Long-Term Aspirin Use Reduces Incidence of Digestive Cancers Up To 47%
In a study involving over 600,000 people, researchers compared patients who were prescribed aspirin over a long period (for at least six months, average duration of aspirin prescribed was 7.7 years) with non-aspirin users and assessed the incidences of a number of cancers.
Those prescribed with aspirin showed a 47% reduction in liver and esophageal cancer incidence, a 38% reduction in gastric cancer incidence, a 34% reduction in pancreatic cancer incidence and a 24% reduction in colorectal cancer incidence.
Digestive cancers account for almost a quarter of cancer cases in Europe. Colorectal, gastric and pancreatic cancer are within the top five cancer killers throughout the continent, with digestive cancers representing 30.1% of cancer deaths.
The effect of long-term use of aspirin on cancer incidence was also examined for cancers outside of the digestive system. Here, a significant reduction was shown for some (leukemia, lung and prostate) but not all (breast, bladder, kidney and multiple myeloma) cancers.
Aspirin is used across the globe to treat a number of health conditions, ranging from short-term pain relief to long-term prescriptions. Whilst the use of aspirin is subject to debate within the medical community, a recent study found that patients who stopped taking aspirin were 37% more likely to have an adverse cardiovascular event, such as a heart attack or stroke, than those who continued with their prescription.
Lead researcher, Prof. Kelvin Tsoi from the Chinese University of Hong Kong, presented the study today at the 25th UEG Week in Barcelona. “The findings demonstrate that the long-term use of aspirin can reduce the risk of developing many major cancers” commented Professor Tsoi. “What should be noted is the significance of the results for cancers within the digestive tract, where the reductions in cancer incidence were all very substantial, especially for liver and esophageal cancer.”
Study: Voting Doesn’t Reduce Crime
A new study casts doubt on a promising application of the timeworn theory — posited by thinkers such as Rousseau, Alexander de Tocqueville, and John Stuart Mill — that political engagement, such as voting, fosters good citizens and makes people more likely to obey the law.
The study, published in the journal Political Behavior, confirms prior research that those who vote are much less likely to be convicted of crimes than non-voters, but it also shows that voting alone does not directly reduce criminality.
“While voting is a worthy activity, it does not appear to prevent people from committing crimes or set them on a virtuous path toward good citizenship,” said Gregory A. Huber, professor of political science at Yale University and a co-author of the study. “This does not mean that participatory democracy has no positive transformative effects on people, but it suggests that scholars should reconsider whether the simple act of voting or other civic engagement is sufficient to promote other pro-social behaviors.”
The study represents the first large-scale field experiment to examine whether political participation reduces involvement in the criminal justice system. The researchers analyzed a randomized controlled trial involving about 550,000 non-white young adults aged 18 to 20 during the 2010 U.S. election cycle.
A portion of the study sample was randomly assigned to receive non-partisan voter registration materials before the election. Following the election, the researchers merged data from the experiment with government records on incarceration. They found that the individuals who received the registration literature were more likely to cast ballots than those who did not receive the materials, but no less likely to subsequently commit a crime.
Overall, study subjects who voted in November 2010 were 55% less likely to be under state supervision — incarceration, parole, or probation — two years after the election than those who did not vote. The individuals in the treatment group — those who received voter registration materials — voted at a rate 19% higher than those in the control group. However, they showed no reduction in subsequent criminality, according to the study.
“Our findings have important policy implications,” Huber said. “For example, if voting prevented criminal behavior, then measures encouraging people to vote would be a cost-effective way to reduce incarceration. Unfortunately, our study shows this kind of intervention is unlikely to succeed.”