Science

Did you know 3.4% of oncology drugs in clinical trials get FDA approval?  

The burden of evidence required to take a drug to market is very high and clinical trials are costly with a low chance of success.  This is one of the reasons that newly approved drugs cost so much to patients.  

Is there a better way?

The FDA legitimately requires drug developers to do mouse studies before in-human studies.

I would be surprised if there was a significant translation of clinical efficacy from rats to humans.

Meridian Radiopharmaceuticals
https://www.meridianradiopharmaceuticals.com/

Impact

HuntTown

@ericolsz, you just received 229 applause from @artstudio48 for being a based builder 👏

🏆 Today's Current Rank: 274th
👏 Claps to Next Rank: 1

Hunt Town Grant is a daily competition that selects the top three builders and awards them $hunt building NFT grants. Learn more at /hunt

Allowance will be reset in 07:14:56 ⌛️

Carpe diem 🌿 /making /impact  $ART48  $artbaby

linktr.ee/artstudio48

/impact multi-tip: 229 $HUNT 

/impact rewards you for your impact

Primate studies too, mouse studies are easy and important for preclinical work yet aren't always applicable to human disease

It will be difficult to achieve that clinical efficacy, because most oncology drugs end up harming the rats before going into testers

But this is sad, only 3.4%😭😭😭

The anatomies are different but I do understand why they wouldn't want to endanger human lives by allowing straight to human studies. If the drug can kill an animal, chances are it can kill a human. Caution is the word ☺️