Cancer drugs coming to market without survival or life-quality evidence

In what is something of a criticism of the European Medicines Agency, a research team has found most cancer drugs are approved by the EMA using only surrogate measures which, although indicators, are not strong predictors of survival – whether living longer or feeling better.

Almost two thirds (57%) of cancer drugs authorized by the EMA between 2003 and 2009 came onto the market without any clear evidence they improved the quality or quantity of patients’ lives, according to research from King’s College London and the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE),  published in the BMJ today (October 5).

Dr Courtney Davis, a medical and political sociologist in the Department of Global Health and Social Medicine at King’s College London, lead author of the study, said: “We evaluated the evidence base for all new drugs entering the market over a 5 year period and found that the majority came onto the market without clear evidence that they improved patients’ survival or quality of life. A large number of people are undergoing treatment for cancer and little new information is available to guide patients and their treating clinicians regarding drug effectiveness. When expensive drugs that lack robust evidence of clinical benefit are approved and reimbursed within publicly funded healthcare systems, individual patients may be harmed and public funds wasted.”