5 ms·
> The FDA is willing to approve drugs for depression with much weaker data than say, cancer, because if they held them to the same standard, no drugs would be a
by dorchadas 8y ago
> The FDA is willing to approve drugs for depression with much weaker data than say, cancer, because if they held them to the same standard, no drugs would be approved at all.
Then maybe we don't need drugs approved?
- refurb 8y agoA drug that has some evidence it works for some people is better than no drugs at all.
- maxerickson 8y agoI don't think that's obvious at all. It will be true some of the time, but there's lots of room for a drug to do more harm than good in that situation.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- akiselev 8y agoThe problem isn't their effectiveness versus a placebo but patient selection. Each drug helps a small subset of all people due to natural variations in brain chemistry but does nothing or hurts everyone else. Until we have the technology to properly identify which patients qualify for a clinical trial, the option is between letting people suffer without recourse or dealing with follow on problems like overprescribing and addiction. The FDA knows how much more complex neuroscience is to develop drugs for and has chosen the latter option as an ethical necessity.
- narwally 8y agoI had to try at least a dozen antidepressants to find out that Lexapro was the only one that noticeably worked well enough to be worth the side effects. When my sister started suffering from depression as well, her doctor actually had her ask me about the medications that worked best for my depression. Lexapro ended up being effective for her as well, and she avoided the same process I went through because they were able to use the genetic clues to at least find a good starting point.
- zdragnar 8y agoI can say with absolute certainty that I would be in a far, far worse position in life without lexapro. Others were far less effective, but it absolutely turned me around.