Xarelto Rebound Strokes

Patient takes X has a stroke due to stopping X and needing to go back to warfarin. Hence the black box warning. There you pharma reps are dumb and this shit is poison

 

I'm confused, so were you eating donuts at the gym or not? You BI folks need to be more implicit and speak proper English

 

What low rent euro university teaches you BI bitches to communicate in illiterate sentence fragments? Good to know you're developing meds and people just like you, it makes it easier for Americans to defeat Germany all over, I love when history repeats itself. Maybe when you're done at BI you can cross the street to BMW and fix the engineering that makes their new models heavy, underpowered and have more quality issues than a Ford. Auf weinerschnitzel mein kampf, or what ever the hell you euro douches say.

 

We need to be kinder to our mongrel brethren.
I wouldn't do well with Deutsch (some would like to say Dutch...just for immigration history) either.

 

Why do you always assume it's BI. The post sounded like from a Jansen rep , I work with a lot of dumb reps- after all if we were really good at our jobs Xarelto would not be trailing dapigatran. I've tried for a year and about to throw my hands up how those BI euros could still outsell us 5 to 1.

 

Data ?

 

#31 Dap vs #6 Riva 9-14-2012 New

 

Data ?
Independent Data ?

 

No way I'd ever release that, are effing crazy?

 

Didn't think so....
I'll just need to rely on the Promotional Literature I guess.

 

Dabigatran scores higher in atrial fibrillation

Dabigatran versus rivaroxaban for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in atrial fibrillation in Canada: Comparative efficacy and cost-effectiveness

New data from a Canadian study published in the October issue of Thrombosis and Haemostasis underscore the benefits of dabigatran treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation. The findings were mainly driven by the superiority of dabigatran with respect to stroke prevention and risk reduction of intracranial bleeding episodes compared to rivaroxaban. The study was also showed that dabigatran was more cost-effective.

For a long time, warfarin was the only choice for prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation. Today, new choices have become available and questions of cost-effectiveness have arisen.

According to Anuraag Kansal, PhD, research scientist, health economics, United BioSource Corporation (UBC), Bethesda, MD, U.S.A., clinicians and health-care decision-makers need to understand clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness of these treatment options. To provide data, Kansal and his team performed an indirect treatment comparison of dabigatran etexilate (dabigatran), an oral reversible direct thrombin inhibitor, and rivaroxaban, a direct inhibitor of factor Xa, among Canadian AF patients. Their findings were based on outcomes of the RE-LY and ROCKET AF trials, which was challenging because of differences in the trial populations, study designs, primary analysis populations and drop-out rates. Clinical event rates from the RE-LY study were adjusted to the population of the ROCKET AF study.

The results revealed that within the same population and analysis set, dabigatran offered clinical advantages compared to rivaroxaban [1]. Dabigatran treatment resulted in better stroke reduction (risk of ischemic stroke: 3.40 versus 3.96) and lower intracranial bleeding rates (probability of intracranial hemorrhages: 0.33 versus 0.71) than rivaroxaban therapy which in turn translates into better and longer lives for patients. Analyses of these differences in an economic model, found  in the Canadian setting  dabigatran to be economically superior to rivaroxaban, yielding one additional quality-adjusted life-year (i.e. one year of healthy life). These benefits were accompanied by lower overall health-care costs (including costs for medication) in favor of dabigatran. Expenses for acute care and long-term follow-up per patient were lower for dabigatran than for rivaroxaban ($ 52,314 compared to $ 53,638) which more than offset differences in drug costs ($ 7,299 versus $ 6,128).

Thus “…in patients equally eligible for dabigatran or rivaroxaban treatment, dabigatran may be the preferred option”, Kansal said. The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that dabigatran is both more effective and cheaper than rivaroxaban in these indications. The authors added that acknowledging the caveats relating to the research  such as that no head-to-head study was available  the findings suggest that health-care budgets be assigned to dabigatran rather than rivaroxaban in the Canadian healthcare setting. Nonetheless, they conceded that treatment decisions have to be based on individual consultation between patient and treating physician and cannot be derived from such analyses.

It should also be noted that whilst the study was an academic one (and robustly peer reviewed), it was sponsored by industry, which is represented on the authorship. However, the conclusions are in line with a recent indirect comparison of these new anticoagulants published in this journal [2, 3]. YZ

References
[1] Kansal A, Sharma M, Bradley-Kennedy C et al.: Dabigatran versus rivaroxaban for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in atrial fibrillation in Canada: Indirect treatment comparisons for the dabigatran single models used in the sensitivity analyses. Thromb Haemost 2012; 108: 672-682.
[2] Mantha S, Ansell J. An indirect comparison of dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban for atrial fibrillation. Thromb Haemost 2012; 108: 476-484.
[3] Harenberg J. Head-to-head or indirect comparisons of the novel oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation: What’s next? Thromb Haemost 2012; 108: 407-409.

 

I love the logic of the BI douche:

A meta-analysis of all dapigatran studies is flawed because it shows too many warts like increased bleeding and MI rates, but an indirect comparison of two vastly different studies is golden.

 

You get clinically agitated all of the time....
Do you own too much company stock ??

Regardless of all the "analysis"...most studies are set up to try to "prove" a claim...then they are "analyzed" to try to prove a claim...then "outliers" and "problematic" patients are removed from the set to try to prove a claim..
It just happens that way !!!!
But once you get a "claim" approved..many just do not settle for that ($$$!!!) and insist on pushing the legal and safety envelope to extremes with new and untested "claims".
That's where the danger and the selfishness and greed comes in !!!
You know it as well as anyone else. I'm certain of that ))))
Most of the drugs in the set are just so so similar that it would take calculus to determine any real life differences.
Except maybe cost, based on the hoped for renewed cycle of IP gouging.

BoooHooooo we just can't make a fair profit !!????
Absolute tripe.

I'm probably a Douche ??? So be it.

 

I'm not excusing bad behavior but you carry on that reps act in a vacuum. That docs would never have though to use drug x for y disease if a rep didn't push it for that. I know I'm Gounod to great creamed by you saying I believe it's ok then to push but to be clear I don't. I just find you off base when you make rather ill informed opinions.

 

I think you are a little but confused on drug reg.

Outliers are only excluded in per protocol analyses and that's why the FDA requires an intent to treat analysis in order to get indications. A company can be shady and only release a per protocol study but that doesn't mean the FDA will approve that.

You tend to make sweeping generalizations in your posts. You are the guy who doesn't believe in statistics or number theory in previous entries and now you continue your muddled thinking in another post. Give it a rest. Or as you say :

HAHAHAHAHAHA

 

nope.
different douche...

And those inane comments regarding "number theory"...what the hell are you talking about ???...that's a realm of mathematics far beyond the simple arithmetic you might be alluding to.
What a mess this industry has gotten itself into..and with lots of help apparently.

 

It's from a post awile back where he challenged number theory and the science of clinical trials. It was a specific post to him, I didn't expect you to get the reference. The stuff the HAHAHA guy comes up with was appallingly idiotic at best and shiws you the tragedy of public education at its best.

 

Still.........
You seem to be an ignorant fool.
Just sayin"

 

It's true, but I have nothing better to do. In fact, most everything I say is complete fabrication and innuendo.

 

Risperdal seems to be working.