akaheather wrote:is that they'd have to do a trial on a 1000 patients, then a double-blind trial on another 1000 patients
A double-blind trial???? How would that work? What, some would get MRV's and some would just sit in a tube while some monkeys banged on pots and pans?
363MSers and 472 controls=835 people. All MSers showing evidence of CCSVI, and in the case of the third and fourth (studies), stenoses too. The concordance is so astounding one can accept lower numbers too.
That is pretty darn close to the fantastical 1000 people he demands be studied.
How many of our current therapies have 1,000 in the stage 3? Seems like when I get my MSQR the studies recruiting have much MUCH lower numbers than that. AM I wrong on that?
Check out this article talking about two new oral drugs being tested for MS.
In the Phase III study of 1,200 patients with the RRMS, approximately 80 percent of MS patients who took the drug cladribine remained relapse-free for two years compared to only 61 percent of those participants given a placebo.
In another successful phase III study of over 1,200 patients with RRMS, 80 to 84 percent of MS patients who were given daily dosages of the drug fingolimod remained relapse-free after one year in comparison to only 67 percent of study participants who received Avonex, a typical injectable drug used to treat MS.
If a person has a stenosis and we can see impaired drainage in that individual, does it matter that we are not sure how that will impact MS?
mrhodes40 wrote:Once it is established as an FDA approved effective technique, I BELIEVE that the surgeon is permitted to use his judegement and apply it in any situation he feels it will effectively open up the vessel in question. I beleive it is not necessary to trial it for every application. I believe that techniques once approved are free to be used in any applicable situation. [snip] does anyone know anything to dispute this or add to it at all?
Users browsing this forum: Robnl