Social Networks 

Please Follow the Drugwonks Blog on Facebook

Cost-Effectiveness of Cancer Drugs Is Question

"The widespread use of expensive cancer drugs to prolong patients’ lives by just weeks or months was called into question by an article published Monday in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

Crunching data from published studies, the authors found that treating a lung-cancer patient with Erbitux, a drug that costs $80,000 for an 18-week regimen, prolongs survival by only 1.2 months.

Based on that estimate, extending the lives of the 550,000 Americans who die of cancer annually by one year would then cost $440 billion, they extrapolated."

Let it be noted that the authors Tito Fojo and Christine Grady work at the National Cancer Institute where, we hope, they are nowhere near patients or even lab rats.  This is multiplication by morons... Most cancer drugs don't cost that much, extend life by more, often add to quality of life even if they don't add to length,  and by doing so add value and wealth to the economy.  And then there is the obvious -- one would hope -- shift in cancer care towards personalized treatment, providing medicines to those who can benefit, which brings the 1.2 survival way up.  

"How to control escalating spending on end-of-life care is one of the thorniest questions facing lawmakers working on the overhaul of the U.S. health-care system.

Some countries, like the United Kingdom, agree to pay for expensive drugs only if they meet a certain threshold of efficacy, but no such rationing exists in the U.S."

Here's how Tito and Company -- trained bioethicists as well as having advanced degrees in multiplication - deal with these sensitive issues...

“Many Americans would not regard a 1.2-month survival advantage as ‘significant’ progress,” the authors wrote. “But would an individual patient disagree? Although we lack the answer to that question, we would suggest that the death of a mother of four at age 37 years would be no less painful were it to occur at age 37 years and 1 month, nor would the passing of a 67-year-old who planned to travel after retiring be any less difficult for the spouse were it to have occurred one month later.”

How does one respond to such wisdom and compassion?  Perhaps by suggesting that the authors follow their own sagacious advice when faced with a similar situation and voluntarily refuse treatments that -- on average --  increase survival by 1.2 months but could also do so by 4 years or more.  

They would be  making such a contribution to science and humanity.