I know modern scientific processes require blind studies to prove effectiveness of a new drug but imagine being in a grave spot and you're given access to a potential life saving treatment, you get some hope back that you might pull through but you end up being one of the placebo recipients. Damn.
I think it's important to remember that you're also talking about maybe or maybe not receiving an experimental, unproven treatment that has the potential to make things worse rather than better. If that's the case, you'd be happy to be the one receiving placebo.
It's just a concentrated high dose of vitamin c, though. It's already used for other things and deemed safe. You can just buy it off Amazon.
So in the case of most trials, I'd agree. Less so with this trial, though.
Also, the article is pretty vague on the details of how much help it really wound up being.
Oh, that in no way means it's not going to be harmful in the context of life-threatening sepsis. One of the things the study authors checked for is evidence of oxalate crystals forming in the kidneys because high dose vitamin C can cause kidney stones.
In healthy kidneys, that's a survivable inconvenience. In a severely septic patient? Their kidneys are already not working. That could shut them down completely.
(I'm a critical care nurse. First thing I wondered about was kidney stones.)
This was actually a big topic during the AIDS epidemic back in the '80s. However, I don't remember how they resolved that.
I think I've heard one semi solution is:
You end the study before people die/get permanent damage. You should have enough data at that point to show efficacy.
Then you offer All placebo people the treatment if they want it (after the study)
You are correct that this is still done in studies where efficacy is very clear.
In fact, this just happened a few days ago in a new trial of semaglutide to treat kidney disease in diabetics. With diabetes being one of the two major causes of the need for dialysis (the other being hypertension), the drug was so successful at improving kidney function that it would have been unethical to withhold it from placebo recipients.
In studies where efficacy is more marginal or harder to demonstrate, then drugs are sometimes given for "compassionate use" to people who are almost guaranteed to die otherwise, so providing an unproven treatment that may work or may harm them is less ethically fraught. That was the basis for a lot of AIDS treatments being distributed back in the day, and in fact AIDS activists were crucial to getting compassionate use rules liberalized.
I wouldn't lose to much sleep in this one though. There's been a string of many failed vitamin c trials that were much more rigorous than this.
To more seriously answer your question, there are platform trials, like in the ALS Healey trial, where a single control group can be used as a comparison for many different treatments, reducing the odds of being in a placebo group.
Ultimately we don't know if thess experimental treatments work, otherwise they'd already be prescribed. Most drugs fail. And being in the placebo group would shield you from risks that end up being found in the treatment group. The placebo group may in many cases end up better off in the end. So even being in a treatment group shouldn't really be approached imo like you're getting "early access" to a treatment, because we don't know if it's a treatment yet. I don't mean to discourage patients from helping in research, but it's better to look at it mainly as a service that patient is doing for the for the community affected by that disease as a whole and for the researchers.
If these drugs aren't rigorously studied we can sometimes end up with even bigger problems for patients down the road. A drug that gets approved on the basis of flimsy data is going to be much more difficult to study further after it gets approved. And now patients and doctors don't have much information to help them tell if the drug is worth it or not, potentially exposing tons of people to unnecessary side effects or financial costs for something of questionable effectiveness.
I think this is important context that you don't see in that press release (and which is why I would advise the community to favor posting studies more than news reports):
"Our findings appear to differ from those of recent randomized controlled trials, which assessed the effect of very high dose vitamin C in patients with sepsis."
This is one 30-person trial in a sea of trials that have been pretty equivocal so far regarding high dose vitamin C in sepsis.
Also, as a critical care nurse, I'd probably be inclined to advise against using 24 hour urine output as a primary endpoint. Not that I'm saying we're not perfect! (Lol) But there are those days when everything is so busy that the exact urine count isn't the highest priority. Sometimes the urine output number sits in the back of your head with a binary "enough" or "not enough" tag and you might miss putting one of the times you emptied the urine bag into the computer.
I don't love that, but the state of hospital staffing and having extremely ill human beings trying real hard to die on you sometimes forces you to prioritize things that are all important. And of the important things, as long as urine output exceeds the "enough" threshold, it's not the most important important thing.
Not every day will be so swamped that it forces that kind of compromise, so the numbers will average out over the course of a few days, which appears to be reflected in this study.
The actual study, for reference: https://ccforum.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13054-023-04644-x
Thank you for pointing this out. Saw the headline and was like, not this vitamin c crap again. So many trials have failed for this, critical care just seems obsessed with the idea and will not give it up. I agree their end points are very unconvincing. The group treated in addition to increased urine output had some kind of induced hypernatremia. Would need more info to be sure, but all this says to me is they probably caused some sort of mild diuretic effect.
I think it's just an effect of giving them sodium ascorbate instead of ascorbic acid. It's not the usual cause of hypernatremia, but it is possible to cause hypernatremia with that high a level of sodium intake, especially in the setting of kidney failure. I think they knew that and that's why they specifically noted that side effect.
This is a good point, and it is something that is covered under our new rules, but it hasn't been enforced that well since there isn't as much content.
We really appreciate comments like yours and encourage everyone to add links and quotes from the study/paper when possible. Also if you think something does not belong, please do report it and we'll take a look :)
I actually just found the community tonight. Glad to see you here! Thanks for starting this!
(Sometimes I like to state the obvious out loud in comments because I know people don't read the rules lol. I find it's how development of a self-reinforcing community culture occurs organically. That was my experience with more niche communities on that other site anyway.)
For sure, it definitely helps :)
This is a community for medical professionals. Please see the Medical Community Hub for other communities.
Official Lemmy community for /r/Medicine.
!medicine@mander.xyz is a virtual lounge for physicians and other medical professionals from around the world to talk about the latest advances, controversies, ask questions of each other, have a laugh, or share a difficult moment.
This is a highly moderated community. Please read the rules carefully before posting or commenting.
See the pinned post in the Medical Community Hub for links and descriptions. link (!medicine@lemmy.world)
Violations may result in a warning, removal, or ban based on moderator discretion. The rule numbers will correspond to those on /r/Medicine, and where differences are listed where relevant. Please also remember that instance rules for mander.xyz will also apply.
Flairs & Starter Comment: Lemmy does not have user flairs, but you are welcome to highlight your role in the healthcare system, however you feel is appropriate. Please also include a starter comment to explain why the link is of interest to the community and to start the conversation. Link posts without starter comments may be temporarily or permanently removed. (rule is different from /r/Medicine)
No requests for professional advice or general medical information: You may not solicit medical advice or share personal health anecdotes about yourself, family, acquaintances, or celebrities, seek comments on care provided by other clinicians, discuss billing disputes, or otherwise seek a professional opinion from members of the community. General queries about medical conditions, prognosis, drugs, or other medical topics from the lay public are not allowed.
No promotions, advertisements, surveys, or petitions: Surveys (formal or informal) and polls are not allowed on this community. You may not use the community to promote your website, channel, community, or product. Market research is not allowed. Petitions are not allowed. Advertising or spam may result in a permanent ban. Prior permission is required before posting educational material you were involved in making.
Link to high-quality, original research whenever possible: Posts which rely on or reference scientific data (e.g. an announcement about a medical breakthrough) should link to the original research in peer-reviewed medical journals or respectable news sources as judged by the moderators. Avoid login or paywall requirements when possible. Please submit direct links to PDFs as text/self posts with the link in the text. Sensationalized titles, misrepresentation of results, or promotion of blatantly bad science may lead to removal.
Act professionally and decently: /c/medicine is a public forum that represents the medical community and comments should reflect this. Please keep disagreement civil and focused on issues. Trolling, abuse, and insults (either personal or aimed at a specific group) are not allowed. Do not attack other users' flair. Keep offensive language to a minimum and do not use ethnic, sexual, or other slurs. Posts, comments, or private messages violating Reddit's content policy will be removed and reported to site administration.
No personal agendas: Users who primarily post or comment on a single pet issue on this community (as judged by moderators) will be asked to broaden participation or leave. Comments from users who appear on this community only to discuss a specific political topic, medical condition, health care role, or similar single-topic issues will be removed. Comments which deviate from the topic of a thread to interject an unrelated personal opinion (e.g. politics) or steer the conversation to their pet issue will be removed.
Protect patient confidentiality: Posting protected health information may result in an immediate ban. Please anonymize cases and remove any patient-identifiable information. For health information arising from the United States, follow the HIPAA Privacy Rule's De-Identification Standard.
No careers or homework questions: Questions relating to medical school admissions, courses or exams should be asked elsewhere. Links to medical training communitys and a compilation of careers and specialty threads are available on the /r/medicine wiki. Medical career advice may be asked. (rule is different from /r/Medicine)
Throwaway accounts: There are currently no limits on account age or 'karma'. (rule is different from /r/Medicine)
No memes or low-effort posts: Memes, image links (including social media screenshots), images of text, or other low-effort posts or comments are not allowed. Videos require a text post or starter comment that summarizes the video and provides context.
No Covid misinformation, conspiracy theories, or other nonsense
Moderators may act with their judgement beyond the scope of these rules to maintain the quality of the community. If your post doesn't show up shortly after posting, make sure that it meets our posting criteria. If it does, please message a moderator with a link to your post and explanation. You are free to message the moderation team for a second opinion on moderator actions.
