Health knowledge made personal
Join this community!
› Share page: Email Digg del.icio.us Reddit icon StumbleUpon Technorati
Go
Search posts:

Antigenics’ Oncophage Gets Mixed Results

Posted Oct 28 2008 9:56pm
Antigenics therapeutic cancer vaccine Oncophage got a mixed bag in the metastatic melanoma trial. It showed no increased overall survival (the gold standard), but a sub-population receiving a minimum of 10 injections saw an increased median survival of 3.7 months.

I know that I have publicly questioned whether an increased survival of 4 months is worth it to approve a product. More importantly – is it worth it to the government or a health plan to pay for a drug that only increases survival by almost 4 months?

In the debate about healthcare, what is your best interest as a patient (i.e., the best quality care) is not necessarily in the financial interests of the person paying the bills (i.e., keeping costs down). I believe patients have the right to the best products available and any product that has the potential to increase their cancer survival. But approval of the products does not mean universal access to those products. The FDA shouldn’t be approving drugs based on the finances, only on the safety and relative efficacy.

Cancer vaccines haven’t exactly had a strong run lately. With the torpedoing of Dendreon’s Provenge, the lead cancer vaccine in trials, there is less certainty these novel, targeted approaches to treating cancer will ever make it to market.
Post a comment
Write a comment:

Related Searches