3 ms·
On the flip side, most drugs don't actually do anything. Or have side effects that are worse than the thing they're trying to cure. sure, i'm on board with low
by jfoutz 9y ago
On the flip side, most drugs don't actually do anything. Or have side effects that are worse than the thing they're trying to cure.
sure, i'm on board with lowering the cost, but not at the expense of lowering the efficacy.
I could see a good argument for balancing clinical trials vs toxicity, commonality and threat. Perhaps a drug that's only useful for .0001% of the population that would die otherwise, and isn't toxic, well maybe we can lower the bar there. but something that half the population takes, and overdoses will kill you, that should require really high standard. this approach is tough with the current system of off-label prescriptions though.
- marcosdumay 9y agoI would say that a high bar for toxicity and side effects is good. Leave it there. But there can be a more graded approach for effectiveness. There is little reason to completely forbid the commercialization of a drug because it's effectiveness isn't certain to a very low p-value.
- jfoutz 9y agoI've got a $5000 sugar pill for you that will change your mind about that.
- marcosdumay 9y agoSo, by "graded approach" you understood the exact opposite extreme from the current?
- dragonwriter 9y agoBut, as I understand, they aren't independent considerations; toxicity, side effects, and effectiveness (and the nature of the condition they treat) are weighed together, not evaluated independently. The acceptable toxicity and side effects of a drug that's near 100% effective at treating quickly-fatal condition with no other available treatment is not the same as for something with only moderate effectiveness at treating headache pain.
- marcosdumay 9y agoThat is a good point. Besides, gradating an acceptance based on results with little confidence can also reject good drugs because of bad luck.