Printer Friendly

Confusion over anti-clotting therapy hinders drug-eluting stent rebound.

Blanket recommendations for one year of dual antiplatelet therapy for patients who receive drug-eluting stents may be the biggest cloud over the market for the devices, cardiologists suggest.

Drug-eluting stents accounted for only 62% of stent placements in the United States in September, an all-time low. And at Washington Hospital Center, one of the highest volume cath labs in the country, physicians used drug-eluting stents instead of bare-metal only 52% of the time, says Ron Waksman, who practices interventional cardiology at the D.C. hospital.

"At the end of the day, the main reason in Washington that we don't use drug-eluting stents is because of the limitation of the prolonged antiplatelet therapy," he said during the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics conference Oct. 20.

Dual antiplatelet therapy was a hot topic among clinicians. regulators, and industry representatives alike at the Washington, D.C., meeting, which wrapped up Oct. 25.

Following the signs of increased late thrombosis from drug-eluting stents that emerged last year, professional societies changed their guidelines and FDA moved to change device labeling to recommend one year of dual antiplatelet therapy--clopidogrel (Plavix) and aspirin--for patients with the devices.

Johnson and Johnson's Cypher was initially approved for use with a three-month drug regimen, and Boston Scientific's Taxus with a six-month regimen.

Waksman noted that his hospital now will not give drug-eluting stents to patients who are unwilling or unable to take clopidogrel for the one-year duration--for instance patients already on the blood thinner warfarin, patients who are scheduled for surgery, or patients who cannot pay for the prescription.

Clopidogrel costs $3 to $4 per day and carries a risk of bleeding complications.

Figuring out more specifics about which subpopulations may benefit the most from long-term antiplatelet therapy and who may benefit the least should be a top research priority, Waksman said, since most doctors agree that a full year is not likely necessary in all cases.

"We have one of the rare scenarios where the professional society recommendations around the world all have agreed to a one-year time frame, when there's not a single pivotal trial of drug-eluting stents that has been conducted using a one-year time flame," Mitchell Krucoff. an interventionalist at Duke University, said. "The simple fact is we have absolutely no idea."

Andrew Farb, a medical officer in CDRH's cardiology devices review branch, said a new focus for FDA in drug-eluting stent trials going forward will be to have sponsors more closely track actual prescription patterns for dual antiplatelet therapy and see if there is any relation to clinical events.

COPYRIGHT 2007 Advantage Business Media
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2007 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Regulatory Report
Publication:Medical Design Technology
Date:Nov 1, 2007
Words:422
Previous Article:Japan's device payments will continue to decline, government official says.
Next Article:An interview with Stephen J. Ubl, President and CEO of AdvaMed.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters