- This topic has 4 voices and 7 replies.
-
Posts
-
The headline (per norm) is misleading. 20% success rate is not what I would call fabulous. http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/03/08/study-suggests-overall-benefit-from-antidepressants/
If you're getting the 20% from subtracting 30 from 50, then that's pretty good. An absolute reduction of 20% between placebo (regardless of how high placebo is, especially in depression) and active is quite substantial. If you look at the majority of drug trials that got medications approved, the absolute risk reduction in active compared to placebo is much, much less. Though the key that was not stated if the difference between active and placebo was statistically significant. I don't mean to ruffle, it's my profession. I'm just giving my 2 cents.
Five had to be treated with at least one of the drugs for one person to feel better. One in five doesn't sound like a good batting average to me. Also, there is still a the unknown if other forms of therapy are better. My only point is that we just want a drug to make it all better. This sure doesn't sound like a truly good solution.
Treating one in five is stellar (assuming you calculated number needed to treat) compared to some other medications. 1 in 50 is pretty good, 1 in 100 eh, 1 in 300 not so much. These are just numbers I've seen coming out of major trials that get very common drugs passed by the FDA.
Treating one in five is stellar (assuming you calculated number needed to treat) compared to some other medications. 1 in 50 is pretty good, 1 in 100 eh, 1 in 300 not so much. These are just numbers I've seen coming out of major trials that get very common drugs passed by the FDA.
I am a trader by profession. If I made $ 1 time out of 100, I would be fired. 1 in 50 = FIRED. Hell, even 1 in 5 = FIRED. I find it hard to believe that this is acceptable at any level. But, like I said, I am a trader and know nothing about the medical field. I didn't even sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night. 😮
Yea it's completely different. I understand though that your profession deals with different statistics. Lets look at it this way. If number needed to treat were 10 (to prevent one fatal heart attack from a drug that prevents it) and lets say you treated 20 million people with it it would save 2 million lives. 10% doesn't sound very good, but saving 2 million lives does.
This is the same FDA that approved, lets just pick some out of the hat, accutane, fenfluramine, the spinal disc replacement that grenades and causes internal cardiac trauma?Lets make no bones about it. The FDA is a business, just as much as the biotech companies who can pay to play on its field are. Plain and simple. The FDA gets to collect their multiple millions for pre-market approval fees and the biotech company gets to sell their drug to 4, 49, 99 people for every one that actually sees cessation of symptoms.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.