Discussion about this post

User's avatar
J Lee MD PhD's avatar

Excellent illustration of "an inconvenient truth" that is always potentially in the shadows when it comes to evaluating ANY therapeutic or prophylactic poultice, powder, pill, ointment, or operation.

Expand full comment
Ernest N. Curtis's avatar

I wonder if there is something else going on here. I can hardly recall any drug trials that were prematurely terminated due to lack of efficacy. Usually it is due to other problems such as excessive side effects or excessive mortality. There are probably thousands of trials where the desired effect of the investigational drug showed only marginal effectiveness and often that was after several years of trial. It is especially peculiar here where the major side effect of concern---bleeding--was somewhat less than the control drug. Usually this sort of difference is touted by the manufacturer as sufficient reason to prescribe their drug rather than the ones used for comparison. It would also be interesting to include a placebo control group in the trial. But this is seen much less often these days. Rather they test against an existing drug with efficacy already "proven" even though that may be quite marginal.

Expand full comment
8 more comments...

No posts