Jump to content

cloudy

Member Since 28 Apr 2005
Offline Last Active Dec 05 2006 08:33 PM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Length of Accutane Course/Dosage

25 April 2006 - 03:16 PM

Sigh. Where did I "refute" the previous dosing guidelines? This is ALL  I've said:

QUOTE
Moreover, some of the very latest studies have disputed the old Accutane relapse rate/daily/cumulative dose connection. Plus, a couple of new studies by Roche itself seem to indicate that if anything, the current Isotretinoin dosing recommendations are too high. Look up Roche's application for a new formulation of Accutane in the FDA database. (The original was approved so long ago, it is not in the database.)


Note the key words: dispute, seem to indicate.  And if you don't think my links are relevant to that, I can't help you.

In Topic: Length of Accutane Course/Dosage

25 April 2006 - 02:30 PM

As fun as slugfests are, nah.  I've wasted enough of my time.
You insist on misunderstanding, be my guest.  

In Topic: Length of Accutane Course/Dosage

25 April 2006 - 02:10 PM

Susan,

That was tongue in cheek.  I guess I should have used an emoticon.   eusa_angel.gif  Anyway--I did not pull that tongue-in-cheek definition out of my hat: I have seen that difference in the US/European treatment philosophy mentioned in several places-- I think the latest was in the transcript of some derm symposium speeches.

Beenthere,
I agree: Jesus.

I don't know what you are trying to prove, but I kindly suggest you read the links/this discussion/do your own research when you have sufficient time to read and comprehend what you are reading.  The devil is in the details as usual.

In Topic: Length of Accutane Course/Dosage

25 April 2006 - 01:56 PM

QUOTE(leetch22 @ Apr 25 2006, 02:49 PM) View Post

QUOTE(beentheredonethat @ Apr 25 2006, 01:32 PM) View Post

QUOTE
Surprisingly, oral isotretinoin does not appear on this list, although it is generally perceived by clinicians, including the reviewers of this report, as the most potent acne treatment. This absence, and others, may result from limitations of our review, including bias introduced through the exclusion of non-English language reports of trials. In the case of isotretinoin, this absence is also a function of limiting the review to controlled trials as such trials are difficult to design for isotretinoin because of the side effect pattern seen

OK, excluded from the list despite acknowledging that it is accepted as the most effective treatment, due to the aforementioned complications.  Which doesn't tell us anything relevant to this discussion.

QUOTE
If there actually were significant foreign language studies that prove beyond reasonable doubt that a certain dosing cures acne/is more efficient than an another, do you honestly think Roche wouldn't have had the study translated and pressreleased all over the place?

Well no, i think they'd stick the dosing info in the info pamphlet... Nothing is beyond a reasonable doubt with isotretinoin due to it's unique side effect/dosing relationship.  It's dosing is more art than science, as doctors must adjust dosage to each patient individually.  But i think it's reasonable to stick with Roche's published guidelines unless they are soundly refuted - and i still haven't seen where these guidelines are supposedly refuted.



This douchebag race is too close to call.. Will it be the 1mg/kg Killer, or will the 2mg/kg Semantics Monster prevail???? Stay tuned folks, and watch as two ordinary people battle it out to see who could define obscure medical studies better!?


You call me ordinary?  Nobody calls me ordinary and lives...

In Topic: Length of Accutane Course/Dosage

25 April 2006 - 01:54 PM

Look, you really need to read more carefully: isotretinoin is not on the list of drugs that have Level A evidence from controlled studies.  It was NOT exluded from the entire analysis. It is on the list of drugs with level B and C evidence. That's all I'm saying.  And that several studies --including one adequately powered study by Roche itself-- have lead SOME scientists (including some at the FDA)  to question the current dosing guidelines.  You choose not to accept the conclusion of the FDA guy who wrote the executive summary. That is perfectly okay.  The entire point of this discussion was that you cannot--based on available evidence -- claim (like you seemed to do in the beginning) that everyone should be on as high a do as they can tolerate.   You already conceeded that point so now we are just going round in circles.