Xarelto Rebound Strokes

Discussion in 'Janssen' started by Anonymous, Sep 27, 2012 at 8:21 AM.

Tags: Add Tags
  1. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    After I tell them Zarelto needs this kind of coumadin bridging it seals the deal, every time. I flat out ask them if that's a problem for them, and they all frankly state they see a problem here. I am mclovin' it!
     

  2. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    EVERY DRUG NEEDS THIS KIND OF "COUMADIN BRIDGING"!!!!!
    It's the Coumadin stupid!

    You don't know what bridging is, do you Sparky?
     
  3. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Sigh do you understand why you have a black box warining and Pdax doesn't is your increase risk of rebound strokes. Please understand the FDA gets the full data set and your data earned you a black box warning.
     
  4. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    thank you God, for giving us BI reps like Sparky. It makes my job alot more fun
     
  5. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    You're as stupid as Obama in a debate. There is no "rebound", it doesn't exist. When a patient is taken off an anticoagulant their risk for stroke returns to what it was before they were being treated. Pradaxa showed it's best results in lower risk patients when coumadin wasn't optimally used, not a great data set. Pradaxa has also proven to be significantly less safe in terms of GI bleeds, all bleeds, MI and mortality since launch compared to what was seen in the studies. The black box warning clearly defines what happens and what to do when a patient must be permanently taken off Xarelto, it's clear, it's helpful and it let's every clinician understand how the med works. Now then, run along and play in your little BI douche sandbox, you're annoying and you know it.
     
  6. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Nice spin you have there, you might ask the FDA what it thinks about minimizing your rather serious black box warning.

    What was Pradaxa RR reduction in chads2 score of 3+. Seems to me your argument is that there was no benefit to using Pradaxa in the sub-pop? If you believe so I'd like to see your numbers that show this.

    You also stated there was more adverse events on Pradaxa in post-marketing. Do you have the percentages (not numbers there's a difference between a number and a percentage) that show this statement provable?

    You can call it rebound, you can call it more strokes, you can call it a death whistle for all I care, the danger of being on an anticoagulant is now upped when on Xarelto because a physician needs to remember to bridge when coming off your drug. That really sucks, because lawyers lie in wait for this unfortunate prescriber error and sue away any savings a physician has gathered over a life time. Since you don't have to worry about this with Pradaxa then I'd imagine it makes a physicians choice well that much easier. Do you not agree? Or, more likely, I am reading this site and see that you xarelto reps don't believe the necessary bridging with your drug.

    One last thing, it seems also that you doubt that Pradaxa doesn't need bridging upon transitioning to warfarin? Can you show me where it says I should consider alternate anticoagulation when transitioning to warfarin. Is that buried in Pradaxa's PI? If you've found where it says this can you show us.

    Thanks for the help I know you JnJ'ers are standup chaps.
     
  7. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Uh, lawyer here. Give me a client that strokes out on either drug after stopping them and NOT doing what you guys call bridging. Cha-ching.
     
  8. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Dear Obama junior,

    Where did I say to minimize the black box. Nowhere. You're really stupid. The black box is straightforward and very clear yet you can't comprehend (that means you don't get it) what's written there. Ask the FDA for your impressive list of fatal bleeds and increased MI, they have the numbers. Just for fun, a little devil's advocate: If you don't need to bridge off of dapigatran is that also why standard reversal protocols don't work? Enjoy pulling your drug out of the US market!
     
  9. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Exactly, warfarin and xarelto will get you in heap um trouble. At least with Pradaxa you are in the clear and a lawsuit won't pass a prima facia test (PI says no need)
     
  10. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    I didn't ask the FDA for numbers; I asked you. Can you even follow simple directions?
     
  11. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    when 1 week Nrxs for xarelto are 10 and pradaxas are 60+ who's really getting stomped. You have no superiority claim for stroke reduction vs warfarin. Where is your Afib data?? Your not even in the same league! xarelto is has no antidote and is highly protein bound making it difficult to be dialyzed. All you have working for you is your once a day dosing for compliance and thats nothing cuz if the patient isn't hungry and forgets to take the med then what? Then they read the black box warning get scared and call their doc. You can trick a few docs and lie but I'm getting to them 1 by 1 and setting them straight.

    PS

    The pradaxa rep who is taking livelihood.
     
  12. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Greedy and dangerous little shit (aka: as you too often refer to critics as a "Douche")!!
    The only numbers some of you will need to know is how many years to serve.
     
  13. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Listen, the guy claimed he knew that Post marketing of Pradaxa were higher than the trial. I didn't say that, he did. I don't say they were higher or lower, he did. All I want to know is what are those percentages he claimed he had in saying Pradaxa had higher post marketing events than the trial. It's a straight forward question, what are the percentages. I suspect he didn't have them so he evasively answered that the FDA has them. I thinks that's bullshit and a douchey thing to do - claim to have some information when you really don't. That, to me, is what a douche does, make statements up without a proof source. I don't think critics are douches, I think critics who make statements with our any proof source. No one is promoting here, we are arguing about data on a private chat board. They make bullshit statements and I call them out on it. I suggest you go back to surfing Internet porn because you can tell the difference, this site is too much for you.
     
  14. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Why not just check with the FDA, or the Cleveland Clinic, or Australia or your own medical affairs department at BI. Sheesh, you're so wound up you're going to throw a clot, get yourself some Zarelto for protection!
     
  15. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    I'd stay with the Leeches and blood-letting for a while, at least until ALL the data is in and fairly interpreted.

    So much tension on this subject matter....mostly just idiot baiting.....
    And it seems to work.... !!!!!!!!!!!
    Why are a few of you (few ??) so so very very touchy ????
    Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.......
     
  16. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Not sure what part of the country you live in but in my part of the country #s are no where near 10 vs 60+! They are at least 50 vs 50- and Xarelto is growing everyday. And where do you live that patients "are not hungry"? not hungry at least once a day. yeah, right. I know where you are living, in fantasy land dude.
     
  17. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    You dumbass, I didn't ask the FDA, the Cleveland Clinic, etc., I asked the mofo making the statement he had the inside tract. It's a simple question that apparently you unethical reps can't answer. You see, you can't make false statements and not be called out on it.


    FYI, post marketing has already been shown to be LESS than the trial. Thats a fact and provable. You can not site any percentages that support your position. I think this is not you but a failure of your training department that hires mildly educated business majors and teach them to blanket statements without accompanying proof sources. This is why JnJ has paid out more money in fines than all the fines paid by every pharmaceutical company combined since the dawn of time. See, I can do blanket statements too and all they do is weaken your point. Now, if I write, JnJ has been levied a fine of 3.3 BILLION dollars, that is way more impactful.

    Lastly, I would never use Zarelto, the data was so horrible your company did 3 types of analyses on the data excluding patients so to cook the books with each analysis that the data is as muddled as how your reps think. No other company does this. Ask anyone in science about per protocol analysis or per safety analysis of data sets and they will scratch their heads and go I smell the waft of cooked data. More than likely this was done so you could say your drug was actually effective at doing something when the intent to treat showed marginal utility in the best and ineffectual utility since your warfarin comparator was abysmally used. You should get down on your knees everyday that you even have one person on this drug.
     
  18. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    That's why this country is so great - you can choose to be treated however you want. If you think the newer OACs are shit, then take warfarin, aspirins, leeches, l-touluene, whatever you think will do the trick. Why are you posting on here like we need to prove to you how great drug X or P is. That's NOT what CP is for, it's a site reps use to talk about upcoming lawoffs, who are the hottest reps, and who's easy at the out of town meetings. All other is bluster and bullshit. You clearly aren't in the industry but have need to express your rather facile notions of healthcare on here. No one cares if you uses leeches about the same amount as they don't care about your posts. I suggest you lay off here and go back to surfing porn. You bring nothing specific about science discourse and are wasting our time.

    Key point: if you don't like any of these meds then DON'T take them. Is this simple enough for you to understand?
     
  19. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    You minimized by making a blanket statement that ALL anticoagulants ivolve some sort of bridging. That's provably false. To make such an over-reaching statment is intended to minimize a rather serious aspect of Xarelto. It's on eof that oldest tricks of marketing: when you have a negative aspect on your specific product you make statemts that implie that ALL other's have this negative aspect so your choice of product SHOULDN'T be relevant.

    Lets play this game:

    Zidgitec cause intense burning of the penis when used for 2 hours. Plasitec was deemed by the Gubmint to really not need to consider burning of the penis issues, even though it may or may not do this. Therefore, in a rather unethical means of gather new business, widgitec training department instructs you Widgitec reps to say: Both products will cause burning of the penis if used long enough.

    See how this minimizes the negative aspect of burning of the penis?

    Do I need to do a second example or do you get the point. The only wrinkle is that my minimized example was a fabrication but your minimization will get people killed. Why? Well let me spell it out for you.

    If you Use Pradaxa + Warfarin upon transition with another anticoagulant on top of it you might risk hyper-anticaoagulating the patient. I don't know if this happens, but I know enough to not insinuate dangerous ideas.

    You will miss this point so let me state it again for you. If you nudge a doc that ALL of these new anticoagulants need some sort of bridging during warfarin transition just because yours needs to be done this way could have the negative consequence of having a Pradaxa patient bleed to death. Each drug has it's own set of rules and to deny this fact for scoring points or whatever you call popping off on here is shameful.

    Is this responsible? Is this ethical? Is this freaking illegal? I await your answers.

    Don't hide behind the "I didn't write that someone other than me did" because no one can tell who is who on here and if it wasn't you then you failed to speak up and set that bogus post straight. It's much easier to hide than it is to correct your own reps stupidity I guess.
     
  20. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    As mentioned earlier....
    You are just TOO easy !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    :)))))

    touchy touchy touchy

    catch up with you later.