Background and purpose
Uncertainty remains regarding the impact of enteric-coated aspirin (EC-ASA) on secondary prevention of ischemic stroke compared to plain aspirin (P-ASA). Hence, this study was designed to investigate the effect of EC formulation on ASA response via evaluating thromboxane B2 (TXB2) levels in patients with suspected or newly diagnosed stroke.
Conclusion
A significant proportion of ASA non-responsiveness was recorded regardless of ASA formulation administered. The increased risk of ASA non-responsiveness in diabetic patients needs further exploration by larger prospective studies.
Methods
A prospective cohort study on suspected or newly diagnosed ischemic stroke patients who are aspirin-naive was conducted. Patients were received either EC aspirin or plain aspirin for at least 3 days. The primary outcome was the proportion of aspirin non-responsiveness between two groups (level of residual serum TXB2 associated with elevated thrombotic risk (< 99.0% inhibition or TXB2 > 3.1 ng/ml) within 72 h after three daily aspirin doses, while secondary outcomes were the incidence of early gastrointestinal tract (GIT) bleeding with the various aspirin preparations. (
Purpose
Uncertainty remains regarding the impact of enteric-coated aspirin (EC-ASA) on secondary prevention of ischemic stroke compared to plain aspirin (P-ASA). Hence, this study was designed to investigate the effect of EC formulation on ASA response via evaluating thromboxane B2 (TXB2) levels in patients with suspected or newly diagnosed stroke.
Results
Of 42 patients, ischemic strokes were confirmed in both P-ASA (81%) and EC-ASA (67%) arms. ASA non-responsiveness showed no significant difference between the two formulations (P-ASA vs. EC-ASA; 28.6% vs 23.8%; P = 0.726). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that patients treated with EC-ASA were more likely to have a lower rate of non-responders compared to P-ASA (unadjusted OR 0.78; 95% CI 0.20, 3.11); with the risk highest in type 2 diabetic patients with HBA1c > 6.5% (adjusted OR 6; 95% CI 1.02, 35.27; P = 0.047). No incidence of GIT bleeding observed throughout the study.
Trial registration
Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04330872 registered on 02 April 2020). Results: Of 42 patients, ischemic strokes were confirmed in both P-ASA (81%) and EC-ASA (67%) arms. ASA non-responsiveness showed no significant difference between the two formulations (P-ASA vs. EC-ASA; 28.6% vs 23.8%; P = 0.726). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that patients treated with EC-ASA were more likely to have a lower rate of non-responders compared to P-ASA (unadjusted OR 0.78; 95% CI 0.20, 3.11); with the risk highest in type 2 diabetic patients with HBA1c > 6.5% (adjusted OR 6; 95% CI 1.02, 35.27; P = 0.047). No incidence of GIT bleeding observed throughout the study. Conclusion: A significant proportion of ASA non-responsiveness was recorded regardless of ASA formulation administered. The increased risk of ASA non-responsiveness in diabetic patients needs further exploration by larger prospective studies.