How do patients feel about speedy drug approvals vs. more evidence to support a new treatment’s effectiveness? A new JAMA publication, coauthored by NBCC’s Chief Programs Officer Michelle Tregear and Chief Policy Officer Melanie Wyne, explores breast cancer patients’ views on the trade-offs between faster approval and the evidentiary certainty of new cancer drugs in the US.
The findings show that:
For many participants, additional uncertainty about clinical benefit was an acceptable trade-off for faster approval when facing end-of-life decisions, when no alternative treatment options existed, or when the anticipated benefit of a new drug was transformative…
However, at earlier stages of disease, when treatment options are available, or when the anticipated benefit of a new drug may only be marginal, participants suggested that greater certainty should often take priority over speed.
A common belief among participants: overall survival and quality of life are the most meaningful treatment outcomes.
You do have to see if [a new drug] is going to extend life, and that takes time. There’s no way that you can step around that.
Am I still able to walk? Am I still able to eat, able to dress myself, able to move around independently…those are pretty important to me.
You can keep me alive for another 6 years, but if I can’t get on the ground and play with my grandchildren, or I can’t, you know, go for a walk with my husband, it’s really not worth it.
