Binary option strategies reversal agent for pradaxa blood thinner
4 stars based on
Always start with basics: The most important aspect of treating atrial fibrillation is preventing stroke. Although there are some innovative devices and procedures in development, the only proven way to prevent stroke in patients with AF is to use drugs that block coagulation— anticoagulants. In recent years, three novel oral anticoagulants dabigatran Pradaxarivaroxaban Xarelto and apixaban Eliquis have been approved as alternatives to warfarin for patients with AF.
The evidence base in support of these new agents is robust. More than 50, patients across the world have been enrolled in studies comparing novel anticoagulants head-to-head with warfarin. The results were clear: There was binary option strategies reversal agent for pradaxa blood thinner a consistent trend towards lower mortality with the novel drugs.
Other advantages of the new agents include convenience no INR testinglack of dietary or drug-drug interaction and rapid anticoagulation after an oral dose rather than days for warfarin. But there are headwinds as well. The binary option strategies reversal agent for pradaxa blood thinner drugs are costly, for some, unaffordable. I know a medical assistant who spends almost every day, all day, just doing pre-authorizations for novel anticoagulants.
Five to ten minutes per patient turns into a full-time job with benefits, just for sending information—in triplicate—to insurance companies.
Being first to the marketplace cut both ways. On the one hand, Boerhinger Ingelheim got a head start in a market that had waited nearly 50 years for a warfarin alternative. To say people were excited to have something better than a rodenticide would be a severe understatement.
Once approved, dabigatran use soared. Irrational exuberance usually ends the same way. It turns out there was a steep learning curve with dabigatran. Investigations binary option strategies reversal agent for pradaxa blood thinner early bleeding reports exposed errors in prescribing and clinical judgment. To be fair though, most of the adverse events were simply bleeds that occur when one blocks coagulation, which is the tradeoff when trying to prevent stroke.
This notion was born out in subsequent reports of dabigatran-related bleeding events, which failed to reveal a signal of harm. Dabigatran has two other pesky issues: These are real problems that I have seen range from minor nuisances up to esophageal ulcerations. Finally and not to be dismissed easily: These problems paved the way for rivaroxaban Xarelto. The once-daily drug is well tolerated and does not often cause stomach pain.
The convenience of once-daily dosing is huge. Studies show adherence is better with medicine taken one time per day. Yet rivaroxaban started slowly. The Rocket-AF trial showed rivaroxaban to be non-inferior to warfarin, while dabigatran and apixaban could boast superiority from their trials.
Then, once approved, it entered a landscape marred by bad-drug ads. Five to ten minutes of extra paperwork per patient adds up to….
I was tentative about rivaroxaban for a different reason. As a proceduralist, I was worried that the new anticoagulant had not been tested in AF patients destined for procedures.
Unlike dabigatran, which has a solid evidence base as an effective peri-procedural anticoagulant, there was simply no data with rivaroxaban. Could I use it before cardioversion or AF ablation? Would a once-daily non-inferior anticoagulant stand up to the rigors of left atrial ablation?
Was it worth switching a patient doing well on rivaroxaban to warfarin before their procedure? There were 5 studies presented at the Heart Rhythm Society sessions earlier this month.
The data were encouraging. For those interested in the medical details, I summed up the abstracts in a short post over at Trials and Fibrillation on theHeart. The presented data mirror my experience.
Over the past year, I have yet to see a major adverse event with rivaroxaban, and this experience includes cardioversion and AF ablation. I asked around and my colleagues echo the same sentiment. Consider that in the Einstein-PE trial, rivaroxaban, albeit at a higher dose, proved to be an effective strategy to treat pulmonary embolus blood clot in the lung.
Binary option strategies reversal agent for pradaxa blood thinner is significant because PE is a disease that requires potent anticoagulation. That rivaroxaban worked so well speaks to its anticoagulant effects. I have not used the newly approved drug enough to render an opinion. Its clinical trial boasts the most impressive data against warfarin, and apixaban is the only one of the new agents that can claim a mortality reduction.
As a twice-daily drug, adherence will be an issue. Drugs that block normal coagulation increase the risk of bleeding. The cost of preventing stroke is an increased risk of bleeding. But we must be mindful of two important issues: Patients at higher risk of stroke enjoy more risk reduction from anticoagulants than lower risk patients. Second, and most important, the decision to take an anticoagulant should be a shared one between patient and doctor.
The risk of stroke on and off anticoagulants should be presented. Bleeding risk should be considered as well. I never tell my patients they need to take an anticoagulant. I simply try to replace fear and ignorance with the best evidence. Then I am comfortable with what they choose, for it is always their choice.
And to ward off commentary that I am promoting dangerous anticoagulants, let me leave you with the obvious:. It is better not to get AF. Good movement, good food, good sleep and good attitudes will make it more likely that you will see me on a bike ride than in the clinic. I get much good information and perspectives on afib on this website. That is a good thing for someone like me with afib. Now I have a bone to pick. Probably age and genetics. Maybe the mild case of sleep apnea I have treated since I found out I had concurrently with the afib 2 years ago.
Running 10 miles everyday and lifting weights for decades until my 60s, maybe that was a mistake. Must be something else in play. I have my own theories. My thoughts exactly in response to Dr. I was diagnosed at the age of 51 following a kidney stone attack my first, and hopefully my last. Up until my diagnosis I had been active in several sports and my BMI and blood pressure were in the normal range. My afib disappeared following a cardioversion, and did not come back for a year and a half — until I retriggered it with a brief encounter with the original triggers, as well as being totally inactive for a while following eye surgery.
Prior to and after my first cardioversion, I was given Pradaxa, which at the time was brand new to the market. The months I was on it were pretty bad. The dyspesia and constant upper GI and esophageal problems were awful. I lived every day waiting for it the afib to re-appear with the reflux. Once I got off both those drugs, I was afib free for a year.
The other nasty thing about Pradaxa was that it absolutely destroyed areas of my skin, and made me very prone to bruising and brushing. By brushing, I mean my skin was so fragile, brittle and dry, that the slightest brush up against an object would create a large tear that refused to heal.
I still have some Pradaxa tattoos that probably will never go away, even after more than a year. There has been no such problem with Xarelto — just occasional spontaneous bruising. I forgot one important piece. It later came out that there is an interaction between Multaq and Pradaxa where Multaq can increase the effect of the Pradaxa by as much as 1. With regard to giving patients stroke risk numbers, cardiologists should not quote annual risks for a particular CHADS2 score from a study of Medicare patients with a minimum age of 65 and a mean age of 80 and insist that they apply to a year-old patient without correction for age.
The main gripe about the newer anticoagulants on the afib forum I frequent is the lack of an effective antidote, and everyone on the list who is on an anticoagulant is on Warfarin for this reason. There have been too many stories shared on binary option strategies reversal agent for pradaxa blood thinner list where someone who was otherwise healthy either had a bleeding incident or an accident and bled to death where they would have survived on warfarin.
John, have you had patients on these newer anticoagulants who died for lack of of a reversal agent? Statistically, if I add up all the all of binary option strategies reversal agent for pradaxa blood thinner combined problems that anticoagulants can cause, based on many various studies not an individual study that only looks at bleeding risk, for example then the binary option strategies reversal agent for pradaxa blood thinner balance tips in favor of not being anticoagulated.
An ischemic stroke is a scary thing, but so is a hemorrhagic stroke. In real numbers, if I read the information correctly, the risk of an afb stroke is pretty small. A 5 percent risk in reality means that binary option strategies reversal agent for pradaxa blood thinner of people with afib, 95 will never experience a stroke. By being anticoagulated, your risk of other events might jump to binary option strategies reversal agent for pradaxa blood thinner to 10 percent, so without significant other factors, the anticoagulated person runs greater risks.
I once laid all this out on a spreadsheet, based on articles I read. I know of two people right now who have vowed they would never, ever be anticoagulated again — no matter what — based on what happened to them. Being anticoagulated prior to, and for a time after cardioversion, makes tremendous sense to me, but long term does not, unless there binary option strategies reversal agent for pradaxa blood thinner many additional risk factors.