MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
[caption id="attachment_33174" align="alignleft" width="120"]
Dr. Eric Secemsky[/caption]
Eric A. Secemsky, MD, MSc
Interventional Cardiology Fellow
Massachusetts General Hospital Harvard Medical School
Baim Institute for Clinical Research
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Response: We know from previous trials that continuing dual antiplatelet therapy longer than 12 months after coronary stenting decreases ischemic events, including spontaneous myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis. However, extending dual antiplatelet therapy is also associated with some increase in bleeding risk. For instance, in the DAPT Study, more than 25,600 patients were enrolled and received both aspirin and a thienopyridine antiplatelet drug (clopidogrel or prasugrel) for one year after stenting. Of these patients, 11,648 participants who had followed the study protocol and had no serious cardiovascular or bleeding events during that first year were then randomized to either continue with dual therapy or to receive aspirin plus a placebo for another 18 months. The overall findings of the
DAPT study were that, compared with switching to aspirin only after one year, continuing dual antiplatelet therapy for a total of 30 months led to a 1.6 percent reduction in major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events – a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis and ischemic stroke – and a 0.9 percent increase in moderate to severe bleeding events.
The prognosis following early ischemic and bleeding events has previously been well described. However, data for events occurring beyond 1 year after PCI are limited. As such, we sought to assess the cumulative incidence of death following ischemic and bleeding events occurring among patients in the DAPT Study beyond 1 year after coronary stenting.
Dr. Blanke[/caption]
Charles D. Blanke, M.D., F.A.C.P., F.A.S.C.O.
CHAIR, SWOG
Professor, OHSU Knight Cancer Institute
Marquam II
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Response: Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act as a voter initiative which law in 1997 – the first of its kind in the nation. Now, physician aid-in-dying is spreading quickly, with the states of Washington, Vermont, Colorado, and California passing similar legislation, as well as the District of Columbia, and Montana (through a court ruling). Millions of Americans lives in states where they would have the opportunity, if they were terminally ill, to take a lethal dose of medication with a doctor’s prescription.
My team here at SWOG, a global cancer research community that designs and conducts publicly funded clinical trials, wanted to look at Oregon’s 18 years of aid-in-dying data and answer some simple questions: Who is using the law? Why? Are the drugs effective? What are the trends in actually taking the prescribed medications? We found that use of law has mostly increased over time – and substantially increased in 2014 and 2015.
We found that predominantly white, older, well-educated people, take advantage of the law, and many of them – 77 percent – have underlying terminal cancer. The medication is also 99.4 percent effective.
