back
82 comments
It's strange that this article mentions the increased risk of internal bleeding but doesn't mention the reduced risk of cancer.

Here's a study which suggests that if 1,000 people aged 60 took aspirin daily for 10 years then 3 more people would die from strokes, bleeding and ulcers, but 17 fewer people would die from cancer and heart attacks. If that's true, then the benefits of daily aspirin clearly outweighs the costs.

https://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2014/08/06/aspirin-...

Aspirin may increase rates of some cancers.

https://discover.dc.nihr.ac.uk/content/signal-000696/aspirin...

> In the ASPREE trial, older adults with no apparent cardiovascular disease who took daily aspirin saw no benefit in terms of reducing the chance of dying or having dementia or disability. Instead, it slightly increased their mortality and bleeding risk - aspirin was associated with an excess of 1.6 deaths per 1,000 people per year. Half of these deaths were due to cancer.

(Although this is at odds with other research and so we need to be careful when interpreting it).

maybe this brings up a general question. If the effects of aspirin are so complex and interact with so many different forms of complications and benefits, is it even sensible to make a recommendation based on individual factors?

Is maybe some other methodology preferable, like aggregating all the negatives and positives and just make a sort of statistical recommendation?

I can't help but wonder if the risk of bleeding may be due to poor compliance w instructions (it's important to eat before taking asprin)
> but 17 fewer people would die from cancer and heart attacks

The other thing to consider is that if '17 people die' there are probably a far larger number of people who don't die but get treated (for cancer) and live but have to deal with the experience of being diagnosed and treated for cancer. It would be interesting to know what that number actually is.

I hope I can be forgiven to not read every single study the article references... But isn't there tremendous Economic incentive to prove asprin is dangerous?

But there are lots of people who's job depends on high asprin sales.

I am concerned this phenomenon creeps over into these studies.

> "If that's true, then the benefits of daily aspirin clearly outweighs the costs."

Why add aspirin though? If you want to reduce the chance of cancer, eat less junk and more vegetables, legumes, and fruits.

This is a meta-analysis of 13 studies. The rate change is certainly real, but remember this wasn't a study targeting that characteristic. I also didn't read the studies mentioned, so I don't know what time frame the change appears over (is it over a patients lifetime? a year? who knows?).

Also, all of the patients were Asian, which could also have some effect, and they were all lean. As far as I'm aware, these aren't characteristics of those who usually receive recommendations for regularly taking aspirin. Meanwhile, heart disease kills nearly a quarter of Americans.

> Results The search identified 13 randomized clinical trials of low-dose aspirin use for primary prevention, enrolling 134 446 patients. Pooling the results from the random-effects model showed that low-dose aspirin, compared with control, was associated with an increased risk of any intracranial bleeding (8 trials; relative risk, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.13-1.66; 2 additional intracranial hemorrhages in 1000 people), with potentially the greatest relative risk increase for subdural or extradural hemorrhage (4 trials; relative risk, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.08-2.18) and less for intracerebral hemorrhage and subarachnoid hemorrhage. Patient baseline features associated with heightened risk of intracerebral hemorrhage with low-dose aspirin, compared with control, were Asian race/ethnicity and low body mass index.

> Conclusions and Relevance Among people without symptomatic cardiovascular disease, use of low-dose aspirin was associated with an overall increased risk of intracranial hemorrhage, and heightened risk of intracerebral hemorrhage for those of Asian race/ethnicity or people with a low body mass index.

Thanks for the tldr!

A meta-analysis that contains only Asians (Taiwanese) with low body mass... is not relevant to me, and frankly not particularly relevant to, "U.S. doctors have long advised adults who haven’t had a heart attack or stroke but are at high risk for these events to take a daily aspirin pill", the lead in to the article.

My neighbor took a daily baby aspirin and finally got tired of it and quit (much to his wife’s chagrin since it was her doing). He had a stroke 2 or 3 days later.

The doctors say the aspirin was helping keep things at bay but I wondered if it was more like his body adjusted for the thinner blood.

Yeah. You can’t just quit doing something like that without risk. I think suddenly thickening your blood is a risk factor for stroke. But maybe some plaque or something finally detached, no one can say for sure.
That raises a question: how do you safely stop a daily low dose aspirin regimen? Are we talking about cutting tiny pills in half, then quarters, etc. over a period of a month?
Okay, I'm not a physician, but for me as a layman there does not seem to be anything new in the study described. Yes, not taking it without indication has always been the professional recommendation. Stopping Aspirin treatment can also increase the risk of a stroke, so the treatment shouldn't be stopped without medical supervision.

I'm wondering whether there is any example of a medicament or artificial supplement that is recommended to be taken without indication. I've never heard of something like that. Vitamin supplements should be replaced by more healthy nutrition and maybe more fresh air, more sun, and doing some sport. If there is no diagnosed deficiency, then supplements have no benefits at all. Most of the "daily supplements" you can buy in a pharmacy can be replaced by occasionally drinking a glass of orange juice, eating a banana, or eating something with honey. I once went to the pharmacy when I had a cold and didn't check what they were giving to me very carefully. At home, I realized that I just bought some pills that contained traces of honey... at a price of 16 EUR!

What do you expect to get from honey that would otherwise be found in supplements? Honey contains some known antibacterial compounds, but AFAIK none are human nutrients.
>more sun

Pls no. Skin cancer is no joke.

Taking 50mg before going to bed, for periods, (3-6months a year, during massive crunch time project deliveries), it helps me sleep better and be less tired, also it makes my dreams extremely vivid and more complex, is there any study on this? It is a constant aspect that I can reproduce steadily...
There actually are studies showing pain killers work for mental pain and anxiety too, not just physical pain. E.g.: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130416085431.h...

So I wouldn't be surprised if it helps you sleep, especially during stressful crunch time periods.

People should just finally understand that there is no free lunch: any substance has side effects. Even water, depending on dosage.
I read a doctor complain about the balkanization of medicine into specialties. Specialists will give advice that reduces problems in their specialty and not care if it causes problems not in their specialty.

Example: Keep children out of the sun to reduce the chance of skin cancer. Result, sub clinical rickets and myopia.

That would be great. At that point, we can all collectively decide that it’s a better idea to spend more on medical research.

https://futurism.com/the-byte/doctors-autonomous-surgery-rob...

For example, deaths from cancer(s) and heart disease will drop dramatically in which decade?

   [ ] 2120
   [ ] 2070
   [ ] 2050
   [ ] 2030
Pick one. It’s really just a matter of effort.
Reminds me of: https://www.dhmo.org/facts.html
Without an abnormal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transthoracic_echocardiogram diagnosis report we should not take Aspirin Otherwise https://www.everydayhealth.com/congestive-heart-failure/guid...
What about taking it with recovery periods e.g. not at the weekends, or on alternate months? What would that do to the risk/benefit?
Is it a good idea to take extra vitamin K with aspirin when taken long-term, since it opposes the blood-thinning effect?
Ugh, this is terrible news.

I have a family history of heart disease, so I've been taking a small aspirin daily as part of my doctor's recommendation. I've been trusting this to help increase my chances of avoiding a heart attack.

I'm going to keep taking it. I don't think I'll even talk to the doctor about it.

There new guidelines in the US that still recommend aspirin based on cardiovascular risk. That aspirin increases the risk of bleeding is old news. The difficulty has been in quantifying the risk/benefit. You should consult with your doctor about your specific circumstance.
Consult with your doctor about getting on a statin. And if you have a family history of heart disease, I'd guess you qualify for aspirin as primary prevention.
General medical advise that is true under certain conditions. Make sure starting/stopping makes sense for you.
I personally find the taste of aspirin to be delicious! Not steak or candy delicious, but more like tangy taco sauce delicious.

So I chew them up and swish them around my mouth and rub them up against the inside of my lips with my tongue, to get the most effective rush and quickest headache relief.

Does anybody else do that, or am I a mutant?

Caution!

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15354902

Tooth erosion caused by chewing aspirin.

It's just like citric, malic or tataric acid
> to get the most effective rush

You get a "rush" from... aspirin?

I wonder if there's any correlation between people who take daily/regular aspirin and vascular dementia in later life.

My Grandpa swore by daily dosing but then also battled vascular and alzheimers. Is the increased risk in bleeds only whilst taking aspirin or does it persist afterwards at all?

Here's the entry at the NNT site for daily aspirin [1].

[1] http://www.thennt.com/nnt/aspirin-to-prevent-a-first-heart-a...

What's the news? My friends and I have always been aware that daily ibuprofin/aspirin could cause serious blood clotting issues.
Ibuprofen overuse screws up your kidneys. Aspirin prevents clotting and causes bleeding
Ibuprofen, yes. Aspirin, no.

Aspirin is a blood thinner.

My internal medicine MD warned me away from daily low-dose aspirin a few years ago when we discussed it during my annual physical.

"Unless you have a matching diagnosis that calls for treatment it's not something you should take routinely," were his basic words.

Thee most obvious concern that a layman could wrap their head around were bleeding complications.

So I stopped.

325mg per day here. Great.
Whoa! Is this an 81mg, 325mg, or other dose? Anyone out there know?
I have two words: OH FUCK. I take 85 mg every night (and since I live in Iran, we don't have access to high quality drugs thanks to American Orange Guerilla: President Trump). Btw, the title is misleading, 0.2 percent is not too much, is it?
Drugs are artificial modifications of the body with metabolization that has not ever been evolved. They cause problems people can't really fix it seems. It is really tragic. Antibiotics are seeming more and more dangerous by the year with new research.
“Keep your dietary cholesterol to less than 200 milligrams a day.“ [1]

Cholesterol in one egg: 373 mg [google]

Maybe, instead of taking a daily pill, a change in diet will do the trick?

[1] https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/files/docs/public/heart/chol_tlc.p...

High blood cholesterol can affect anyone. It’s a serious condition that increases the risk for heart disease, the number one killer of Americans—women and men. The higher your blood cholesterol level, the greater your risk.

Dietary cholesterol has little impact on blood cholesterol.

Yes, it's confusing as the names are the same.

Yes, high blood cholesterol can lead to heart disease.

But here's the thing, the body synthesizes its own cholesterol. Mainly in the liver. Dietary cholesterol doesn't have much if anything to do with this process.

Statins work by reducing the liver's production of cholesterol leading to lower blood cholesterol levels and decreasing the risk of heart disease.

Now, a change in diet can "do the trick" and lead to lower blood cholesterol levels but for different reasons than the amount of cholesterol in the food.

The big caveat to all of this is for some people who are genetic outliers and people with diabetes.

Here are a few sources you can check out:

Dietary Cholesterol, Serum Lipids, and Heart Disease: Are Eggs Working for or Against You? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29596318

Cholesterol Overview https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you...

Cholesterol in Food https://health.clevelandclinic.org/why-you-should-no-longer-...

There hasn't been much if any correlation shown between dietary cholesterol and blood-level cholesterol for most people. Your digestive tract has no problems breaking cholesterol down and metabolizing it, and conversely, your liver has no problem making cholesterol. This makes sense, as cholesterol is vital for the proper functioning of your brain amongst other organs, so we can't rely on getting enough of it from our diet.
There still isn’t any good evidence that I have seen proving eggs increase blood cholesterol. I eat plenty and get my numbers checked every 6 months. Probably quit eating bad fats and excess carbs.