Despite high prevalence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and CVD risk factors among American Indian or Alaska Native adults (AI/AN), there is little information on aspirin use in this population. This survey-based study seeks to understand prevalence of aspirin use in a sample of AI/AN adults in the Upper Midwestern United States. In-person and telephone based surveys were conducted querying self-reported CVD and CVD risk factors, aspirin use, and aspirin related discussion with clinicians. A total of 237 AI/AN participants were included: mean age (SD) was 60.8 (8.4) years; 143 (60 %) were women; 59 (25 %) reported CVD history. CVD risk factors were common particularly smoking (37 %) and diabetes (37 %). Aspirin use was much higher among those with CVD (secondary prevention, 76 %) than those without (primary prevention, 33 %). Primary prevention aspirin use was significantly associated with age and all CVD risk factors in unadjusted analyses. After adjustment for demographics and CVD risk factors, only age (aRR 1.13 per 5 years, 95 % CI 1.02, 1.25) and diabetes (aRR 2.44, 95 % CI 1.52, 3.92) remained significantly associated with aspirin. Regardless of CVD status, a higher proportion of those taking aspirin reported a conversation about aspirin with their doctor compared to those not taking aspirin. Among participants with no CVD, those who had such a conversation were 2.6 times more likely to use aspirin than those who did not have a conversation (aRR 2.64, 95 % CI 1.58, 4.44). The findings of this study emphasize the importance of the patient-provider relationship for preventive therapy.

Comparative effectiveness evaluation of newer P2Y12 inhibitors (prasugrel and ticagrelor) compared with clopidogrel after acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is limited in real-world US populations. The objective of this study was to evaluate cardiovascular events based on ticagrelor, prasugrel, and clopidogrel use in a real-world patient setting. This retrospective cohort study used the IBM MarketScan database (January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2018) to create three propensity score-matched pairs: ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel (N = 21,719), prasugrel vs. clopidogrel (N = 11,513), and prasugrel vs. ticagrelor (N = 11,065). The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial ischemia, unstable angina, stroke, and heart failure hospitalization. These groups were compared in a time-to-event analysis for the primary outcome at 30, 90, and 180 days following P2Y12 inhibitors initiation after percutaneous coronary intervention. Compared with clopidogrel, ticagrelor use suggested a 10% reduction in the primary outcome at 90 days (hazard ratio (HR): 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.82–0.99). There were no differences for all other matched pairs or follow-up combinations. In the subgroup analysis of females, the results suggested a risk reduction of 27% for prasugrel at 30 days (HR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.53–1.00) and 17% for ticagrelor at 90 days (HR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.70–0.98) when compared with clopidogrel. Among patients treated with bare-metal stents, the results suggested that prasugrel vs. ticagrelor was associated with a 55% and 33% reduced risk for the primary outcome at 30 days and 180 days, respectively. With limited evidence in the United States comparing these drugs, this study helps inform clinicians when choosing P2Y12 inhibitors after ACS.

In closely monitored randomized controlled trials (RCTs), newer P2Y12 agents (ticagrelor and prasugrel) reduced cardiovascular outcomes compared with clopidogrel following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in acute coronary syndrome. However, these RCTs indicated a higher bleeding risk with these newer agents. This study evaluated the comparative safety of each P2Y12 inhibitor on hospitalizations due to major bleeding in a real-world population. This retrospective, propensity score-matched (PSM) cohort study utilized the IBM MarketScan database over 6 years (2013–2018) to identify incident users of P2Y12 inhibitors with age ≥18 years. The primary safety outcome was hospitalization due to any major bleeding event including gastrointestinal, intracranial, and other serious forms of bleeding. In pairwise comparisons using Cox-proportional hazards models, ticagrelor, prasugrel, and clopidogrel users were compared for the primary safety outcome at 30, 90, and 180 days following the first prescription of P2Y12 inhibitor after PCI. There were 21,719 (ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel), 11,513 (prasugrel vs. clopidogrel), and 11,065 (prasugrel vs. ticagrelor) PSM pairs. Overall, the risk of major bleeding was similar for all P2Y12 inhibitors. Hospitalization for major bleeding was generally lower among ticagrelor users vs. clopidogrel and higher among prasugrel users compared with clopidogrel. Importantly, a 66% higher risk of major bleeding at 90 days is suggested with prasugrel compared with clopidogrel (hazard ratio 1.66; 95% confidence interval, 1.11–2.48). This study indicated a higher short-term bleeding risk with prasugrel compared with clopidogrel, which concurs with the results of RCTs.

Objective: To assess cardiovascular disease (CVD) and CVD risk factors and their association with sociodemographic characteristics and health beliefs among African American (AA) adults in Minnesota. Methods: A cross-sectional analysis was conducted of a community-based sample of AA adults enrolled in the Minnesota Heart Health Program Ask About Aspirin study from May 2019 to September 2019. Sociodemographic characteristics, health beliefs, and self-reported CVD and CVD risk factors were collected. Prevalence ratio (PR) estimates were calculated using Poisson regression modeling to assess the association between participants’ characteristics and age- and sex-adjusted CVD risk factors. Results: The sample included 644 individuals (64% [412] women) with a mean age of 61 years. Risk factors for CVD were common: hypertension (67% [434]), hyperlipidemia (47% [301]), diabetes (34% [219]), and current cigarette smoking (25% [163]); 19% (119) had CVD. Those with greater perceived CVD risk had a higher likelihood of prevalent hyperlipidemia (PR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.57), diabetes (PR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.30 to 1.98), and CVD (PR 1.61; 95% CI, 1.16 to 2.23) compared with those with lower perceived risk. Trust in health care provider was high (83% [535]) but was not associated with CVD or CVD risk factors. Conclusion: In this community sample of AAs in Minnesota, CVD risk factors were high, as was trust in health care providers. Those with greater CVD risk perceptions had higher CVD prevalence. Consideration of sociodemographic and psychosocial influences on CVD and CVD risk factors could inform development of effective cardiovascular health promotion interventions in the AA Minnesota community.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) disproportionately affects African Americans. Aspirin has long been recommended to reduce cardiovascular events. However, national guideline changes in 2016 limited the aspirin recommended population and several clinical trials questioning the utility of primary prevention aspirin were published in 2018. In light of the recent guidelines and study findings, we investigated primary prevention aspirin use among urban African American adults. Using three cross-sectional surveys, we collected data from self-identified African Americans with no CVD in 2015, 2017 and 2019, querying information on CVD risk factors, health behaviors and beliefs, and aspirin use. Poisson regression modeling was used to estimate age- and risk-factor adjusted aspirin prevalence, trends and associations. A total of 1491 African Americans adults, ages 45–79, were included in this analysis; 61% were women. There was no change in age- and risk factor-adjusted aspirin use over the 3 surveys for women (37%, 34% and 35% respectively) or men (27%, 25%, 30% respectively). However, fewer participants believed aspirin was helpful in 2019 compared to 2015—75% versus 84% (p < 0.001). Aspirin discussions with a health care practitioner were highly associated with aspirin use (adjusted RR 2.97, 95% CI 2.49–3.54) and aspirin use was 2.56 times higher (adjusted RR 95% CI 2.17–3.03) in respondents who agreed that people close to them thought they should take aspirin compared with those who disagreed or did not know. Despite major changes in national guidelines, overall primary prevention aspirin use did not significantly change in these African American samples from 2015 to 2019.