[HN Gopher] The history behind aspirin 81 (2019) ___________________________________________________________________ The history behind aspirin 81 (2019) Author : hippich Score : 45 points Date : 2023-11-26 19:53 UTC (3 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.clinicalcorrelations.org) (TXT) w3m dump (www.clinicalcorrelations.org) | Plankaluel wrote: | This seems to be a US (UK?) thing? At least here in the German | speaking countries in Europe aspirin also has nice round numbers. | A dosage for heart attack prevention is usually 100mg. Normal | dose is 500mg | boringuser2 wrote: | That doesn't seem advisable. | | It seems like you'd want to base your choice on two main | criteria: | | 1. The lowest effective dosage. | | 2. The dosage with maximum efficacy vis-a-vis what is studied | in the literature. | | At a cursory glance, it seems like many studies compare a lower | dosage of aspirin to a higher dosage (e.g. 75mg to 300+mg) and | the lower dose tends to compare favorably. | | Having nice round numbers is of no benefit to a patient. | wrs wrote: | It's all "round numbers". 81mg is just 1.25 grains, a quarter | of the normal 325mg dose which is just 5 grains. It's not | like anyone did a clinical study to determine the effective | dosage to two significant figures. | Plankaluel wrote: | Sure, but it seems like the US is doing the same for all | other drugs except for aspirin so I assume it is not a huge | problem? | coldtea wrote: | > _That doesn 't seem advisable_ | | Has been working ok for hundreds of millions, so there's | that. | | Almost all drugs are sold in "nice round numbers" anyway. | | Given that you can drop orders of magnitude in scale from | grams to milligrams (or whatever) to suite the dosage | calculation, nobody is going to notice the difference between | X with decimal points and Y which is X rounded, as if 247.3mg | was going to be optimal and 250 will be bad. | | The variability of what the patient actually needs (e.g. an | adult male could be 1.55 and 50kg to 2.10 and 150kg but they | usually just get the same dosage in the instructions - and | for most drugs no doctor would bother to suggest a more | fitting value) would be higher than any rounding error | anyway, but in practice it hardly matters. | saulrh wrote: | > Having nice round numbers is of no benefit to a patient. | | At our current level of logistical sophistication, the | benefit-to-the-patient is that they can get their medications | at all. | | I agree that in a perfect world every prescription would | start with a computation, based on body weight and historical | susceptibility and suchlike, to determine _precisely_ the | right dosage. However, I also don 't think we're there yet. I | don't think that you can reasonably prescribe "take 6 | milliliters of this" or "take thirteen of these"; patients | would mess that up reliably even if they were in perfect | health and had perfect vision and perfectly stable hands. And | we can't stock thirty different sizes of pill; each size of | pill takes up already-limited shelf space, increases cost of | packaging and logistics, and increases the likelihood of | dosing error. So doctors _can 't_ yet prescribe precisely the | dosage they should be able to. I'm sure that there are cases | where they do - drugs with narrow therapeutic ranges | administered in hospital settings where they can be | _precisely_ dispensed by IV - but for stuff that 's being | sent home with patients, we're just not there yet. | | (Sadly, even on-demand services like pillpack won't save us, | because doctors can't depend on the availability of custom | pill-stamping when they make a prescription - they _have_ to | assume that the lowest-common-denominator pharmacy is being | used to fill the prescription.) | | (In fact, going by the rate at which hospital mortality is | attributed to dosing errors during administration, we haven't | solved precision pharmacology _even under ideal | circumstances_ and fundamental breakthroughs are required | that will obsolete any current approach to dispensation of | prescription medication.) | potatopatch wrote: | > Having nice round numbers is of no benefit to a patient. | | Patients benefit from simplicity just like practitioners, | they have to do math like whether they've reached 1500mg in a | day or need to split pills when there is an availability | problem (for a dosage.) | | An optimal dose to be served to everyone is also a myth as | dosing is calculated by weight, etc. | traceroute66 wrote: | > UK? | | Nope. Just a US thing. | | As you can see on the NHS (UK National Health Service) | website[1]: The usual dose to prevent a heart | attack or stroke is 75mg once a day (a regular strength tablet | for pain relief is 300mg). The usual dose for pregnant | women is either 75mg or 150mg, taken once a day. The | daily dose may be higher, up to 300mg once a day, especially if | you have just had a stroke, heart attack or heart bypass | surgery. | | Also says similar in the BNF (British National Formulary)[2] | | [1]https://www.nhs.uk/medicines/low-dose-aspirin/how-and- | when-t... [2]https://bnf.nice.org.uk/drugs/aspirin/ ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-11-26 23:00 UTC)