3 ms·

15% is clearly too optimistic. It is closer to 0.15% and it is usually not only about chances but that the person is experiencing extreme suffering despite pain

by NoPie 4y ago

15% is clearly too optimistic. It is closer to 0.15% and it is usually not only about chances but that the person is experiencing extreme suffering despite pain killers that any therapy only prolongs this suffering.

refurb 4y ago
What do you mean? Here is an example: https://www.tecentriq-hcp.com/urothelial-carcinoma/clinical-data-efficacy/imvigor-210-efficacy.html https://www.tecentriq-hcp.com/urothelial-carcinoma/clinical-... For people with cisplatin (chemo) resistant metastatic (spread through the body) bladder cancer, if you treat with immunotherapy only 6% achieve complete response (cure). The other 94% has a partial response (which means they progressed) or no response at all. So they would likely die of their cancer relatively soon. Lots of cancer drugs are like that. Immunotherapy is expensive. Is it worth spending $250,000+ on cancer drugs for a 6% chance of a cure?
- Animatronio 4y ago
  Then why bother with immunotherapy at all if it's so expensive. After all it's been available for 130 years if google serves me right, and it still hasn't come down in price besides being not very effective.
  - refurb 4y ago
    It's been available for about a decade at this point. Why bother? That's a good question. I think the answer is "because 5% will be cured and another 20% will have some response which means they may live another few years." But the problem is, you won't know who benefits and who doesn't. So do you deny everyone a chance at a 5% cure of 20% chance of a longer life? No, you treat everyone and see what happens. The UK government put a price of ~25,000GBP per year of life (quality adjusted). So even if people are cured there is value in extending years of life.
Animatronio 4y ago
Maybe it's closer to 0.15%. So what? We do things with little chance of succes all the time. As I said, I'll take my 0.15% chance of living longer and be very grateful for it. Others might not. I still find it strange that money has a part to play in this at all. How cruel would it be to be denied life-saving treatment just because it's not 100% guaranteed to work.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  Money has to play a part in it because the people and companies working to deliver the care need to be paid somehow or they’ll eventually have to stop doing it. This is a resource allocation problem. People (whether individually or collectively) work to create things of value and direct some percentage of that to medical treatment. If that is wasted in rare cases, that’s unfortunate but we accept some amount of imperfection. If it’s wasted in a lot of cases, many other people will go without needed care who didn’t have to if we allocated that spend more effectively.
- NoPie 4y ago
  Because 0.15% is not a life-saving treatment but hoping for a miracle. And when people are immensely suffering they actually prefer to die than prolonging the sufferings. How could not money pay part in this? If the continued care costs, let's say $10,000/month (not unusual for the US) and you have 1:1000 chance to live that month, it means this month has cost $10 million dollars. Who is going to pay for that? In fact, taking all this money for yourself, the healthcare for other people will need to be reduced which can lead to shortened life expectation for those people.

by NoPie 4y ago

refurb 4y ago

What do you mean? Here is an example: https://www.tecentriq-hcp.com/urothelial-carcinoma/clinical-data-efficacy/imvigor-210-efficacy.html https://www.tecentriq-hcp.com/urothelial-carcinoma/clinical-... For people with cisplatin (chemo) resistant metastatic (spread through the body) bladder cancer, if you treat with immunotherapy only 6% achieve complete response (cure). The other 94% has a partial response (which means they progressed) or no response at all. So they would likely die of their cancer relatively soon. Lots of cancer drugs are like that. Immunotherapy is expensive. Is it worth spending $250,000+ on cancer drugs for a 6% chance of a cure?

Animatronio 4y ago
Then why bother with immunotherapy at all if it's so expensive. After all it's been available for 130 years if google serves me right, and it still hasn't come down in price besides being not very effective.
- refurb 4y ago
  It's been available for about a decade at this point. Why bother? That's a good question. I think the answer is "because 5% will be cured and another 20% will have some response which means they may live another few years." But the problem is, you won't know who benefits and who doesn't. So do you deny everyone a chance at a 5% cure of 20% chance of a longer life? No, you treat everyone and see what happens. The UK government put a price of ~25,000GBP per year of life (quality adjusted). So even if people are cured there is value in extending years of life.

Animatronio 4y ago

Maybe it's closer to 0.15%. So what? We do things with little chance of succes all the time. As I said, I'll take my 0.15% chance of living longer and be very grateful for it. Others might not. I still find it strange that money has a part to play in this at all. How cruel would it be to be denied life-saving treatment just because it's not 100% guaranteed to work.

sokoloff 4y ago
Money has to play a part in it because the people and companies working to deliver the care need to be paid somehow or they’ll eventually have to stop doing it. This is a resource allocation problem. People (whether individually or collectively) work to create things of value and direct some percentage of that to medical treatment. If that is wasted in rare cases, that’s unfortunate but we accept some amount of imperfection. If it’s wasted in a lot of cases, many other people will go without needed care who didn’t have to if we allocated that spend more effectively.
NoPie 4y ago
Because 0.15% is not a life-saving treatment but hoping for a miracle. And when people are immensely suffering they actually prefer to die than prolonging the sufferings. How could not money pay part in this? If the continued care costs, let's say $10,000/month (not unusual for the US) and you have 1:1000 chance to live that month, it means this month has cost $10 million dollars. Who is going to pay for that? In fact, taking all this money for yourself, the healthcare for other people will need to be reduced which can lead to shortened life expectation for those people.