METHODS: The PubMed, Scopus, and MEDLINE databases were systematically searched up to December 2019 to identify relevant studies. Random-effects model was used to calculate summary ORs and 95%CI for I 2 >50%. If the heterogeneity is not significant, the fixed-effects model was used. Overall analysis of the studies, inverse variance weighting after transforming the estimates of each study into log OR and its standard error were used.
RESULTS: 21 studies were included in this meta-analysis. Results showed that aspirin significantly reduced the GC risk (OR=0.64, 95%CI=0.54-0.76) with substantial heterogeneity (I 2 =96%). Effect of GC risk reduction in low dose (OR=0.80, 95%CI=0.59-1.09) is slightly greater than high dose aspirin (OR=1.08, 95%CI=0.77-1.52). Protective effect of aspirin uses >5 years (OR=0.67, 95%CI=0.34-1.31) was greater than <5 years (OR=1.01, 95%CI=0.72-1.43) Conclusion: In conclusion, this meta-analysis showed that low dose aspirin with longer duration of more than 5 years were associated with a statistically significant reduction in GC risk. However, due to possible confounding variables and bias, these results should be cautiously treated.
METHODS: Systematic review and NMA of randomised controlled trials were performed, and the most suitable CPA was chosen based on efficacy and the most favourable risk-benefit profile. The economic benefits of CPA alone, 3 yearly SC alone, and a combination of CPA and SC were determined using the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) in the Malaysian health-care perspective. Outcomes were reported as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in 2018 US Dollars ($) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), and life-years (LYs) gained.
RESULTS: According to NMA, the risk-benefit profile favours the use of aspirin at very-low-dose (ASAVLD, ≤ 100 mg/day) for secondary prevention in individuals with previous ACAs. Celecoxib is the most effective CPA but the cardiovascular adverse events are of concern. According to CEA, the combination strategy (ASAVLD with 3-yearly SC) was cost-saving and dominates its competitors as the best buy option. The probability of being cost-effective for ASAVLD alone, 3-yearly SC alone, and combination strategy were 22%, 26%, and 53%, respectively. Extending the SC interval to five years in combination strategy was more cost-effective when compared to 3-yearly SC alone (ICER of $484/LY gain and $1875/QALY). However, extending to ten years in combination strategy was not cost-effective.
CONCLUSION: ASAVLD combined with 3-yearly SC in individuals with ACAs may be a cost-effective strategy for CRC prevention. An extension of SC intervals to five years can be considered in resource-limited countries.