
Algorithm Finds Thousands of Unknown Drug Interaction Side Effects - voodoochilo
http://www.nature.com/news/drug-data-reveal-sneaky-side-effects-1.10220
======
scotch_drinker
This should come as no surprise as our effort at better living through
chemistry is barely in its infancy. Millions of people take drugs prescribed
to them by their physicians with the implicit understanding that they are safe
because the USDA says they are when in fact we have precious little idea if
they really are.

The potential revenue from new pharmaceuticals is huge and the pressure to get
new drugs out into the market is immense. It's initially comforting to see
that people are working on this problem of drug interactions since as the
article mentions, we couldn't do it in the clinical trials. Still, the cynic
in me thinks this is just another step in getting everyone taking more and
more prescription medicines. If the pharmaceutical industry can show that two
drugs have no interactive side effects, it's much easier to convince a patient
to begin taking a new drug. Western medicine is already heavily dependent on
fixing the symptoms instead of the cause.

It's clear that in many cases we have almost no clue why a particular drug
works. It's thrilling to see risks removed from the system by finding drug
interactions previously unknown. However, it's frightening how much more
likely it is that physicians will rely on prescribing a pill because it's
easier than convincing the patient to change.

~~~
threejay
You mean the FDA? No offense, but just because you are well versed in one
subject does not mean you really understand the idiosyncracies of another.
Every time I see a drug / medicine related thread on HN I cringe. Much in the
same way you would if you read a technology related post on a forum geared
towards doctors and pharmacists.

~~~
andrewwc
As a pharmacist, I approve this comment!

------
carbocation
Just to be fair, the original title of the research article is "Data-Driven
_Prediction_ of Drug Effects and Interactions" (
<http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/4/125/125ra31> ). Emphasis on 'Prediction'
mine.

47 are then supported by retrospective analysis of an EMR database.

------
utopkara
Obviously this algorithm has lots of false positives.

~~~
politician
Why is that obvious?

~~~
pwhelan
A false positive costs much lower than a false negative in this instance so it
should follow that FP should be more common. However, without the data it is
still speculation.

~~~
carbocation
Whether false positives or false negatives are more harmful is a difficult
question. A false positive might stop millions from taking a life-saving drug.
A false negative might cause millions to take a life-threatening drug.

~~~
pwhelan
By nature a false positive interaction could be re-tested more easily than a
false negative though, correct? Also, that fits in with medical "first, do no
harm" framework more readily.

~~~
carbocation
Regarding your second point, I agree. But it must be balanced against the
other tenets of medical ethics. At any rate, this seems to be an important
study. I look forward to seeing the same study carried out across different
EMR databases and then meta-analyzed. That will be extremely powerful.

------
brador
Anyone know if that dataset is publicly available?

~~~
DevX101
Yes, its public.

I think the below link should have some of the data.

[http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInforma...](http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Surveillance/ucm082193)

