Association Between Low-Dose Aspirin Use and Colorectal Cancer Incidence in Taiwan.

Importance: Population-based East Asian data have corroborated reports from non-Asian settings on the association between low-dose aspirin and a lower risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). Objective: To evaluate the association between duration and recency of low-dose aspirin use and CRC risk. Design, Setting, and Participants: This nested case-control study included individuals who initiated aspirin use and matched individuals who did not use aspirin. Data were collected from Taiwan National Health Insurance and Taiwan Cancer Registry from 2000 through 2015. CRC cases were age- and sex-matched in a 1:4 ratio with individuals in a control group, identified from a cohort of individuals who used and did not use aspirin through risk-set sampling. Data analysis was conducted from June 2018 to July 2019. Exposures: Low-dose aspirin use was defined as receiving less than 150 mg per day, whereas 100 mg/d was most commonly used. Based on duration and recency of low-dose aspirin use between cohort entry (initiation date of low-dose aspirin for aspirin use group or randomly assigned date for those who did not use aspirin) and index date (CRC diagnosis date for individuals in the case group and the diagnosis date for the 4 corresponding matched individuals in the control group), the 3 following mutually exclusive exposure groups served as the basis for analysis: (1) long-term current low-dose aspirin use, (2) episodic low-dose aspirin use, and (3) no low-dose aspirin use (the reference group). Main Outcomes and Measures: CRC risk among the 3 exposure groups. Results: Among 4 710 504 individuals (2 747 830 [51.7%] men; median [interquartile range] age at cohort entry in initiator group, 61 [52-71] years; median [interquartile range] age at cohort entry in nonuse group, 59 [51-68] years), 79 095 CRC cases (1.7% of study cohort) were identified. Compared with no low-dose aspirin use, the adjusted odds ratio (OR) for long-term current low-dose aspirin use and CRC risk was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.85-0.93); for episodic use, 0.88 (95% CI, 0.86-0.89). Adjusted ORs of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.63-0.76) and 0.64 (95% CI, 0.61-0.67) were observed for long-term current use and episodic low-dose aspirin use within the subcohort of individuals who initiated low-dose aspirin between age 40 and 59 years. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, low-dose aspirin use was associated with 11% lower CRC risk in an East Asian population, and this association was larger when low-dose aspirin use started before age 60 years.

Re-evaluating Safety and Effectiveness of Dabigatran Versus Warfarin in a Nationwide Data Environment: A Prevalent New-User Design Study.

INTRODUCTION: The new user cohort design is widely used to assess the effects of a new drug, such as dabigatran, but inherently excludes some users due to prior use of the comparator drug, for example warfarin. The prevalent new-user design offers a solution that includes all eligible users of the new drug. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of dabigatran versus warfarin in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients with prevalent new-user design. METHODS: Taiwan National Health Insurance and mortality data from 2011 through 2015 were utilized. From an incident NVAF cohort, we identified dabigatran initiators as either incident or prevalent (switchers from warfarin) new users. Time- and prescription-based exposure sets were formed for dabigatran initiators to account for prior warfarin prescriptions. A comparable warfarin user was matched on the time-conditional propensity score to the dabigatran initiator in each set. The matched patients were followed for clinical outcomes, with Cox proportional hazards model used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs). RESULTS: There were 10,811 dabigatran initiators, including 22% prevalent new users (switchers), who formed the exposure sets and were matched 1:1 to warfarin users. Dabigatran use was associated with lower risks of intracranial hemorrhage (HR 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39, 0.66) and gastrointestinal bleeding (HR 0.81; 95% CI 0.70, 0.92), compared with warfarin use. These effects were similar between the incident and prevalent new users. CONCLUSION: Using a design that includes both incident and prevalent new users of dabigatran, the use of dabigatran is associated with lower major bleeding risk than warfarin use among patients with incident NVAF.