Findings The study team screened 9803 potential participants for this trial. The trial was initiated on June 2, 2020, with the current protocol reporting randomisation to fluvoxamine from Jan 20 to Aug 5, 2021, when the trial arms were stopped for superiority. 741 patients were allocated to fluvoxamine and 756 to placebo. The average age of participants was 50 years (range 18–102 years); 58% were female. The proportion of patients observed in a COVID-19 emergency setting for more than 6 h or transferred to a teritary hospital due to COVID-19 was lower for the fluvoxamine group compared with placebo (79 [11%] of 741 vs 119 [16%] of 756); relative risk [RR] 0·68; 95% Bayesian credible interval [95% BCI]: 0·52–0·88), with a probability of superiority of 99·8% surpassing the prespecified superiority threshold of 97·6% (risk difference 5·0%). Of the composite primary outcome events, 87% were hospitalisations. Findings for the primary outcome were similar for the modified intention-to-treat analysis (RR 0·69, 95% BCI 0·53–0·90) and larger in the per-protocol analysis (RR 0·34, 95% BCI, 0·21–0·54). There were 17 deaths in the fluvoxamine group and 25 deaths in the placebo group in the primary intention-to-treat analysis (odds ratio [OR] 0·68, 95% CI: 0·36–1·27). There was one death in the fluvoxamine group and 12 in the placebo group for the per-protocol population (OR 0·09; 95% CI 0·01–0·47). We found no significant differences in number of treatment emergent adverse events among patients in the fluvoxamine and placebo groups.
death的话好像坚持吃会有效很多 84 participants stopped fluvoxamine and 64 participants stopped placebo owing to issues of tolerability. Perprotocol findings among patients who reported optimal adherence (greater than 80% for possible days) indicated a significant treatment effect (RR 0·34; 95% BCI 0·21–0·54 for the primary outcome and for mortality (odds ratio 0·09; 95% CI 0·01–0·47). With respect to adverse events, there were no significant differences in number of treatment emergent adverse events among patients in the fluvoxamine and placebo groups. 你咋又来踩ivm, 不想吃不吃咯
covid有药了，还逼不逼孩子都去扎针了？ trump derangement syndrome 没药可治的，啥实验都试不出来的
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(21)00448-4/fulltext
这俩句完全不搭，你确信你自己没问题？
吃几天不会吃出精神病 (本来也只是治抑郁的），副作用是又很小一部分人可能会acute anxiety
我都屯好了，当然你需要先找医生开一个处方
https://honeybeehealth.com/drugs/details/luvox/anipharma?variant=2889
我的问题是明知道这年头很多人没法正常思考和讨论，有时候还是忍不住浪费时间发帖
两件事情不能分开说吗？cpu处理不过来？
屯点没错的。之前刚出了文章说asprin对covid有帮助，nyt立马出来堵后门，说不能乱开asprin来预防stroke。 爱打针的打针，爱吃药的吃药，世界多和谐。
好消息，也可以看这篇 https://www.sciencenews.org/article/covid-antidepressant-fluvoxamine-drug-hospital-death
还好这个药目前还没被政治化，一边也没拼命推，一边也没拼命锤，反而存活了
我想着要是病了还跑去开药，还不一定能开到，多麻烦还休息不好。还是早早屯着好了
这个together trial学界有一些人批评它的primary endpoint有点模糊（>6小时的hospital visit），但是结果据我所知还没有人不承认。文章我今天早上也读了，论效果fluvoxamine只是减少了1/3的住院，能不能降低死亡率没有明确结果，不是特别的promising，但是在merck的抗病毒药推广之前有这么个安全的口服药物绝对是个好消息。
药也好疫苗也好，不管是不是背后有大药厂推手什么的，只要有这么一个well controlled, well powered trial result，学界都会承认。那些在缺少医药监管的第三世界国家搞的小规模RCT还有open label，回顾分析什么的意义不大，因为你根本不知道一个发表了的positive outcome后面是不是还有七八个没有发表的negative outcome。
IVM的问题其实比我说的这个cherry picking还要严重，因为这里面还掺了四五个造假被抓包的clinical trial，然后几个规模大一点的实验还都看不出和安慰剂的区别来。下面这个图还没有包含together trial的结果，可以看到trial的质量越高，越看不出和placebo的区别来，这样的结果怎么可能有哪个有正经医药监管的国家批准呢？
84 participants stopped fluvoxamine and 64 participants stopped placebo owing to issues of tolerability. Perprotocol findings among patients who reported optimal adherence (greater than 80% for possible days) indicated a significant treatment effect (RR 0·34; 95% BCI 0·21–0·54 for the primary outcome and for mortality (odds ratio 0·09; 95% CI 0·01–0·47). With respect to adverse events, there were no significant differences in number of treatment emergent adverse events among patients in the fluvoxamine and placebo groups.
你咋又来踩ivm, 不想吃不吃咯