Winemaker
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
I've been taking fish oil, low dose aspirin, vitamins, and red wine for ten years. I will let you all know how it works out.
Low-dose aspirin to reduce cancer risk
- Thread starter samclem
- Start date
bjorn2bwild
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
One consideration (RAE's point?), the ASPREE study was not designed to challenge the findings of earlier studies where healthy individuals started a low dose aspirin regimen at an earlier age and continued for a longer duration (say age 40 through 60) and saw reduced cancer incidence.
On the 100mg (enteric coated) dose question, I can think of three good reasons.
1) Enteric coated aspirin may be slightly less potent than uncoated (see page one of this thread)
2) Coated aspirin would be harder to detect (taste), better insulating to the placebo group.
3) Less likely to cause GI distress and consequent detection or drop out rate.
On the 100mg (enteric coated) dose question, I can think of three good reasons.
1) Enteric coated aspirin may be slightly less potent than uncoated (see page one of this thread)
2) Coated aspirin would be harder to detect (taste), better insulating to the placebo group.
3) Less likely to cause GI distress and consequent detection or drop out rate.
Last edited:
I've been taking a baby aspirin for a few years at the request of my PCP and Cardiologist. Haven't had any problems. My DF used to pop aspirin big time (several a day full strength) and resulted in a couple of bleeding ulcers (one that almost killed him at 50). So, if you're healthy, I'd say you're probably better off not taking one.
RAE
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
I looked at the table in the link you cited, and maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not sure why they are linking CVD risk and cancer prevention together, when advising whether it's appropriate to take low-dose aspirin. For example, I'm pretty sure my risk of having CVD within the next 10 years is less than 10% (I've done some of the CVD risk calculators), but based on many other studies I've reviewed, I still decided it's a good idea for me to take a low-dose aspirin for cancer prevention (not for reducing my risk for CVD). I guess I will have to go back and read their rationale/methodology more closely to see why they are linking the two together, but for now, I plan to keep on taking a low-dose aspirin, because the studies I've reviewed were pretty convincing re. aspirin's ability to reduce risk for bowel cancers.
Souschef
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Me too, I started getting nosebleeds, so I quit.. I normally have a slow clotting time, anyway.T. My doctor has recommended it for years, but every time I've tried, I wound up having frequent nosebleeds so I quit. I'm not likely to try it again.
But I think the study also showed that older people tend to die at a higher rate than younger people, so that's another issue to be aware of.
RAE
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Yes, that is definitely one reason why I think the latest study is not convincing, for me anyway. There are many peer-reviewed studies over the last couple decades that have shown that a daily low dose aspirin can reduce risk of developing colorectal and other cancers. And it's a significantly reduced risk (like 20-35%), not just a slight reduction.
Here is one paper that summarizes some of the evidence for aspirin's ability to reduce cancer risk:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3354696/
Freedom56
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
I have been on 81mg Aspirin starting at age 48 (10 years now) per my healthcare provider protocol. So far so good. I know two people from my high school days that have suffered strokes in their 50's who rarely saw a doctor. I really don't want to go through what they are going through now. At a cost of $4.89 for a two year supply (from Costco) it's worth it as long as your body can tolerate it. My sister-in-law's husband in Switzerland has been on low dose Aspirin since age 38 to mitigate colon cancer after his DNA test confirmed a mutation for elevated colon cancer risk.
Because they are considering all risk and benefits. From a population point of view it isn't a big plus if it you need to give it to 300 people to prevent one case of colon cancer and 1000 people to save one person from death from colon cancer if it causes 1 bad GI bleed in every 200 people who take it and 1 death due to GI bleed in every 800 people who take it. The net effect becomes more deaths in those who take it than those who don't. If one's cardiac risk is >10% than you can save some lives there to make up for the increased morbidity and mortality caused by LDASA but in low risk populations (low risk for cardiac events and death) the numbers don't work. It is important to look at the big picture. Many treatments are like this. And many drug companies in researching and marketing drugs do their best to obfuscate things in this regard.
RAE
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Yes, I understand what you are saying. I have to wonder, though, what information they are using with regard to low-dose aspirin and cancer risk. The studies I've reviewed show a rather significant reduction in bowel cancer risk (and actually all cancers) from taking a daily low-dose aspirin, as I mentioned in my post above. I can't believe that the risks of GI bleeding outweigh the anti cancer benefits (from a population point of view). I'll have to go back and look at the table again to see if there is more info. on the data they used to come up with their recommendations.
And I think it is worthwhile to at least consider differences in morbidity as well as mortality. If we look at just mortality, a death by GI bleed is the same as death by esophageal or colon cancer. If given the choice, I wouldn't call it a toss up.
(There's a nice, cheery post.)
(There's a nice, cheery post.)
Similar threads
