| 1. |
- Hess, Connie N., et al.
(författare)
-
Relationship Between Cancer and Cardiovascular Outcomes Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Journal of the American Heart Association. - 2047-9980 .- 2047-9980. ; 4:7
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background-Cardiovascular disease and cancer increasingly coexist, yet relationships between cancer and long-term cardiovascular outcomes post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are not well studied. Methods and Results-We examined stented PCI patients at Duke (1996-2010) using linked data from the Duke Information Systems for Cardiovascular Care and the Duke Tumor Registry (a cancer treatment registry). Our primary outcome was cardiovascular mortality. Secondary outcomes included composite cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization and all-cause mortality. We used adjusted cause-specific hazard models to examine outcomes among cancer patients (cancer treatment pre-PCI) versus controls (no cancer treatment pre-PCI). Cardiovascular mortality was explored in a cancer subgroup with recent (within 1 year pre-PCI) cancer and in post-PCI cancer patients using post-PCI cancer as a time-dependent variable. Among 15 008 patients, 3.3% (n=496) were cancer patients. Observed rates of 14-year cardiovascular mortality (31.4% versus 27.7%, P=0.31) and composite cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization (51.1% versus 55.8%, P=0.37) were similar for cancer versus control groups; all-cause mortality rates were higher (79.7% versus 49.3%, P<0.01). Adjusted risk of cardiovascular mortality was similar for cancer patients versus controls (hazard ratio 0.95; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.20) and for patients with versus without recent cancer (hazard ratio 1.46; 95% CI 0.92 to 2.33). Post-PCI cancer, present in 4.3% (n=647) of patients, was associated with cardiovascular mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 1.51; 95% CI 1.11 to 2.03). Conclusions-Cancer history was present in a minority of PCI patients but was not associated with worse long-term cardiovascular outcomes. Further investigation into PCI outcomes in this population is warranted.
|
|
| 2. |
- Sullivan, Richard, et al.
(författare)
-
Delivering affordable cancer care in high-income countries
- 2011
-
Ingår i: The Lancet Oncology. - London : Lancet Oncology. - 1470-2045 .- 1474-5488. ; 12:10, s. 933-980
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The burden of cancer is growing, and the disease is becoming a major economic expenditure for all developed countries. In 2008, the worldwide cost of cancer due to premature death and disability (not including direct medical costs) was estimated to be US$895 billion. This is not simply due to an increase in absolute numbers, but also the rate of increase of expenditure on cancer. What are the drivers and solutions to the so-called cancer-cost curve in developed countries? How are we going to afford to deliver high quality and equitable care? Here, expert opinion from health-care professionals, policy makers, and cancer survivors has been gathered to address the barriers and solutions to delivering affordable cancer care. Although many of the drivers and themes are specific to a particular field-eg, the huge development costs for cancer medicines-there is strong concordance running through each contribution. Several drivers of cost, such as over-use, rapid expansion, and shortening life cycles of cancer technologies (such as medicines and imaging modalities), and the lack of suitable clinical research and integrated health economic studies, have converged with more defensive medical practice, a less informed regulatory system, a lack of evidence-based sociopolitical debate, and a declining degree of fairness for all patients with cancer. Urgent solutions range from re-engineering of the macroeconomic basis of cancer costs (eg, value-based approaches to bend the cost curve and allow cost-saving technologies), greater education of policy makers, and an informed and transparent regulatory system. A radical shift in cancer policy is also required. Political toleration of unfairness in access to affordable cancer treatment is unacceptable. The cancer profession and industry should take responsibility and not accept a substandard evidence base and an ethos of very small benefit at whatever cost; rather, we need delivery of fair prices and real value from new technologies.
|
|
