This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Cardiovascular Disease/ Myocardial Infarction  • Coagulation Disorders  • Alert me on articles by topic

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

In reply

We thank Peterson and Jackson for their interest in our article.¹ However, they are mistaken on several points. We agree that absolute risk reduction is an important measure of efficacy, which is why we listed actual event rates, from which absolute risk reductions are apparent. Relative risk reduction is also important, since it allows assessment of the potential efficacy in patients with different levels of baseline risk and higher or lower event rates than the population under study—absolute risk reduction does not.² Thus, for the physician taking care of patients, both measures of efficacy are relevant. Indeed, in the CURE study there was a 2.1% absolute risk reduction in hard end points (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke) over an average treatment period of 9 months.³ This degree of absolute event reduction compares favorably with trials of statins and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors for secondary prevention of ischemic events, . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Deepak Bhatt, MD
Cleveland, Ohio

Hani Jneid, MD
Louisville, Ky

Roberto Corti, MD; Juan Badimon, MD; Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD
New York, NY

Gary Francis, MD
Cleveland

RELATED ARTICLE

Cost-effectiveness of Newer Antiplatelet Drugs
Gregory M. Peterson and Shane L. Jackson
Arch Intern Med. 2003;163(20):2533-2534.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT