Slashdot Mirror
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.
Shows great wellbeing to the financial survival of big pharma.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Three reasons to use drugs:
1) Quality of life improves vs existing treatment.
2) Improved life expectancy improves vs. existing treatment.
3) Saves money improves vs. existing treatment without decreasing life expectancy. Many drugs use the non-existence of competition to charge ridiculous amounts of money. Sometimes new drugs are made just to compete with them.
They answered 2 of the 3 possible reasons. Need to prove the third was not valid.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
There are similarities and differences. Before the EU was formed, each of the 28 countries already had their own approval process. After the formation of the EU, which is principally an economic and trade alliance, a drug approved in ANY EU country could be sold in ALL EU countries. Therefore a pharmaceutical company could choose which of the 28 countries would likely approve the drug most easily / quickly / cheaply. Commonly, a pharmaceutical company will apply in two or three countries at once and see which one approves it first.
Some drugs are now required to go through one of several centralized EU approval processes instead - and there are four for them to choose from. Being run by the EU, the heritage of these agencies is based on promoting commerce between EU countries - the EU is not focused on consumer protection and safety.
In the US, a maker has to get approval from the FDA. They don't get to choose different agencies to seek approval from.
The DA started as a consumer protection agency, trying to make sure drugs were safe. Later, they got mandate to make sure they are effective. The FDA doesn't have the heritage of coming from an organization trying to promote commerce, like the EU does.
Therefore historically it's been easier and cheaper to get drugs approved in Europe than in the US. Europeans got cheaper medicines faster, Americans got better, more expensive medicine. (The difficult and expensive FDA process isn't a total waste).
In the last few years, there has been pressure on both sides of the Atlantic to be more like the other guys. Americans want cheaper drugs, sooner. Europeans want want better, safer drugs. I guess the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. So each process has become more like the other and the difference isn't as extreme as it once was.
Obviously, you've never had the good shit.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Studies are funny things.
For example, everyone loves the meta studies that "show that antidepressants don't work", but psychiatrists in clinical practice know that they work, for most people with clinical depression.
But the different classes of antidepressants work (or don't) for different people, so you frequently have to try one, see if it works, and then if it does not, try another, until you find the class that does work for this patient.
And, many studies are rather poor at qualifying who actually has true, persistent clinical depression.
So the "startling" conclusion is that a population that sorta has clinical depression but many of them really don't, is helped rather measurably little by trying one antidepressant.
I don't know if something similar is going on with this cancer drug story, but it could be.
That's what prunes are for.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate