Found this on Stop Afib website. Interesting article:
http://www.stopafib.org/newsitem.cfm/NEWSID/294/

Janet

 

 

Johnson & Johnson and Bayer HealthCare funded the study.

I wonder what the difference in cost between the two drugs is. They didn't mention that a major disadvantage of coumadin is that its patent ran out years ago.

just a thought,

frank

 

I bet the new drug is very expensive. I am going to stick to my Coumadin unless my Dr insists I change. Doubt if he will.I know that some on this site have had problems with Coumadin but lucky for me I have not in the 10 yrs I have been taking it. And happily I don not like some of the stuff your not supposed to eat at all like grapefruit, haha.

Thanks, Frank, for the comment, So true.

Janet

 

I'm not going to change either because it works for me, is inexpensive and I don't want to risk another stroke. The reason new drugs are so exorbitantly expensive is that they're still paying for the drug trials and will for years to come.

 

There is actually a lot of controversy about the need for blood thinners with afib if you dig deeper in the medical literature. I don't have afib, but if I did I would think long and hard before starting on it.

Fear is one of the most highly honed medical marketing tools. It always has been. I'm missing my tonsils and adenoids because my parents were susceptible. My early demise has been suggested by doctors with that worried look in their face for 35 yrs because of my untreated lipid levels. Recently, I was pressured to have my gall bladder removed because it is"packed with stones" ( a scientific medical term). No way.

So one of these days when I die they will say "We told you so" over my grave at 80+ yrs. My ashes will be smiling.

frank

 

I had afib for many years before my PM and resisted taking anything but aspirin. I have an abnormally low platelet level and anything stronger than aspirin will cause me some very nasty bruising.

I presented some data from some studies run comparing aspirin to Coumadin to my doctors. The findings were that aspirin was equally effective as Coumadin with fewer side effects.

The doctors wouldn't budge. I feel they have to prescribe Coumadin simply as a CYA legal reason.

I did go on Coumadin for about 4 months just before my implant. I'm so glad I'm off that stuff.

 

What is missed is the long term risk of blood thinners. Sure, if the dosage is carefully determined and lab tests are regularly run the risk can be held down.

In the real world lab errors occur, pills are mixed up, and patients make errors in taking the meds. Anytime a treatment is continued over a long time (in this case it can be years) the chance of an error multiplies. This is rarely included in the studies.

In the case of blood thinners for afib the benefit of decreased stroke due to clotting is offset by the increased risk of a stroke due to bleeding. All it takes is a serious incident of overdosing (which does happen).

After going through the results of a brain bleed with my wife in 1999 (not due to thinners) I can say that it isn't any better than a clot.

By the way, doctors do not have the right to force treatment on you. We need to get over the idea that "the doctor wouldn't allow my choice." I have faced off against them on several occasions.

frank

 

I have a co-worker that takes Coumadin for afib. He's an avid cyclist but is very reluctant to ride because of the blood thinner. His doctors cautioned him:DON'T FALL OFF THE BIKE....you could bleed to death.

 

My risk of having another stroke is many times greater than the risk of complications from coumadin. Afib stroke is generally catastrophic and death is often a "complication" of that. My INR's are tightly controlled to prevent problems. My goal is to continue to enjoy my life without having to worry about kicking another clot out of my left ventricle when my afib heart rate is around 500-600 and well, not dying from that.