News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:FDA Approving Drugs at Breakneck Speed, Raising Alarm by hannob on Saturday December 07, 2019 @01:48PM (#21731850)
> There is obviously a tradeoff between risk and speed. The article provides evidence that speed is increasing. I don't think the article provides any compelling argument that approvals are too fast. Do you?

Vinay Prasad is a cancer expert and an outspoken critic of too fast approvals of drugs. He has done research on it, I could e.g. find this:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar...

Re:FDA Approving Drugs at Breakneck Speed, Raising Alarm by robbseaton on Saturday December 07, 2019 @02:33PM (#21732097)
Is the FDA Too Conservative or Too Aggressive?: A Bayesian Decision Analysis of Clinical Trial Design

The results for conventional fixed-sample randomized clinical-trial designs suggest that for terminal illnesses with no existing therapies such as pancreatic cancer, the standard threshold of 2.5% is substantially more conservative than the BDA-optimal threshold of 27.9%. However, for relatively less deadly conditions such as prostate cancer, 2.5% is more risk-tolerant or aggressive than the BDA-optimal threshold of 1.2%. We compute BDA-optimal sizes for 25 of the most lethal diseases and show how a BDA-informed approval process can incorporate all stakeholders’ views in a systematic, transparent, internally consistent, and repeatable manner.

https://www.nber.org/papers/w21499

Re:FDA Approving Drugs at Breakneck Speed, Raising Alarm by s1artibartfast on Saturday December 07, 2019 @02:22PM (#21732032)
Im not familiar with his work, but from what you posted, it seems Prasad takes issue with the use of surrogate end points in trials, not fast track approvals. I tend to agree that surrogates and bio markers are a huge problem, but think they are a necessary evil. Drug development would screech to a halt if developers had to wait another 4-5 years for survival data. What we need is more Pase 4 postmarket trials with direct endpoints.

Interestingly, the paper linked shows that in some respects, fast tracked drugs have a better track reccord. This shouldnt be surprising as the best drugs are fast tracked.

>18 drugs failed to improve overall survival (in 6 of 15 accelerated approvals and in 12 of 21 traditional approvals)