Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
posted by martyb on Monday April 10 2017, @09:17AM   Printer-friendly
from the draw-curve-then-select-points-to-plot dept.

Scott Gottlieb, President Trump's nominee to run the FDA, is a proponent of adaptive clinical trials, which would allow adjustments of trials as they are ongoing:

In 2006, Scott Gottlieb, then a deputy commissioner at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), stood before an audience of clinicians and researchers to sing the praises of a new approach to drug trials. Instead of locking in a study's design from the start, researchers could build in options that would allow them to adjust along the way, based on the data they had collected. They could make the trial larger or smaller, for instance, add or remove arms, or change how incoming patients get assigned to them. Gottlieb predicted such adaptive trial designs, the topic of the conference he attended that distant summer in Washington, D.C., would "tell us more about safety and benefits of drugs, in potentially shorter time frames."

This week, as President Donald Trump's nominee to head FDA, Gottlieb sat before Republican lawmakers hungry for promises of "shorter time frames" for drug and device approvals, and again expressed his zeal—repeatedly—for adaptive trial designs. If confirmed to be FDA's head, as expected, Gottlieb suggested he'd promote wider use of the approach.

But for all their promise, many adaptive trial features still aren't commonplace. And Gottlieb will face a number of obstacles to encouraging their wider use, experts tell ScienceInsider.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by BsAtHome on Monday April 10 2017, @09:52AM (2 children)

    by BsAtHome (889) on Monday April 10 2017, @09:52AM (#491567)

    Rough translation: When a trial is adaptable, then we must correct the course in such a way that our biases and preconceptions are confirmed. There is no real point in doing profitable drugs and studies when your hypothesis is rejected. That only costs money and is not something we like.

    There are, of course, rigorous methods to do adaptive trials correct, but I doubt that rigor is the goal for big pharma. Give them a finger and they will grab your hand.

    The correct course of action, IMHO, is to have all studies in the open from conception to result. No study should be allowed to meander the path of favoritism for any particular result, especially not when the study may change the parameters.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10 2017, @01:59PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10 2017, @01:59PM (#491624)
    What you are calling is really for FDA oversight. The FDA, as a federal agency, should a) allow for adaptive trials in order to attempt to speed drug development timelines while b) making sure that the companies doing the trials aren't p-hacking or otherwise biasing the results. The JOB of the scientists at the FDA is to perform this task.
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Monday April 10 2017, @03:51PM

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 10 2017, @03:51PM (#491684) Journal

      What is this "oversight" word you speak of? Are you referring to some kind of burdensome business-killing regulations?

      --
      Poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor, but because we cannot satisfy the rich.