patient-specific clinical factors is proposed.
Zachary C Ahart, Richard C. Becker· American Journal of Medicine· 0 citations
Treatment paradigms emphasize early intensification of therapy and addition of non-statin agents, and polygenic risk scoring and RNA-based therapies may offer opportunities to identify and treat those at highest residual risk.
Andrew Carlson, Zaid A. Zayyad, Stefanie Driesenga et al.· Cardiology and Therapy· 0 citations
The hypothesis‐generating findings suggest triglyceride‐related genetic variation may identify individuals with differential responses to aspirin, and suggest triglyceride‐related genetic variation may identify individuals with differential responses to aspirin.
P. Fransquet, Cheng-Long Yu, C. Tran et al.· Clinical pharmacology and th...· 0 citations
About 34 million patients across the Middle East could benefit from secondary prevention of CVD by targeting OAO phenotypes by targeting distinct OAO phenotypes, according to a pooled analysis of registry data and Global Burden of Disease data.
W. Almahmeed, J. Barajas-Gamboa, M. Zubaid et al.· Obesity Reviews· 0 citations
A phenotype-driven approach is proposed to enable refined risk stratification across the PAD spectrum, supporting individualized and, when needed, more intensive management.
F. Garagoli, L. Slipczuk, Michael D. Shapiro et al.· European Heart Journal· 0 citations
International recommendations with current Chinese practice are compared, barriers related to infrastructure, safety, education, standardization, and evidence localization are analyzed, and a multimodal implementation framework for residual-risk assessment is proposed.
Ming Chi, Tao-Ming Qian, Ji-Rong Zhang et al.· Frontiers in Medicine· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.