|
 Researchers looked at the 62 cancer drugs approved in the U.S. and
Europe between 2003 and 2013 and found they extended survival by an
average of about 3.5 months.
But nearly a third of the drugs lacked evidence to suggest they
increased survival when compared to alternative treatments.
"Our results point to the notion that new cancer treatments may not
always provide patients with greater clinical benefits, or lower
risks, over existing treatments," wrote senior researcher Dr. Elias
Mossialos, of the London School of Economics and Political Science,
in an email to Reuters Health.
The risk-benefit ratio of new drugs is especially important if
people are concerned, for example, about whether the cost of a drug
would make it difficult for a person to complete the treatment
regimen.
Writing in JAMA Oncology, Mossialos and colleagues point to growing
questions about the value of new cancer medicines. While the drugs'
high costs may be a barrier to access, they note, some people argue
the high prices are justified if the treatments offer large
benefits.
A lack of solid data on new drugs' benefits and risks makes it
difficult to evaluating their value.
For the 62 medicines they wanted to study, the researchers found
data from England, France and Australia evaluating 53 drugs. Nearly
80 percent were tied to improvements in survival, quality of life or
safety.
The drugs increased survival - with or without recurrence - by about
3.5 months on average, compared to other treatments available in
2003.
Twenty-three drugs were individually tied to an increase in survival
of three months or more. Six drugs extended survival by less than
three months. Eight drugs increased survival by an unknown amount.
And for 16 of the approved drugs, there was no evidence to suggest
they were better than alternative treatments at extending survival.
[to top of second column] |
The researchers point out in an email that overall survival benefits
differed by the type of drug. For example, drugs for thyroid cancer
were tied to no increase in overall survival, while drugs to treat
breast cancer were linked to an average increase of about 8.5
months.
Twenty-two of the drugs were tied to an improved quality of life,
but 24 were linked to worse patient safety, which include side
effects and whether a person could tolerate the treatment.
The researchers write in their email that they extending the study
to look at newer drugs. They are also working to link their evidence
with the cost of individual medicines.
Mossialos said the study should remind people of the importance of
the relationship between doctors and patients. He said, "Patients
should work with their physicians to consider all available evidence
that exists in support of individual treatments, and use this
alongside any inputs from their clinician to identify the treatment
that would best correspond with their own medical and personal
circumstances."
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/2iXJ2QR JAMA Oncology, online December 29,
2016.
[© 2017 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2017 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
 |
