Table 3.
Comparison of depressive syndromes (CES-D-10) prevalence between aspirin and placebo groups each year of follow-up.
| n | Aspirin n (%) | Placebo n (%) | Intervention effect# (95%CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CES-D-10 ≥ 8 1 | ||||
| Baseline | 1,879 | 925 (49.2) | 954 (50.8) | |
| Year 1 | 1,734 | 483 (56.4) | 439 (50.0) | 6.5 (1.8, 11.2) |
| Year 2 | 729 | 198 (51.7) | 171 (49.4) | 1.7 (−5.1, 8.5) |
| Year 3 | 1,404 | 360 (52.2) | 369 (51.6) | 1.0 (−4.2, 6.1) |
| Year 4 | 932 | 227 (52.1) | 241 (48.6) | 3.8 (−2.4, 10.0) |
| Year 5 | 611 | 154 (53.9) | 171 (52.6) | 1.1 (−6.4, 8.5) |
| Year 6 | 194 | 51 (58.6) | 53 (49.5) | 5.1 (−7.6, 17.8) |
| CES-D-10 ≥ 10 2 | ||||
| Baseline | 954 | 470 (49.3) | 484 (50.7) | |
| Year 1 | 868 | 226 (52.3) | 185 (42.4) | 10.1 (3.5, 16.7) |
| Year 2 | 369 | 86 (44.6) | 79 (44.9) | −1.3 (−10.8, 8.1) |
| Year 3 | 687 | 164 (47.0) | 141 (41.7) | 4.9 (−2.3, 12.2) |
| Year 4 | 458 | 109 (48.9) | 100 (42.6) | 6.2 (−2.5, 14.8) |
| Year 5 | 290 | 72 (50.7) | 64 (43.2) | 9.6 (−1.4, 20.6) |
| Year 6 | 93 | 22 (55.0) | 23 (43.4) | 18.0 (−0.8, 36.9) |
| CES-D-10 ≥ 12 3 | ||||
| Baseline | 524 | 263 (50.2) | 261 (49.8) | |
| Year 1 | 474 | 113 (46.9) | 87 (37.3) | 12.7 (3.8, 21.6) |
| Year 2 | 200 | 43 (40.2) | 36 (38.7) | −4.5 (−17.4, 8.4) |
| Year 3 | 366 | 82 (42.7) | 52 (29.9) | 11.6 (15.9, 21.5) |
| Year 4 | 243 | 63 (50.4) | 40 (33.9) | 9.8 (−2.1, 21.7) |
| Year 5 | 146 | 27 (39.1) | 28 (36.4) | 11.2 (−4.5, 27.0) |
| Year 6 | 44 | 7 (43.8) | 11 (39.3) | 5.4 (24.4, 35.1) |
P-value and (test statistic) for joint test of intervention effect across visit years: Chi-square 8·74, df 6, P=0·189.
P-value and (test statistic) for joint test of intervention effect across visit years: Chi-square 14·23, df 6, P=0·027.
P-value and (test statistic) for joint test of intervention effect across visit years: Chi-square 13·84, df 6, P=0·032.
Aspirin effect: Model-based marginal prevalence difference (aspirin vs placebo) at follow-up years; estimated form a GEE with binary outcome and logistic link including treatment allocation and follow-up visit as factor and two-way interaction between treatment allocation and follow-up visit.