Deans' stroke musings

Changing stroke rehab and research worldwide now.Time is Brain!Just think of all the trillions and trillions of neurons that DIE each day because there are NO effective hyperacute therapies besides tPA(only 12% effective). I have 493 posts on hyperacute therapy, enough for researchers to spend decades proving them out. These are my personal ideas and blog on stroke rehabilitation and stroke research. Do not attempt any of these without checking with your medical provider. Unless you join me in agitating, when you need these therapies they won't be there.

What this blog is for:

Shortly after getting out of the hospital and getting NO information on the process or protocols of stroke rehabilitation and recovery I started searching on the internet and found that no other survivor received useful information. This is an attempt to cover all stroke rehabilitation information that should be readily available to survivors so they can talk with informed knowledge to their medical staff. It's quite disgusting that this information is not available from every stroke association and doctors group.
My back ground story is here:http://oc1dean.blogspot.com/2010/11/my-background-story_8.html

Sunday, October 16, 2016

How safe and effective are new drugs for stroke prevention?

And why the fuck would we need new drugs when readily available food and drugs already can give us a 307% reduction in stroke risk? Or do you not need a 307%  stroke risk reduction from these 11 possibilities? Are our doctors even treating the right causes? Does anyone in the stroke world even think at all?

How safe and effective are new drugs for stroke prevention?

 
Mayo Clinic
For decades, warfarin was the only oral blood thinner available to reduce the risk of stroke for patients with atrial fibrillation. Warfarin use is cumbersome, because it requires ongoing blood test to monitor the effect and has numerous drug and food interaction. Now a number of non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC) drugs are available for patients with atrial fibrillation and claim to revolutionize the care for patients with atrial fibrillation. In a study published online in CHEST Journal, Mayo Clinic cardiologist Peter Noseworthy, M.D., and colleagues compared the effectiveness and safety of three NOACs (dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban). NOACs come with some benefits over warfarin. They work quickly and clear the body quickly, and require fewer monitoring blood tests. However, until now, the relative effectiveness and safety of each was not well known. Dr. Noseworthy and his research team hope this study will give clinicians valuable information they can use in making decisions and communicating with their patients.

Using the OptumLabs Data Warehouse, the researchers were able to compare thousands of patients using the three drugs to each other and determine the relative effectiveness and safety of each drug. Looking at medical claims data from October 2010 through February 2015, they compared three one–to–one matched cohorts of patients with non–valvular atrial fibrillation. The cohorts included 31,574 patients taking either rivaroxaban or dabigatran, 13,084 patients using apixaban or dabigatran, and 13,130 patients taking apixaban or rivaroxaban. Effectiveness was determined by whether patients suffered stroke or systemic embolism. Safety was determined by whether they had a major bleeding episode while on the treatment. The researchers found no significant difference between the three NOACs for risk of stroke or systemic embolism. However, they found that patients taking apixaban were less likely to experience major bleeding than those taking dabigatran or rivaroxaban. Rivaroxaban also had a higher risk of major bleeding and intracranial bleeding, compared to dabigatran.

No comments:

Post a Comment