• Posts
  • RSS
  • ◂◂RSS
  • Contact

  • Belief Listing Project: Drug Efficacy Evaluation

    August 16th, 2011
    current_beliefs, drug_efficacy  [html]
    In 1962, an amendment to the food and drug act added a requirement that drug manufacturers prove that their drugs are effective. Before that, the food and drug administration would approve new drugs that had been demonstrated to be safe, but they did not consider efficacy. [1] Unfortunately, slowing down the progress of drug creation by running additional trials to test effectiveness has costs, about 60,000 lives per decade. [2] Additionally, while a new treatment that is significantly cheaper than an old one but is somewhat less effective makes sense from a cost-benefit perspective, the fda would reject such a treatment for not being more effective than current treatments. [3]

    As things stand, however, doctors are already permitted to prescribe drugs that the fda accepts as safe but not effective for the prescribed use. This is via off-label use. Once a drug has been approved by the fda as safe and effective for some use, it can legally be prescribed for any use. In fact, in cases where off-label use of a drug is a standard treatment, a doctor would be negligent if they refused to consider it just because of it's 'off-label' status. We should remove the requirement that new drugs be proven effective before the fda can accept them.

    [1] This was in response to the discovery that thalidomide, given for morning sickness during pregnancy, produced severe birth defects. Which doesn't make sense, because the problem with thalidomide was safety, not efficacy.

    [2] "At this rate the benefits of FDA regulation relative to that in foreign countries could reasonably be put at some 5,000 casualties per decade, or 10,000 for worst-case scenarios. In comparison, it has been argued above that the cost of FDA delay can be estimated at anywhere from 21,000 to 120,000 lives per decade." (Dale Gieringer 1985 p196)

    [3] The FDA rejected the computer vision system melafind, designed to identify skin cancers, because it was not better than an experienced dermatologist at the task. (Michael Mandel 2011) They did this even though some people are currently not getting checked out for skin cancers due to cost concerns, and a cheaper option than a dermatologist visit could save many lives.

    Comment via: google plus, facebook

    Recent posts on blogs I like:

    How to extend pockets

    Make women's pants pockets big enough to hold a phone properly The post How to extend pockets appeared first on Otherwise.

    via Otherwise May 19, 2022

    Buckingham Palace

    I love England. Especially because of the big castle called Buckingham Palace. I got to see the outside there, but my mom showed me some pictures of the inside. I love it there. But the outside doesn't look very fancy to me. But I never knew why those …

    via Anna Wise's Blog Posts April 25, 2022

    What is causality to an evidential decision theorist?

    (Subsumed by: Timeless Decision Theory, EDT=CDT) People sometimes object to evidential decision theory by saying: “It seems like the distinction between correlation and causation is really important to making good decisions in practice. So how can a theor…

    via The sideways view April 17, 2022

    more     (via openring)


  • Posts
  • RSS
  • ◂◂RSS
  • Contact