Trial reportDiabetes care2024
Comparative Effectiveness of Aspirin Dosing in Cardiovascular Disease and Diabetes Mellitus: A Subgroup Analysis of the ADAPTABLE Trial.
Trial report in Diabetes care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Aspirin Dosing for Secondary Prevention of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Asthma: Insights From ADAPTABLE.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Trial
- Integrating genetically predicted transcriptomic signatures with longitudinal real-world data enables scalable drug repurposing for Alzheimer's disease.Research square · 2026Article
- An overview of the role of platelets in vascular disease associated with diabetes mellitus.Hormones (Athens, Greece) · 2026Review
- Resveratrol as a Potential Platelet Inhibitor in Aspirin-Resistant Diabetic Patients-A Novel Therapeutic Strategy Targeting FLife (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
22 authors at 14 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivePatients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and concomitant atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) must be on the most effective dose of aspirin to mitigate risk of future adverse cardiovascular events. RESEARCH DESIGN AND
methodsADAPTABLE, an open-label, pragmatic study, randomized patients with stable, chronic ASCVD to 81 mg or 325 mg of daily aspirin. The effects of aspirin dosing was assessed on the primary effectiveness outcome, a composite of all-cause death, hospitalization for myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for stroke, and the primary safety outcome of hospitalization for major bleeding. In this prespecified analysis, we used Cox proportional hazards models to compare aspirin dosing in patients with and without DM for the primary effectiveness and safety outcome.
resultsOf 15,076 patients, 5,676 (39%) had DM of whom 2,820 (49.7%) were assigned to 81 mg aspirin and 2,856 (50.3%) to 325 mg aspirin. Patients with versus without DM had higher rates of the composite cardiovascular outcome (9.6% vs. 5.9%; P < 0.001) and bleeding events (0.78% vs. 0.50%; P < 0.001). When comparing 81 mg vs. 325 mg of aspirin, patients with DM had no difference in the primary effectiveness outcome (9.3% vs. 10.0%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.98 [95% CI 0.83-1.16]; P = 0.265) or safety outcome (0.87% vs. 0.69%; subdistribution HR 1.25 [95% CI 0.72-2.16]; P = 0.772).
conclusionsThis study confirms the inherently higher risk of patients with DM irrespective of aspirin dosing. Our findings suggest that a higher dose of aspirin yields no added clinical benefit, even in a more vulnerable population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.