Belcon M C, Rooney P J, Tugwell P
J Chronic Dis. 1985;38(1):101-11. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(85)90013-x.
The literature on the association between Aspirin (ASA) use and gastrointestinal haemorrhage (GIH) has been reviewed. Thirteen control-studies were selected and examined for (i) the type of design (ii) the choice of outcome measures, and (iii) the adequacy of satisfying defined causation criteria and the influence of sampling strategies on one of these criteria--strength of association. Of the 13 studies seven were large scale randomized control trials (RCTs) and six were case-control studies. Among the outcome measures utilized in these studies and currently available for the assessment of GIH, we found none were uniquely satisfactory for use as a "gold standard". Furthermore, in none of these studies was the particular chosen outcome measure sufficiently satisfactory to allow firm conclusions on the issue of causation. None of the studies adequately met all the defined causation criteria or adequately eliminated the potential biases in the chosen sampling strategies. Thus the evidence that aspirin causes GIH fails to stand up to critical evaluation. This, of course, does not mean that ASA does not cause GIH. However, it is common practice for physicians to advise their patients with a prior history of GIH and or gastrointestinal symptoms to refrain from ASA use. This is probably sound advice in the setting where ASA is being used as a casual or short term analgesic or anti-inflammatory agent. But in the context of severe inflammatory joint disease when the use of ASA is clinically indicated, it should not be withheld on the basis of the risk of GIH. There is a widespread belief in medicine that by implication aspirin and other nonsteroidal anti inflammatory drugs are a common cause of bleeding from the gastrointestinal tract, yet it has been pointed out frequently [1-3] that the evidence to support the belief is weak and circumstantial. Despite this the perceived association of aspirin with gastrointestinal bleeding influences both pharmaceutical and clinical practice and often hinders or prevents the prescription of anti-inflammatory medication to patients with severe inflammatory joint disease. It was felt that a proper critical appraisal of the evidence was essential. It is unfortunate that the evidence most frequently cited implicating ASA as a cause of GIH is almost entirely related to the casual use of the drug. Thus our conclusions must be viewed with some caution in the patient group where this knowledge would be of most importance, that is in patients with inflammatory joint disease.
关于阿司匹林(ASA)使用与胃肠道出血(GIH)之间关联的文献已被综述。选取了13项对照研究,并针对以下方面进行审查:(i)设计类型;(ii)结局指标的选择;以及(iii)满足既定因果标准的充分性以及抽样策略对这些标准之一——关联强度的影响。在这13项研究中,7项为大规模随机对照试验(RCT),6项为病例对照研究。在这些研究中所使用的、目前可用于评估GIH的结局指标中,我们发现没有一个指标能作为“金标准”而唯一令人满意。此外,在这些研究中,没有一项研究中所选择的特定结局指标足够令人满意,从而无法就因果关系问题得出确凿结论。没有一项研究充分满足所有既定的因果标准,也没有充分消除所选抽样策略中的潜在偏倚。因此,阿司匹林导致GIH的证据经不起严格评估。当然,这并不意味着ASA不会导致GIH。然而,医生通常会建议有GIH既往史和/或胃肠道症状的患者避免使用ASA。在将ASA用作临时或短期镇痛或抗炎药物的情况下,这可能是合理的建议。但在临床指征为使用ASA的严重炎性关节疾病的背景下,不应基于GIH风险而停用。医学界普遍认为,阿司匹林和其他非甾体类抗炎药在某种程度上是胃肠道出血的常见原因,但经常有人指出[1 - 3],支持这一观点的证据薄弱且具有间接性。尽管如此,阿司匹林与胃肠道出血之间的这种认知关联影响着制药和临床实践,并且常常阻碍或阻止向患有严重炎性关节疾病的患者开具抗炎药物。人们认为对证据进行恰当的严格评估至关重要。不幸的是,最常被引用的将ASA牵连为GIH病因的证据几乎完全与该药物的临时使用有关。因此,在这一知识最为重要的患者群体(即炎性关节疾病患者)中,我们的结论必须谨慎看待。