Comparative effectiveness of lower-dose vs higher-dose aspirin for preeclampsia prevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

IF 2.7
AJOG global reports Pub Date : 2026-08-01 Epub Date: 2026-07-10 DOI:10.1016/j.xagr.2026.100673
Aamina M. Ahmed BS, Ravi Goyal MD, PhD
{"title":"Comparative effectiveness of lower-dose vs higher-dose aspirin for preeclampsia prevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials","authors":"Aamina M. Ahmed BS,&nbsp;Ravi Goyal MD, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.xagr.2026.100673","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>OBJECTIVE</h3><div>To determine whether higher-dose aspirin (150–162 mg/d) reduces preeclampsia risk compared with lower-dose aspirin (75–81 mg/d) in pregnant women at elevated risk, using pooled evidence from all available head-to-head randomized controlled trials.</div></div><div><h3>DATA SOURCES</h3><div>PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception through April 27, 2026.</div></div><div><h3>STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA</h3><div>Parallel-group randomized controlled trials comparing at least two aspirin dose arms (head-to-head dose comparison) in pregnant women at elevated risk for preeclampsia, with a binary preeclampsia outcome reported. Aspirin-vs-placebo trials were excluded.</div></div><div><h3>STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS</h3><div>Log odds ratios were pooled using restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation with the Hartung–Knapp–Sidik–Jonkman (HKSJ) correction. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool; evidence certainty was graded using GRADE. Egger’s test, Duval–Tweedie trim-and-fill, and univariate meta-regression (geography, dose ratio, gestational age at initiation) were performed.</div></div><div><h3>RESULTS</h3><div>Six randomized controlled trials enrolling 1099 participants across five countries were included. REML+HKSJ pooled OR 1.93 (95% CI 0.84–4.42, <em>P</em>=.096; <em>I</em>²=64.9%), representing approximately 48% lower odds of preeclampsia with higher-dose aspirin, a clinically substantial effect size that did not reach conventional statistical significance, primarily due to limited sample size (<em>N</em>=1099) and substantial between-study heterogeneity. Egger’s test was significant (<em>P</em>=.010); trim-and-fill estimated three missing studies (adjusted OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.47–2.50). No significant dose advantage was seen in North American trials (OR 1.25, 95% CI 0.67–2.34). A safety signal for placental abruption was identified with higher-dose aspirin in one large trial (8 vs 0 events). GRADE certainty: Very Low.</div></div><div><h3>CONCLUSION</h3><div>Applying conservative statistical methods (REML+HKSJ), higher-dose aspirin (150–162 mg/d) was associated with approximately 48% lower odds of preeclampsia vs lower-dose aspirin (75–81 mg/d; OR 1.93), a clinically meaningful effect that did not reach conventional statistical significance (95% CI 0.84–4.42, <em>P</em>=.096) due to limited sample size and heterogeneity. Clinical significance and statistical significance must be considered independently; the magnitude of this effect warrants serious attention in guideline discussions. A placental abruption safety signal warrants further investigation. Larger, harmonized head-to-head trials with preterm preeclampsia as the primary endpoint are needed.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":72141,"journal":{"name":"AJOG global reports","volume":"6 3","pages":"Article 100673"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13448443/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJOG global reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666577826000717","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/7/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether higher-dose aspirin (150–162 mg/d) reduces preeclampsia risk compared with lower-dose aspirin (75–81 mg/d) in pregnant women at elevated risk, using pooled evidence from all available head-to-head randomized controlled trials.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception through April 27, 2026.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Parallel-group randomized controlled trials comparing at least two aspirin dose arms (head-to-head dose comparison) in pregnant women at elevated risk for preeclampsia, with a binary preeclampsia outcome reported. Aspirin-vs-placebo trials were excluded.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

Log odds ratios were pooled using restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation with the Hartung–Knapp–Sidik–Jonkman (HKSJ) correction. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool; evidence certainty was graded using GRADE. Egger’s test, Duval–Tweedie trim-and-fill, and univariate meta-regression (geography, dose ratio, gestational age at initiation) were performed.

RESULTS

Six randomized controlled trials enrolling 1099 participants across five countries were included. REML+HKSJ pooled OR 1.93 (95% CI 0.84–4.42, P=.096; I²=64.9%), representing approximately 48% lower odds of preeclampsia with higher-dose aspirin, a clinically substantial effect size that did not reach conventional statistical significance, primarily due to limited sample size (N=1099) and substantial between-study heterogeneity. Egger’s test was significant (P=.010); trim-and-fill estimated three missing studies (adjusted OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.47–2.50). No significant dose advantage was seen in North American trials (OR 1.25, 95% CI 0.67–2.34). A safety signal for placental abruption was identified with higher-dose aspirin in one large trial (8 vs 0 events). GRADE certainty: Very Low.

CONCLUSION

Applying conservative statistical methods (REML+HKSJ), higher-dose aspirin (150–162 mg/d) was associated with approximately 48% lower odds of preeclampsia vs lower-dose aspirin (75–81 mg/d; OR 1.93), a clinically meaningful effect that did not reach conventional statistical significance (95% CI 0.84–4.42, P=.096) due to limited sample size and heterogeneity. Clinical significance and statistical significance must be considered independently; the magnitude of this effect warrants serious attention in guideline discussions. A placental abruption safety signal warrants further investigation. Larger, harmonized head-to-head trials with preterm preeclampsia as the primary endpoint are needed.
低剂量与高剂量阿司匹林预防先兆子痫的比较效果:随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析
目的:利用所有可获得的头对头随机对照试验的汇总证据,确定高剂量阿司匹林(150-162 mg/d)与低剂量阿司匹林(75-81 mg/d)相比,是否能降低高危孕妇子痫前期风险。数据来源:PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase, Scopus和ClinicalTrials.gov从成立到2026年4月27日。研究资格标准:平行组随机对照试验比较至少两个阿司匹林剂量组(头对头剂量比较)的孕妇先兆子痫风险升高,双子痫结局报道。排除了阿司匹林与安慰剂的对照试验。研究评价和综合方法:对数比值比使用限制最大似然(REML)估计和hartung - knappp - sidik - jonkman (HKSJ)校正进行汇总。使用Cochrane RoB 2工具评估偏倚风险;证据确定性采用GRADE分级。进行Egger检验、Duval-Tweedie trim- fill和单因素meta回归(地理、剂量比、起始胎龄)。结果:六项随机对照试验纳入了来自五个国家的1099名参与者。REML+HKSJ合并OR为1.93 (95% CI 0.84-4.42, P= 0.096; I²=64.9%),表明高剂量阿司匹林导致子痫前期的几率降低约48%,这一临床显著效应量未达到常规统计学意义,主要原因是样本量有限(N=1099)和研究间存在显著异质性。Egger检验有显著性差异(P= 0.010);trim- fill估计有3个缺失研究(校正OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.47-2.50)。在北美试验中没有发现明显的剂量优势(OR 1.25, 95% CI 0.67-2.34)。在一项大型试验中,高剂量阿司匹林可产生胎盘早剥的安全信号(8 vs 0事件)。等级确定性:非常低。结论:应用保守统计学方法(REML+HKSJ),高剂量阿司匹林(150-162 mg/d)与低剂量阿司匹林(75-81 mg/d; OR 1.93)相比,发生子痫前期的几率低约48%,由于样本量有限和异质性,这一具有临床意义的效应未达到常规统计学意义(95% CI 0.84-4.42, P= 0.096)。临床意义和统计学意义必须独立考虑;这种影响的程度值得在指南讨论中认真关注。胎盘早剥的安全信号值得进一步研究。需要以早产子痫前期为主要终点的更大规模、统一的头对头试验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
AJOG global reports
AJOG global reports Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women's Health, Perinatology, Pediatrics and Child Health, Urology
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书