Profile picture
, 3 tweets, 3 min read
My Authors
Read all threads
There's buzz about #Glenmark new drug #Favipiravir for #COVID__19
Do we have the data based on which approval was granted? @CDSCO_INDIA_INF
Given the desperate situation, physicians & patients are likely to flock to get this, but do we have some hard outcomes to show it helps?
I tried to find published studies on #Favipiravir but haven't yet found supportive data in the searches I did. Would be grateful if someone could point out the evidence. And I hope it's not a single arm study where x% improved because x% could have improved anyway.
If our standards for other drugs are well conducted randomized trials, let's not lower the bar for #Favipiravir just because someone's marketing it, and we don't have any eligible candidates at hand. #EvidenceBasedMedicine
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh.

Keep Current with Pramesh CS

Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Related hashtags

#Glenmark #Favipiravir #COVID__19 #EvidenceBasedMedicine

More from @cspramesh see all

Profile picture
Pramesh CS
@cspramesh
The retractions of papers in @TheLancet and the @NEJM have been met with outrage, anger and calls for resignation of the editors. Let's take a moment to think about this. What is a journal's and an editor's responsibility? To ensure that they publish the best science. Thread
They also need to publish the best science reliably and in a timely manner. How do they do this? They send to peer reviewers, get comments, and make a decision. They also rely heavily on authors for the veracity and integrity of the paper and their potential or real COI
Authors sign a declaration that they vouch for the data they present. Given the present circumstances in science, is it realistic to expect that editors and reviewers get the raw data of every single study that's submitted to their journal to guide their decision?
Read 6 tweets
Profile picture
Pramesh CS
@cspramesh
I am extremely skeptical about tests like these. Screening for cancer (or any other disease) should have strong evidence to back it, failing which the test will only exploit innocent public. What do I mean by evidence to support it?
Thread
The only reliable evidence to support screening is from large randomized trials offering screening to one arm & routine care to the other, & conclusively demonstrate decreased mortality in the screened arm. Sorry, but no alternative expedient methods of "evidence" matter. Why?
Screening has the real potential for harm, by way of unnecessary tests, interventions that can cause harm, or even death, diverting scarce health resources to useless treatment & costs involved. Which is why, if there is no mortality reduction, the screening tool is merely a tool
Read 13 tweets

Embed code for your website

×
Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!