"In this retrospective observational study of 18,813 patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), the incidence of dementia was significantly lower among oral anticoagulant (OAC) users (HR, 0.59) compared with nonusers. In addition, direct-acting OAC (DOAC) use was associated with a lower incidence of dementia compared with no use of OACs or with use of warfarin; no significant difference in dementia incidence was observed between warfarin users and OAC nonusers "
So this seems like quite a good reason to take them.
The study was carried out by Dr Jared Bunch, who receives substantial grants from Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, the maker of dabigatran/pradaxa. He found DOACs reduced the risk of dementia, whereas in fact, all anticoagulants including vitamin K antagonists have been found to reduce dementia risk.
Over all users, warfarin cut the risk of dementia by 20% but if you look at the graph at the bottom, those who are in the top quartile for control of INR (in range 70-100% of the time), the survival free of dementia was increased from 86% to 95%, a greater improvement than achieved with DOACs.
As warfarin users on this site know, INR control is vital. Those less than 70% of the time in the recommended range of INR (2-3) should be on DOACs whereas those greater than 70% are at least as well off on warfarin.
Funny how the vast majority of studies come out in favour of a Big Pharma drug with profit potential?? So please proceed with extra care when choosing what to take and what not to.
I may have got over cynical (particularly as I take Flecainide) but my confidence has been shot to pieces over the Covid period where the people I believe have shown how high profit largely ineffective drugs have been prioritised in studies and low costs effective ones have been ridiculed.
The lesson I have learned is that Big Pharma is not focussed on curing us, as its fiduciary responsibility is to sell more not less drugs that maximise profits for shareholders. I am not blaming them that is their job; sadly their regulators have been captured.
I concur. As long as their are shareholders and CEO’s with no connection to the business they administer, make obscene amounts of money from running...it was never going to end well for the consumer. The bottom line is always profit.My relatives in the states tell me there are so many cryptic drug commercials urging viewers to “ask your doctor” that it’s beyond bizarre.
That's true. I'm in the USA and you cannot watch 5 minutes of TV without a commercial for big pharma meds. It's gotten worse over time. Then there's the commercials for Medicare insurance. And then the commercials for attorneys representing the lawsuits against big pharma for people who have been harmed by pharma drugs. In the drug commercials they tout how wonderful the drug is and then the end of the commercial talks about the side effects and even that it can be fatal. Then it says talk to your doctor about taking it. In my opinion it's legal drug pushing. From what I understand it's illegal to advertise like this in the UK and New Zealand. Wish it was illegal in the states.
Can you tell me what law say it's illegal to advertise like that in the UK so I can write to the TV watchdog? Because I see adverts for drugs all the time and I had a partner whose job it was to personally persuade Dr's to prescribe the drugs from her employer using bribes . (a major drugs company)
You won’t see TV adverts on UK channels for any prescription pharmaceutical drugs, OTC possibly.
Certainly pharmaceutical reps will push their brands to doctors but even that is controlled. I used to work for Searle and they had a huge marketing budget but that was curtailed in the mid ‘90’s.
That I don't know. You may look at the link in CDreamer's post. I have been told by a few people in the forum from the UK that it is illegal to advertise pharma meds on TV. Would be great if there was a way to stop big pharma. But money talks and they have plenty to fight with.
When I was visiting the US often - 20 years ago - I was both bemused and horrified in equal measure at these ads - I can’t imagine how bad it is now. No wonder people end up confused and feel insecure and loose confidence in all of them.
Thank goodness all advertising for doctors, treatments lawyers and pharmaceuticals are banned here!
Oh it is bad. Seems to be worse every year. I remember years ago I worked as a caregiver and had taken a client to her Dr. I waited outside in an area close to the clinic door. Within 40 minutes there were 3 different drug sales reps all coming to see the Dr to peddle their drugs. Unbelievable. But apparently the Dr only had time to see one of them because shortly two of them left. Insane. Too bad the Drs don't take as much time to educate themselves about these drugs other than how wonderful these reps tell them they are. 🙄
Why do you think that when I'm seeing them on TV all the time unless I'm watching the BBC of course which I do a lot because I don't like adverts? Is it because I get targeted advertising because of my age if I'm watching day time TV?
I just followed your link and can see there are so many loopholes in the law that it is no problem for advertising agencies to get around them. It is true that I've never seen the adverts when the Grandchildren are watching their programs.
Quote....
"Advertise to the public
Your advert must include:
the name of the product
the name of the active ingredient if it contains only one
information about what you can use the medicine for
an instruction to ‘always read the label’ or accompanying leaflet
for products only available in Great Britain, a statement that the product is not available or not available without prescription in Northern Ireland
You must not:
promote a medicine use that is not covered by the summary of product characteristics (SPC)
make misleading claims or use pictures that may lead to a wrong self-diagnosis
suggest a medicine has no side-effects or that its effects are guaranteed
imply that seeing a doctor or pharmacist is not necessary
quote recommendations by scientists, healthcare professionals or celebrities
suggest a medicine is different from, the same as or better than any other named product
claim a medicine’s safety or effectiveness is due to the fact it is natural
state that normal health can be improved by taking the medicine or be affected by not taking the medicine
direct your advertising at children (under-16s) You may not provide free samples of a medicine as part of promoting the product.
See chapter 5 of the Blue Guide for more information."
On the bribing of Dr's directly it says Quote....
"Advertise to prescribers and suppliers of medicines
You can advertise any medicine (including prescription-only medicines) to healthcare professionals and others who can prescribe or supply the product.
You need to provide specific product information including:
the name of the product
the names of the active ingredients(s) next to the most prominent display of the name
a summary of the information in the SPC about adverse reactions, dosage and method of use, precautions and relevant contraindications
the condition(s) the medicine can be used for
the legal classification of the product
details of the licence number and supplier, if advertising a product only available in Great Britain, a statement that the product has a Great Britain licence
I can’t answer that, but I cancelled you it’s NOTHING compared to what is advertised in the US. I’ve never seen anticoagulants advertised in the UK anywhere but every other advert in the US is for a pharmaceutical.
Am I missing the point? They are all manufactured by major drug companies. The dental practices are part of a major chain. The non OTC meds are what the drug company reps are all about.
This can only happen because the regulatory bodies are financed largely by drug company fees and because there is a revolving door employment system. If the latter were stamped on firmly and governments brave enough to tell people that a truly independent regulatory system can only be financed by tax payer money things would improve. Also a few long prison sentences for CEOs when firms are found guilty of malpractice - especially those that lead to patient deaths. The fines are just regarded as the cost of doing business and are only a tiny fraction of the profits made from the drug in question.
Just totally lowering the tone, my oestrogen suppressants for my breast cancer increase my risk of Alzheimer’s but my apixaban is going to lower it, maybe I’ll just balance out!!!
This is some good news especially since in the book, The AFib Cure, it reads: "...the rate of dementia and cognitive decline are so much higher among people with atrial fibrillation." p.61
Lots wrong with the US system, but it does result in availability of life saving drugs that are apparently unavailable in the UK as well as a greater variety of drugs that may be technically available but rarely prescribed because of cost considerations. One of the downsides is that many Americans without the right kind of insurance or means can't afford them either.
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.
anti coagulant side effects
Is there a once a day anti coagulant?
