We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Review |

Aspirin for Primary Prevention of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Advances in Diagnosis and Treatment

Samia Mora, MD, MHS1,2; JoAnn E. Manson, MD, DrPH1,3
[+] Author Affiliations
1Division of Preventive Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
2Cardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
3Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(8):1195-1204. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.2648.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Importance  Clinical decision making regarding the appropriate use of aspirin for the primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) events is complex, and requires an individualized benefit to risk assessment.

Objective  To review advances in the individualized assessment for ASCVD and bleeding risk, and to provide an update of the randomized clinical trial evidence that examined the use of aspirin for primary prevention (primarily for ASCVD, and secondarily for colorectal cancer). The recently released 2016 US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations are discussed, as well as the role of ASCVD risk, age, sex, and aspirin dose/formulation in clinical decision making.

Evidence Review  We performed a detailed review of peer-reviewed publications that were identified through searches of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database through 2016 using the literature search terms “aspirin,” “primary prevention,” “cardiovascular disease,” “mortality,” “cancer.” Bibliographies from these references as well as meta-analyses of these randomized clinical trials were also reviewed.

Findings  Evidence from a total of 11 trials involving more than 118 000 patients is available to guide clinical decision making for aspirin use in the primary prevention of ASCVD. Clinicians should balance the benefit to risk ratio and the individual’s preferences, calculating the 10-year ASCVD risk and evaluating risk factors for gastrointestinal bleeding, to facilitate a safer and more personalized approach to appropriate selection of candidates for low-dose aspirin (75 to 81 mg/d) for the primary prevention of ASCVD, with secondary considerations for reducing colorectal cancer risk when taken for longer periods (>10 years). Both the net ASCVD benefit and the bleeding risk of aspirin therapy increased as the absolute ASCVD risk increased, but the net benefits generally exceeded the risks at higher baseline ASCVD risk (≥10% ASCVD 10-year risk). The Aspirin-Guide is a clinical decision making support tool (app for mobile devices) with internal risk calculators to help clinicians with this dual assessment by calculating the ASCVD risk and the bleeding risk in the individual patient, and incorporating age- and sex-specific guidance based on randomized trial results.

Conclusions and Relevance  Balancing the benefit of ASCVD reduction with the risk of bleeding from low-dose aspirin is difficult but essential for informed decision making and achieving a net clinical benefit from aspirin for primary prevention. This is facilitated by a free and readily available evidence-based clinical decision support tool.

Figures in this Article

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?


Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Risk Reductions in Major Coronary Events and Ischemic Stroke by Randomized Aspirin Use and Sex in Primary Prevention Trials Adapted From the 2009 ATT Meta-analysis14
Graphic Jump Location




Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

0 Citations

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles

Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: A Manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice, 3rd ed
Assessing the Strength of Recommendations: The GRADE Approach

Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: A Manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice, 3rd ed
Confidence Intervals Become Narrower as the Number of Events Increases