The arrhythmia incidence was linked to a higher dose of the drug but not at the levels that were recommended and now being used (and is a cohort of 96,0000, you could find the same type of dramatic results with Tylenol and hepatic failure).
We need a prospective, randomized controlled study with power.
I am trying not to alienate you guys even more, but man. This is not the end of the story by any means and the authors themselves know it, though it might be true that it doesn’t help. We will see I. July which was my original post.
You should ask yourselves why you want to prove this drug to be a failure (perhaps not you personally). It is purely because Trump takes it.
PS - yes, I have done research. I have also participated in a fair amount of it. I do think that meta analysis is a useful tool in its place, but it seems more & more that it has become the “go to” for lazy researchers. It also never fails to impress the lay public with its’ giant “n”. But it is being presented as meaning more than it does here.
Personally, I am not worried about the side effects of this well known drug at the recommended doses in the properly screened patient. I wouldn’t recommend it this without prospective, randomized data for which I am eagerly awaiting. (And to be clear, I am not in a specialty that would be regularly prescribing for this). On the other hand, if a patient asked me about giving it a try when there were no other options, I think that an off label Rx could reasonably be prescribed by another doctor.
I don’t get why you guys are so focused on Trump and not his doctor.