Over Half of New Cancer Drugs 'Show No Benefits' For Survival Or Wellbeing (theguardian.com)

New research published in the British Medical Journal finds that most cancer drugs that have recently arrived on the market have come with little evidence that they boost the survival or wellbeing of patients. The Guardian reports: Forty-eight cancer drugs were approved by the European Medicines Agency between 2009 and 2013 for use as treatments in 68 different situations. But the study, which looked at the clinical trials associated with the drugs, reveals that at the time the therapies became available there was no conclusive evidence that they improved survival in almost two-thirds of the situations for which they were approved. In only 10% of the uses did the drugs improve quality of life. Overall 57% of uses showed no benefits for either survival or quality of life. The team then looked to see whether the picture improved over time. The team found that after a follow-up period of between three to eight years, 49% of approved uses were linked to no clear sign of improvement in survival or quality of life. Where survival benefits were shown, the team said these were clinically meaningless in almost half of the cases.

Comments

Re:How can this be?

[drinkypoo]

Doesn't Europe have the equivilent of our FDA? There are reasons the drug approval process is so arduous here, and this is one of them.

No, no it really isn't. You can bring out a derivative of an old drug without having to prove its efficacy. All you have to prove is that it doesn't kill significantly more people than the prior form, and bob's your uncle. This is due to legislation bought by the Big Pharma cartel, as a benefit to entrenched players. Bringing a new drug to market is very difficult. But most drugs brought to market each year are derivatives.