PET PET
  • My Account
  • Subscribe
Become a Friend Donate
  • About Us
    • People
    • Press Office
    • Our History
  • Get Involved
    • Become a Friend of PET
    • Volunteer
    • Campaigns
    • Writing Scheme
    • Partnership and Sponsorship
    • Advertise with Us
  • Donate
    • Become a Friend of PET
  • BioNews
    • News
    • Comment
    • Reviews
    • Elsewhere
    • Topics
    • Glossary
    • Newsletters
  • Events
    • Upcoming Events
    • Previous Events
  • Engagement
    • Policy and Projects
      • Resources
    • Education
  • Jobs & Opportunities
  • Contact Us
  • About Us
    • People
    • Press Office
    • Our History
  • Get Involved
    • Become a Friend of PET
    • Volunteer
    • Campaigns
    • Writing Scheme
    • Partnership and Sponsorship
    • Advertise with Us
  • Donate
    • Become a Friend of PET
  • BioNews
    • News
    • Comment
    • Reviews
    • Elsewhere
    • Topics
    • Glossary
    • Newsletters
  • Events
    • Upcoming Events
    • Previous Events
  • Engagement
    • Policy and Projects
      • Resources
    • Education
  • Jobs & Opportunities
  • Contact Us
  • My Account
  • Subscribe
  • Privacy Statement
  • Advertising Policy
  • Thanks and Acknowledgements
PETBioNewsCommentNew medicines for serious conditions: do the risks outweigh the benefits?

BioNews

New medicines for serious conditions: do the risks outweigh the benefits?

Published 27 April 2012 posted in Comment and appears in BioNews 654

Authors

Amy Simpson

Marcus Longley

Image by Peter Artymiuk via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts the shadow of a DNA double helix, on a background that shows the fluorescent banding of the output from a DNA sequencing machine.
CC BY 4.0
Image by Peter Artymiuk via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts the shadow of a DNA double helix, on a background that shows the fluorescent banding of the sequencing output from an automated DNA sequencing machine.

No medicine is 100 percent safe. Medicines regulators need to decide whether the advantages of taking the medicine outweigh the disadvantages, and ask if the side effects are acceptable. Analysis of the risks and benefits associated with new medicines is very complex — what risks and benefits are we talking about, and how should they be weighed? Where the condition is serious and/or rare, these decisions can be even harder...

No medicine is 100 percent safe. Medicines regulators need to decide whether the advantages of taking the medicine outweigh the disadvantages, and ask if the side effects are acceptable. Analysis of the risks and benefits associated with new medicines is very complex — what risks and benefits are we talking about, and how should they be weighed? Where the condition is serious and/or rare, these decisions can be even harder.

Between September and December 2011 a citizens' jury, convened by the University of Glamorgan and supported by Genetic Alliance UK, met to discuss these questions and to deliberate between two opposing arguments: Making a case for change (regulators should be more permissive); and defending the status quo (regulators should not be more permissive).


The 12 jurors were either patients with serious and/or rare conditions, or family members of someone with a serious and/or rare condition. They paid particular attention to how patients with rare and/or serious conditions perceive the risks and benefits of new medicines; how permissive regulators should be with marketing authorisations; and how involved patients should be in regulatory decision making.


After five days of debate the jury reached its verdict and voted for the case for change, and proposed four recommendations.


First, jurors argued that regulators give insufficient weight to psychosocial factors in their decision making. Applications for new medicines are judged primarily on biomedical evidence and clinical outcomes, but for patients it is likely that psychological and social factors will be equally important.


Jurors would like to see greater weight placed on the psychosocial aspects of serious and/or rare conditions, and on the potential for new medicines to alleviate (or exacerbate) them.


They stated: 'The benefits should be wider than a clinical/medical perspective and also include psychological and social benefits... [for example] ability to work (paid or unpaid), ability to socialise, maintain relationships, contribute, quality of life, well being'.


Second, regulators should be more permissive for treatments for people with rare and/or serious conditions. Because such patients often have few, or no, effective treatments available to them they may be willing to take greater risks than the system currently allows. They should be given that choice.


When making marketing authorisation decisions, regulators must consider whether the advantages of the medicine outweigh the disadvantages, and whether the side effects are acceptable. In the case of serious and/or rare conditions, regulators should lower the threshold of what they consider to be acceptably safe, giving more weight to psychosocial benefits and involving patients in the decision making.


One of the jurors said: 'For anyone with a terminal illness...such as myself, I would even take a one in three chance, or one in two chance, that a drug could cause [me] harm...versus it will halt the progression of your disease. If there is a last chance for you to fend off a terminal illness, surely the patients (not regulatory bodies) should decide if they want to take the risks associated with it'.


Third, patients should be more involved in all stages of the process, from setting the research agenda, to post-marketing authorisation decisions.


Patients' experiences and preferences should be represented in all the processes leading to the development of new medicines. This would ensure the benefits that really matter to patients, and the levels of risk they are prepared to tolerate, are considered.


This is particularly important for serious and/or rare conditions, where the stakes are so high. Patient representatives (such as patient group members) should be supported as joint decision makers, alongside clinical experts, throughout the process.


Fourth, patients should be better supported to make their own decisions. Patients wish to decide which medicines they take, reflecting their individual circumstances, beliefs and preferences. The result of the above recommendations will be that patients with serious and/or rare conditions will be faced with more choices in future. Such decision-making is challenging, but possible for most patients.


During the discussion, one patient said: 'The choices I have made now, my consultant feels really guilty... about the medication regime I'm on... I say don't be so paternalistic, I made the decision... I know the risks I am facing.... that is my choice'.


However, they will need help from their clinical team and a variety of other sources. This includes relevant, credible, and understandable information about the potential risks and benefits of the new medicines. As part of this, jurors generated a list of questions to help guide patients when deciding on their own treatment options.


Overall, these findings demonstrate that patients are willing to take great risks for the potential cure or improvement of their condition. The jurors here recommend that regulators involve them in their decisions, allowing for the more appropriate development and licensing of medicines for patients with rare and/or serious conditions.


If you would like to read more about the research or to find out more information about the project please go to www.geneticalliance.org.uk/latest-news.htm or contact julian@geneticalliance.org.uk.

Related Articles

PET BioNews
Reviews
18 February 2013 • 5 minutes read

Book Review: Law and the Regulation of Medicines

by Rachel Lloyd

The principal purpose of Professor Emily Jackson's book, Law and the Regulation of Medicines, is to outline medicine's journey through UK regulation. Jackson seeks to show that those responsible for the content of the regulatory regime, and the way in which it is administered, play a crucial role in shaping the development, supply and marketing of medicines....

Image by Peter Artymiuk via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts the shadow of a DNA double helix, on a background that shows the fluorescent banding of the output from a DNA sequencing machine.
CC BY 4.0
Image by Peter Artymiuk via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts the shadow of a DNA double helix, on a background that shows the fluorescent banding of the sequencing output from an automated DNA sequencing machine.
Comment
17 January 2013 • 4 minutes read

Can solidarity inform bioethics? Reflections on a concept and implications for biobanks

by Dr Barbara Prainsack and 1 others

What do research biobanks, social media and the NHS have in common?...

Image by Alan Handyside via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts a human egg soon after fertilisation, with the two parental pronuclei clearly visible.
CC0 1.0
Image by Alan Handyside via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts a human egg soon after fertilisation, with the two parental pronuclei clearly visible.
Reviews
13 December 2012 • 4 minutes read

Event Review: Playing God - Who Should Regulate Reproductive Medicine?

by Dr Djuke Veldhuis

Should women who choose their career first, and children second, be allowed to receive IVF on the NHS at an age when some would consider it 'unnatural'? Now ask whether it's acceptable for young soldiers fighting in Afghanistan to store their sperm in case they don't come back. And the questions surrounding reproductive medicine don't end there: after insemination, how much screening or manipulation of genetic material is reasonable?...

Image by Peter Artymiuk via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts the shadow of a DNA double helix, on a background that shows the fluorescent banding of the output from a DNA sequencing machine.
CC BY 4.0
Image by Peter Artymiuk via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts the shadow of a DNA double helix, on a background that shows the fluorescent banding of the sequencing output from an automated DNA sequencing machine.
Reviews
19 November 2012 • 4 minutes read

Event Review: The Age of Personalised Medicine - Genes, Privacy and Discrimination

by Rebecca Hill

'The age of personalised medicine: genes, privacy and discrimination?' was the last in BioCentre's 2010/2011 symposium series 'Revolution, Regulation and Responsibilities', and promised to 'appraise current developments and consider the current legal and regulatory position for their use before taking time to reflect and assess the future impact on society'...

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

« RNF135 is responsible for a new overgrowth syndrome

Data-Label The UK's Leading Supplier Of Medical Labels & Asset Labels

RetiringDentist.co.uk The UK's Leading M&A Company.

Find out how you can advertise here
easyfundraising
amazon

This month in BioNews

  • Popular
  • Recent
8 August 2022 • 2 minutes read

FILM: 200 Years of Mendel – From Peas to Personalised Medicine

1 August 2022 • 4 minutes read

Women's Health Strategy plans reflect rising needs of same-sex female couples

25 July 2022 • 4 minutes read

Was the Women's Health Strategy worth the wait?

25 July 2022 • 4 minutes read

Why the UK should extend the 14-day rule to 28 days

25 July 2022 • 5 minutes read

200 Years of Mendel: From Peas to Personalised Medicine

15 August 2022 • 5 minutes read

Same-sex parent should not have been forced to adopt child

15 August 2022 • 2 minutes read

FILM: Editing the Human Genome – Where Are We Now? What Happens Next?

8 August 2022 • 4 minutes read

Citizenship and same-sex parents – about time, Sweden!

8 August 2022 • 2 minutes read

FILM: 200 Years of Mendel – From Peas to Personalised Medicine

1 August 2022 • 4 minutes read

Women's Health Strategy plans reflect rising needs of same-sex female couples

Subscribe to BioNews and other PET updates for free.

Subscribe
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • RSS
Wellcome
Website redevelopment supported by Wellcome.

Website by Impact Media Impact Media

  • Privacy Statement
  • Advertising Policy
  • Thanks and Acknowledgements

© 1992 - 2022 Progress Educational Trust. All rights reserved.

Limited company registered in England and Wales no 07405980 • Registered charity no 1139856

Subscribe to BioNews and other PET updates for free.

Subscribe
PET PET

PET is an independent charity that improves choices for people affected by infertility and genetic conditions.

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • RSS
Wellcome
Website redevelopment supported by Wellcome.

Navigation

  • About Us
  • Get Involved
  • Donate
  • BioNews
  • Events
  • Engagement
  • Jobs & Opportunities
  • Contact Us

BioNews

  • News
  • Comment
  • Reviews
  • Elsewhere
  • Topics
  • Glossary
  • Newsletters

Other

  • My Account
  • Subscribe

Website by Impact Media Impact Media

  • Privacy Statement
  • Advertising Policy
  • Thanks and Acknowledgements

© 1992 - 2022 Progress Educational Trust. All rights reserved.

Limited company registered in England and Wales no 07405980 • Registered charity no 1139856