Carey, Benedict. “F.D.A. Panel Recommends New Depression Treatment.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 12 Feb. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/02/12/health/depression-drugs-ketamine.html.
On Tuesday, February 12, 2019, an expert panel recommended the approval by federal regulators of a new drug for depression, specifically aimed at those with suicidal thinking. The drug, a nasal spray, is called Esketamine and is made with the active ingredients of ketamine, a “club drug” popular in the ‘80s and ‘90s. The panel approved of the drug almost unanimously as it’s trial results, while not extensive, proved to be very promising. This drug differs from most of the antidepressants on the market as it is not made from serotonin and offers much hope to those who have not had success with these previous medications.
Major Depressive Disorder is one of the most common mental illnesses our world faces. As a result of this, 11-13 of every 100,000 Americans commit suicide, a rate that has increased 24% in the past twenty years. It is critical that our country reduces these numbers by any means possible, and the Esketamine treatment may have the potential to do so. While there are many depression treatments already on the market, many people have tested several with no results. Thus, the new medicine may help save the millions of people attempting suicide each year or experiencing severe depression each year.
I felt that Carey’s article was written extremely well. He thoroughly explained the history and the theoretical future of the treatment in a way that could be easily comprehended. Additionally, I loved how he included a quote from a woman who had struggled with severe depression and the failure of treatments explaining how she was excited to try the new drug. I felt that the article could have been improved by including a personal story of how one person the treatment was tested on responded to it. I would have also liked to know a more specific statistic about how successful the treatment was in clinical trials.
Jordan Hoang
ReplyDeleteMr.Ippolito
AP Biology C Even
2/26/19
Carey, Benedict. “F.D.A. Panel Recommends New Depression Treatment.” The New
York Times, The New York Times, 12 Feb. 2019,
www.nytimes.com/2019/02/12/health/depression-drugs-ketamine.html.
Sofia’s review of “FDA Panel Recommends New Depression Treatment” gave an overview of a new drug that is being targeted for those with severe depression and suicidal thoughts. I liked how her review had a nice flow to it; it never seemed choppy and was both straightforward and cohesive. Additionally, I thought Sofia made a great comment on the significance of this drug by included statistics of suicide rates and how the amount of people with depression are increasing. Finally, I thought she made well-informed critiques on the article itself that showed her true interest and comprehension of the article. Specifically, I liked how Sofia pointed out that a “statistic about how successful the treatment was in clinical trials” was needed, as this would have added more legitimacy to the article itself.
While Sofia’s review was written really well, there are a few revisions I would recommend her to make. For one, I wish she would have elaborated more on what “trial results” the scientists found that gave such strong, convincing evidence that this new depression treatment would be successful. It would have allowed for more context and background information as to why the panel agreed “unanimously” to legalize this drug. It would have also been interesting for her to augment her summary with why the new ingredient ketamine is so much more effective than serotonin. Adding this would have expanded the understanding of the drug for the readers, as many might not be aware of the effects of either of these chemicals.
Reading Sofia’s review had a deep impression on me; it substantiated how depression and other mental disorders are becoming a significant problem in today’s age. Considering that depression medication has also been known to have severe side effects, having a less damaging source of treatment would be a great improvement for those with these issues. It would overall be a great discovery to aid an issue that is becoming increasingly urgent.
Anabel Maldonado
ReplyDeleteIppolito C Even
Current Event #17
February 27th, 2019
Carey, Benedict. “F.D.A. Panel Recommends New Depression Treatment.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 12 Feb. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/02/12/health/depression-drugs-ketamine.html.
Sofia’s review was very intriguing to read about. This was one of the first times I had read about a discovery that could help fix certain mental illnesses (such as suicidal thoughts). She was very successful when clearly explaining the difference between this drug and others. She stated, “This drug differs from most of the antidepressants on the market as it is not made from serotonin and offers much hope to those who have not had success with these previous medications.” In addition, Sofia was very successful when explaining how important this discovery is because suicide is a very prevalent topic in our world. She was able to get her point across by using statistics such as “11-13 of every 100,000 Americans commit suicide, a rate that has increased 24% in the past twenty years....Thus, the new medicine may help save the millions of people attempting suicide each year or experiencing severe depression each year. ” Her passion and knowledge is extremely evident when she spoke about the effect this drug could have on our society (for the better). Lastly, her clear explanation of the drug was very effective. For instance, she answer all of the following questions: what type of medication? how to use it? how it differs from others? The effects it could have? Unlike most, she successfully answered the basic questions before explaining the drug in more depth.
However, she could make some improvements. For instance, if she explained what serotonin was to her audience, they would understand why this drug is better then the drugs that contain serotonin. She could do this by using outside sources. In addition, I think if Sofia were to include quotes and opinions from patients it would help illustrate the importance. For instance, in the article there is a quote from Ms.Johnson: “...‘None of the medicines ever seemed to work. At best, they would either numb me out completely, and you just feel nothing and you can’t think.’” If making these minor changes, this review would be flawless.
This review was very interesting to read about. Suicide is somewhat unspoken of in our “bubble town.” So many people suffer from depression and suicidal thoughts… this problem is so severe that our country needs to draw more attention to it. This new drug can mentally help so many more people! Learning about something that can help these people made me want to contribute to this possible solution!
Cassidy Mullen
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
AP Biology
February 27, 2019
Carey, Benedict. “F.D.A. Panel Recommends New Depression Treatment.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 12 Feb. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/02/12/health/depression-drugs-ketamine.html.
Sofia does many things well in her article. She gives a very good summary of the new antidepressant medication and its purpose. She also explains why this medication is different from other medications. “This drug differs from most of the antidepressants on the market as it is not made from serotonin and offers much hope to those who have not had success with these previous medications.” I think that Sofia also did a good job emphasizing the prevalence of depression in society today. She gives statistics that show how significant the issue of depression is and explains that some preexisting medications do not work for everyone. She writes, “...11-13 of every 100,000 Americans commit suicide, a rate that has increased 24% in the past twenty years.” This level of detail emphasizes the significance of the topic.
Sofia does not have many things to improve in her review. She could provide a little bit more information in her summary to give the reader a better understanding of the article as a whole. I wish she elaborated on why other antidepressant medications do not work on some patients while this one does. She also said that she thinks a personal story could have been beneficial to the article but I believe that including a personal story could have shifted the focus of the article to the point where it does not deliver the necessary information as efficiently.
I have a new understanding of depression medication after reading Sofia’s article. I did not know about the difference between the use of serotonin and ketamine in antidepressant medication. The statistics she included also made me realize that depression is still a very large issue in America even though our health care system is better than many in the world. I never really considered the success rate of various medications for depression before Sofia mentioned it in this article I only really thought about the idea of getting help or not getting help so her review helped give me a new perspective on the subject.
Sofia Ricciarini’s summary of “F.D.A. Panel Recommends New Depression Treatment” was strong because it was concise but still hit nearly all of the major points of the article: she described the drug, why it differs from other antidepressants (doesn’t work with serotonin), who the drug is targeted to, and how successful it was with the panel of experts; in other words, it was exclusively about the drug itself, whereas the article goes into some interesting but less necessary to know details, such as the paragraph devoted to intravenous ketamine, the anecdote about the piano teacher, and what the drug is being used for more broadly (which can be discussed in the societal impact paragraph). This is smart because a shorter summary will keep attention for the later paragraphs by not dragging on and boring the reader, and to get the whole article’s details the reader can simply open the article. Another strong point was the societal impact paragraph: it is hard to reach far beyond the article for this topic because depression is a very specific issue with more obvious societal/long-term impacts for fixing it, but Ricciarini clearly did her research to explain to the reader what exactly the scope is of the issue (suicide statistics). This is a smart strategy because the exact magnitude of solving the problem is something most readers probably do not know, and briefly explaining it will likely increase their interest in the issue. Finally, Ricciarini also made a strong critique of the article - stating that there should be a statistic about the success of clinical trials. This hits on a larger theme of the article, which is that very little of it connects to the science of the drug about to hit the market (much of the science talks about earlier research), so maybe comparing/contrasting the drug to the older treatments, including the intravenous ketamine, and describing the new trials would be preferable to keep reader interest: the main incentive is to read about a new discovery, not to read a summary of older information that could be looked up elsewhere online.
ReplyDeleteWhile this review was quite strong, there are some minor areas for improvement. Firstly, if I were writing the societal impact paragraph, I would describe a point briefly touched on in the article in more depth, which is that ketamine’s use is not only as a new drug but is also used for long-term teaching purposes about a disorder whose roots are not fully known. While her paragraph was already interesting and researched, this was a significant point to miss because this being a step in possibly eradicating depression for good will have an even bigger impact on depression and suicide than a drug that merely alleviates symptoms. Secondly, in her critique paragraph, it would increase Ricciarini’s credibility to back up her point that it would be preferable to include an anecdote about a person’s response to the new drug by explaining why an anecdote would improve the story. Unlike the science of the drug - which entails obvious improvement to the article by heightening interest on a new discovery - how would one person’s response strengthen a point being made on the drug at large? Unless it is clarified, readers will likely disagree with this point because anecdotal evidence is considered weaker than statistical data.
One revelation I had while reading this article was that drugs used to treat symptoms of disorders and diseases can often be used to learn about the root causes of the disorders as well. For me, this increases the incentive to study new symptom-targeting drugs by a lot because even though it can seem important in the moment to relieve symptoms when no treatment is otherwise available to cure the disorder in full, any time, effort, and money dedicated to this pursuit will distract or even decrease the pursuit of curing the disorder, which is a more desirable result than alleviating symptoms, possibly risking side effects, and not actually making the person more healthy.
Caroline McGrath
ReplyDelete10/07/19
AP Bio
Carey, Benedict. “F.D.A. Panel Recommends New Depression Treatment.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 12 Feb. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/02/12/health/depression-drugs-ketamine.html
Sofia’s review gave an overview of the article which discussed the different treatments for depression and suicide. I thought the review was very well written, it was straightforward and to the point, allowing for easy interpretation, without making the review seem choppy. She also does a good job of explaining the difference between the new drug and previous drugs, saying “This drug differs from most of the antidepressants on the market as it is not made from serotonin and offers much hope to those who have not had success with these previous medications”. Another good thing Sofia pointed out was in the critique of the review. She mentioned that the article lacked statistics, which was true and very important and the perception and overall liability of the drug.
In order to improve her review, I would suggest expanding on the summary more so that the reader gets the full picture behind the science and research done for this impactful drug. For instance, I think it would be important to explain what serotonin was in order to declare it bad. I also think her suggestion for the article would in fact hurt the article, as adding a personal story would only shift the purpose of the article to make it seem more emotional than scientific.
The area touched on by the review and article are very important, especially in today’s society. The statistics of teenagers depressed are overwhelming and this new antidepressant could impact so many different people in ways we are yet to understand. Many different medications are often found to cause equally, or greater, disturbances, and a drug that could prevent these and fully be devoted to the treatment on one’s mental health could be astronomical.