Sergio Dellepiane
@sergiodellep.bsky.social
Nephrologist in pharma industry.
This is clearly biased. And you are right, no one would ever found a 0.5-1bln 3yr trial to compare a “blockbuster” to a drug without similar indications and off patent. What can be done by academics are mechanisms trials with outcomes like UPCR, Na excretion, BP and CKD progression markers
November 25, 2025 at 11:58 AM
This is clearly biased. And you are right, no one would ever found a 0.5-1bln 3yr trial to compare a “blockbuster” to a drug without similar indications and off patent. What can be done by academics are mechanisms trials with outcomes like UPCR, Na excretion, BP and CKD progression markers
Piccola nota: le case farmaceutiche in Italia producono ma non sviluppano farmaci. La prima è un’attività relativamente poco costosa (centinaia di milioni) e con minor intensità di ricerca. La seconda è la chiave dell’innovazione, muove miliardi e (con pochissime eccezioni) se n’è andata da decenni
November 19, 2025 at 8:22 PM
Piccola nota: le case farmaceutiche in Italia producono ma non sviluppano farmaci. La prima è un’attività relativamente poco costosa (centinaia di milioni) e con minor intensità di ricerca. La seconda è la chiave dell’innovazione, muove miliardi e (con pochissime eccezioni) se n’è andata da decenni
Looking at this meta analysis:
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35914996/
Quite the same conclusions, just the effect size is very different
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35914996/
Quite the same conclusions, just the effect size is very different
Eicosapentaenoic Acid for Cardiovascular Events Reduction- Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials - PubMed
Our analyses demonstrate that although EPA supplementation lowers risk of coronary revascularization more than other oils, there may not be a benefit relative to standard of care. Further, EPA reduces the risk of cardiovascular events only in comparison to mineral oil and not when compared with othe …
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
November 11, 2025 at 12:04 AM
Looking at this meta analysis:
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35914996/
Quite the same conclusions, just the effect size is very different
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35914996/
Quite the same conclusions, just the effect size is very different
Likely under-dosing. The successful CV trials increased from the classic 0.3-0.5g of EPA to >1g if I remember correctly. Here they gave several grams. Maybe that’s why? Maybe there is something really different in dialysis? 2/2
November 11, 2025 at 12:01 AM
Likely under-dosing. The successful CV trials increased from the classic 0.3-0.5g of EPA to >1g if I remember correctly. Here they gave several grams. Maybe that’s why? Maybe there is something really different in dialysis? 2/2
I was a huge fun O3 and I confess that I took them daily (the very same 2) for 5 years. What is striking is the huge effect, particularly if confirmed with the very little changes observed in non-dialysis. Only mild HF reduction specially in patients with high TG. To be fair a huge issue was 1/2
November 11, 2025 at 12:01 AM
I was a huge fun O3 and I confess that I took them daily (the very same 2) for 5 years. What is striking is the huge effect, particularly if confirmed with the very little changes observed in non-dialysis. Only mild HF reduction specially in patients with high TG. To be fair a huge issue was 1/2
There is a further issue. What’s the gold standard for AKI subtype diagnosis? It is true that a clinical response is a decent proxy of pre-renal. But still.. noise on noise
October 7, 2025 at 3:55 PM
There is a further issue. What’s the gold standard for AKI subtype diagnosis? It is true that a clinical response is a decent proxy of pre-renal. But still.. noise on noise