Vitamin K and new blood thinners

Help Support ValveReplacement.org:

Nocturne

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 29, 2016
Messages
485
Location
Rhode Island
I'm reading about how Vitamin K2 may be good for slowing down the growth of calcium in the heart arteries, and I have seen several mentions of Coumadin accelerating coronary calcification due to inhibition of vitamin K.

My wife tells me that there are a large number of new anticoagulants (over a dozen) that are bubbling up the pipeline, and do not work like Coumadin. Does anyone know if any of these have or are likely to be approved for use with mechanical aortic valves?
 

pellicle

Professional Dingbat
Joined
Nov 4, 2012
Messages
7,069
Location
Queensland, OzTrayLeeYa
Hi

Nocturne;n863932 said:
I'm reading about how Vitamin K2 may be good for slowing down the growth of calcium in the heart arteries, and I have seen several mentions of Coumadin accelerating coronary calcification due to inhibition of vitamin K.

My wife tells me that there are a large number of new anticoagulants (over a dozen) that are bubbling up the pipeline, and do not work like Coumadin. Does anyone know if any of these have or are likely to be approved for use with mechanical aortic valves?
firstly the link between effective reduction of calcification of arteries and K2 is a bit tenuous at the moment. (see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22516723)

In contrast the increased risk of death from bleeds of these new drugs is quite clear. try looking at the class actions against these drugs

http://drugreporter.com/pradaxa/lawsuit-settlement/

There have been a few trials and they always have a ton of pressure from the Pharma companies to shove them through. They seem to compare them to worst case (and I really mean *worst case*) warfarin management and say "look they're no worse (well only a little bit)" so we should use them.

Next they have an enormous financial investment which they wish to make a return on.

Ask yourself these questions:
  • who profits from warfarin (which is out of copyright)?
  • how much does warfarin cost?
  • how much does the alternative cost?
  • how do you reverse the anticoagulation effect in an emergency (ans: warfarin is easy and known in every ER on the planet - vitamin K, the others are subject to research, dialysis and prayer)
http://center4research.org/child-tee...adin-warfarin/

Pradaxa costs around $3,000 per year while Coumadin usually runs about $200 per year.
The case of cost is such that in many places the the cost is masked by the government health or insurance companies paying for it. But someoeone pays.

Then look at the fact that warfarin has 50 years of usage and people still "aren't sure" if it has any side effects (baldness, erectile dysfunction, bad breath ...) even though medical science debunks this.

Its beyond my comprehension as to why people are so keen to leap onto some snakeoil which is highly unknown just because there are known problems and known handling techniques with warfarin. I can only blame a desire for a fantasy , ignorance of reality, narcissism and "a desire to believe what the companies tell you is going to be good for you" on this ...

the devil you know is always better than the one you don't
 

rnff2

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 3, 2009
Messages
121
Location
Illinois
I have to say as an ER nurse it is a lot easier to care for a patient on coumadin than on one of the new anticoagulants. With coumadin we are able to treat the patient with vitamin K or plasma and reverse the effects of the coumadin rather quickly. We are also easily able to test the patient to know how anticoagulated they are.
 

Superman

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 3, 2009
Messages
854
Location
Grand Rapids, MI, USA
pellicle;n863935 said:
  • who profits from warfarin (which is out of copyright)?
  • how much does warfarin cost?
  • how much does the alternative cost?
the devil you know is always better than the one you don't
It really is sad that in an industry that is supposed to care for the wellbeing of the patient, we have to constantly be on guard for decisions made on the basis of generating additional revenue and profitability.

What if Warfarin is the best it gets? What if we got lucky and stumbled across a miracle drug that does exactly what it's supposed to do with minimal side effects? Yet, in the name of profitability and the most attractive pharmaceutical sales rep that purchased lunch for the staff most recently, we'll experiment with our patients. Nice.

I remember when I got into banking because I wanted to work in a professional environment that wasn't "salesy". Boy was I naïve. I'm guessing there are a lot of medical professionals that learned the same thing over the years. Patients don't just stumble into your practice, and you do need to turn a profit.
 

W. Carter

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 10, 2015
Messages
142
Location
Dallas, Texas
All of you guys hit it right on the head. I just don't understand why people think that all the newer anticoagulant medications are or will be any safer than Warfarin. Any medication that slows down the natural clotting factor of our blood may not be safe in worst case scenarios. It is just the cards that we were dealt. From what I have read the newer drugs may not be as safe as Warfarin. I will pass on the Arnold Palmer, thank you.
 

Latest posts

Top