3 ms·

Surprisingly enough, the original trial took 12 years: > Between 1996 and 2008, we randomly assigned 47 patients (44 men and 3 women) with severe frostbite to

Surprisingly enough, the original trial took 12 years: > Between 1996 and 2008, we randomly assigned 47 patients (44 men and 3 women) with severe frostbite to one of three treatment regimens in an open-label study. Severe frostbite was defined as having at least one digit (finger or toe) with frostbite stage 3 (lesion extending just past the proximal phalanx) or stage 4 (lesion extending proximal to the metacarpal or metatarsal joint).4 The study was approved by the ethics committee at the University of Grenoble. Sadly, I'm curious to see how the business case (in America!) pans out – I wouldn't be surprised if the biggest cause of frostbite in the US is winter homelessness.

c22 3y ago
I keep some Narcan in my car and so far I've only given it to homeless people.
- Kerb_ 3y ago
  I think that likely has more to do with housed people not needing to be on the streets when they take their drugs and overdosing inside than it does with homeless people getting frostbite.
  - c22 3y ago
    It has nothing to do with frostbite except to demonstrate that there may still be a market for a product that is beneficial to homeless people even if the homeless themselves don't buy it. (The homeless, of course, may also be able to buy frostbite medicine, assuming it's cheaper than a house.)
    - nxobject 3y ago
      It might be that public money might end up buying it for disaster response, in the same way that Narcan's being bought by municipalities etc., rather than people. (Considering that this was shepherded through orphan drug programs, it wouldn't be the first time this was subsidized by public money.) That being said, the price of Narcan's heavily dropped since it became generic – I remember when Narcan was either distributed in vials and IM injection training was required, or nasal spray packaging was a lot more expensive.

c22 3y ago

I keep some Narcan in my car and so far I've only given it to homeless people.

Kerb_ 3y ago
I think that likely has more to do with housed people not needing to be on the streets when they take their drugs and overdosing inside than it does with homeless people getting frostbite.
- c22 3y ago
  It has nothing to do with frostbite except to demonstrate that there may still be a market for a product that is beneficial to homeless people even if the homeless themselves don't buy it. (The homeless, of course, may also be able to buy frostbite medicine, assuming it's cheaper than a house.)
  - nxobject 3y ago
    It might be that public money might end up buying it for disaster response, in the same way that Narcan's being bought by municipalities etc., rather than people. (Considering that this was shepherded through orphan drug programs, it wouldn't be the first time this was subsidized by public money.) That being said, the price of Narcan's heavily dropped since it became generic – I remember when Narcan was either distributed in vials and IM injection training was required, or nasal spray packaging was a lot more expensive.