The new cancer drugs are useless?

most of The new drugs aim to cancer . 30 to 40 percent of the total research in the pharmaceutical industry revolves around you. The effect: In the past years, there were so many groundbreaking new approaches to therapy as never before.

This also shows in the price: In Switzerland, cancer is not only one of the most expensive drugs ever, but to rise also those with the highest price. According to the drug report of health insurance provider Helsana the Per-head cost per treatment increased from around 6500 CHF for the year 2014 to just under 9000 francs in the past year.

The health insurance companies pay per year, around 680 million francs for cancer drugs. This accounts for almost a tenth of the cost of medicines. The prices for new treatments is rising rapidly.

"A staggering result,"

The cancer agents act, but what is their actual Use? New analyses show that compared to standard therapy, only 16 percent of the study data for cancer drugs that were approved between 2009 and 2016 in Europe, are evidence of survival, which was over 3 months longer overall. This is the result of a Review of the renowned Ludwig-Boltzmann Institute in Vienna. 39% of drugs is 0 to 3 months, at 5 per cent, the Survival is shortened, and the remaining 40 per cent no data are available or estimable.

"This is a staggering result," says study leader Nicole Grössmann. In the case of many drugs, you could be one, only when the further progression of the disease can be stopped. The cancer has attacked the institutions, already strong, can die, the patient then anyway. Grössmann also the question: What good is it if Ill live four weeks longer, but in the case of extreme side-effects?

the purpose, not the price

A two years ago published a study of several universities in London, including King's College, examined between 2009 and 2013 in Europe, approved cancer drugs, with Almost 60 per cent of them were useless or of little Use. At least when it comes to Survival or quality of life. The study's authors, it is not a discussion of whether the maximum cost for the gained life-time is to be determined. Even before the price issue, it is the sense of a drug.

For the Swiss regulatory authority, Swissmedic, the overall survival rate is the most important criterion. "In the ideal case, it is associated with an improved quality of life," says spokesman Luke Jaggi. The information on life extension are submitted by the pharmaceutical company. Or Swissmedic, she asks. Exactly because of the hook, however: Because just with the newer therapies, there is often no data. Equally unclear are time-possible long side effects.

cash want quality of life into account Known

only the values for Survival are usually without progression of the disease, such as the the Federal office for health (BAG). Quality of life data is not taken into account by the authority. You will not always be available, and to enjoy due to their subjectivity with caution, says a spokesman. Therefore, the FOPH assessed the safety and tolerability. However, it also has the Benefits at a glance: no data available for overall survival, limited the reimbursement obligation.

Anyway, all three years will Benefit the cancer cycle, in terms of cost-effectiveness reviewed. "The BAG pays attention to the fact that medicinal products have to be remunerated with a lower Benefit only to a limited extent, or not at all," says the spokesman. Because the authority to decide whether a Fund needs to reimburse a drug or not.

"For new cancer therapies, there are no reliable studies in the traditional sense."Brigitte Tag, a Professor of medical law

In the coming year, the Review of all reimbursement is now paid cancer drugs. This is likely to be for the BAG to be difficult. Because many cancer drugs are also present then survival is no data to total. Either because it the pharmaceutical manufacturer a considerable expense is that you want to save most of the time, mutmasst the oncologist Thomas Cerny, President of the cancer research Switzerland. Or is it because it is hardly possible.

"Since the new anti-cancer therapies for increasingly specific patient groups have been developed, the data number is so small that there can be no reliable studies in the traditional sense," says Brigitte Tag, a Professor of medical law at the University of Zurich . Therefore, more and more, the demand will, according to that it should arrive on the individual patient, in order to determine whether there is a Benefit. "However, there needs to be a reasonably reliable scale that determines what needs to pay the basic insurance and can," says day.

puzzles on medium - and long-term

The following is especially for health care providers and patients is important: The CSS wishes for a new therapeutic cross-comparison, which is based on a "clear, holistic benefits approach". The remaining life time as well as the quality of life should be taken into account. Data for this purpose, the Fund does not but. If individual requests are received for the reimbursement of a cancer therapy, is known only as the therapy at the current time. "What are the consequences of the medium - and long-term, we do not know," says a CSS spokesperson.

the cancer League calls for the Review of the benefits of some therapies. "The problem is that in the case of the authorisation of a medicinal product, mainly the safety aspect is in the focus and effectiveness in a defined target population," says Rolf Marti, the cancer League for research. "An analysis of the actual Use of a drug, as it is in the daily hospital routine will be applied, the Use of significantly lower", says Marti.

Created: 19.11.2019, 07:05 PM