How much to pay for a drug that slows cancer, but doesn’t prolong life?
The NYT reported this weekend on something that’s been bugging all of us in the oncology world for quite some time. How much should we pay for drugs that seem to slow down cancer’s advance, but that don’t prolong the life of a patient? Some of these drugs lengthen “progression free survival” or other markers (tumors may shrink, quality of life may be slightly better), but they do not eliminate the cancer, cure the patient, or add more time.
The article reports on bevacizumab (trade name Avastin), a drug used for metastatic colon, lung, and breast cancer that cuts back on a tumor’s ability to feed itself via blood vessels, or “angiogenesis.” The drug costs up to $100,000 per year, or over $8,000 per month, and is being used more widely and in combination with more types of chemotherapy (it is rarely, if ever, used alone).
In the UK and other countries where cost-effectiveness ratios for treatments are taken seriously, access to drugs such as bevacizumab is restricted, much to the chagrin of patients who are clamoring for the drug. Still, these countries are at least starting to ask the tough question of whether or not a health system should reasonably spend $8,000 per month on a treatment that may not prolong a patient’s life, especially when that money is coming out of a common pool.
Tags: avastin, bevacizumab, cancer, cost effectivenessRelated Stories
POSTED IN: Drugs and Meds, Health Care Costs, Treatments and Medical Advances
0 opinions for How much to pay for a drug that slows cancer, but doesn’t prolong life?
No one has left a comment yet. You know what this means, right? You could be first!
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: