Access to POEMs and Essential Evidence Plus will no longer be included in CMA membership as of Dec. 1, 2023.
Clinical Question
Does a single 300-mg oral dose of aspirin increase the sensitivity of fecal immunochemical tests for detecting advanced colorectal neoplasms in adults?
Bottom line
This study found that a single 300-mg dose of aspirin did not significantly increase the sensitivity of fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for detecting advanced colorectal neoplasms. Of more relevance to clinicians, there was no significant difference in the positive or negative prediction rate of FIT after ingestion of either aspirin or placebo. 1b
Reference
Study design: Randomized controlled trial (double-blinded)
Funding: Government
Setting: Outpatient (specialty)
Synopsis
Based on previous observational studies, aspirin may increase subclinical bleeding and increase the detection of advanced adenomas by FIT. These investigators identified 2134 adults, aged 40 to 80 years, who were scheduled for colonoscopy. The included patients had no recent use of aspirin or other antithrombotic medications. Prior to colonoscopy, the patients randomly received (concealed allocation assignment) a single 300-mg dose of aspirin or placebo. In addition, all participants received 4 stool collection kits for each of 2 fecal immunochemical tests, including both a quantitative test and a qualitative test. Stool samples were collected at baseline and 2 days, 3 days, and 4 days after trial medication intake. Colonoscopy was conducted within 3 months of recruitment. Individuals who assessed all outcomes remained masked to treatment group assignment. Valid samples were obtained from more than 90% of participants. Advanced neoplasms were identified in 10.5% of patients, including 0.4% with colorectal cancer. Using intention-to-treat analysis, no significant group difference occurred in the sensitivity of detecting advanced neoplasms (30.4% in the placebo group and 40.2% in the aspirin group; nonsignificant difference of 9.8%). Of more interest to clinicians, there were no significant group differences in both the positive and negative prediction rates. The study was 90% powered to detect a 24-percentage-point difference in sensitivity between the intervention and control groups, so it may have been underpowered to detect smaller but still clinically meaningful differences in sensitivity.
Reviewer
David C. Slawson, MD
Professor and Vice Chair of Family Medicine for Education and Scholarship
Atrium Health
Professor of Family Medicine, UNC Chapel Hill
Charlotte, NC