New drugs need new trials

June 29, 2009
New cancer drugs may mean new ways of doing clinical trials

New cancer drugs may mean new ways of doing clinical trials

Clinical trials are an essential part of cancer research. Only by testing new treatments in patients can we truly know if they are effective, find out what dose to use, and check for side effects.

In a recent study published in the British Journal of Cancer, Cancer Research UK-funded scientists have found that traditionally designed clinical trials may not be suitable for testing the next generation of cancer drugs – a discovery that has big implications for trials, and for the patients involved.

To understand why, we first need to look in a bit more detail at the scientific rationale behind early-stage trials.

Read the rest of this entry »


What are antioxidants, and are they good for us? (part 2)

June 25, 2009
There's no proven benefit in taking antioxidants during cancer treatment

There's no proven benefit in taking antioxidants during cancer treatment

Yesterday, in the wake of an ASA ruling over antioxidants in green tea, and a US research paper that suggested that some cancer patients were taking them in large quantities, we looked at what antioxidants were, and how they occur in our bodies.

And we showed that the idea that ‘antioxidants = good’ is a huge oversimplification.

Now we’re going to look at the evidence that trying to boost the levels of antioxidants in our diets is good for us, particularly while undergoing cancer treatment.

But first, we need to make a clear distinction between antioxidants in the foods we eat – ‘dietary’ antioxidants – and antioxidant pills such as vitamin pills, taken to supplement our diets.

Read the rest of this entry »


What are antioxidants, and are they good for us? (part 1)

June 24, 2009
Tetley found themselves in hot water with the Advertising Standards Authority this month

Tetley found themselves in hot water with the Advertising Standards Authority this month

Thanks in part to intensive marketing by the food and supplement industries, there’s a widely held belief that if something contains ‘antioxidants’ it’s automatically good for us.

But the scientific evidence behind this claim is pretty thin on the ground – thin enough to lead the Advertising Standards Authority to ask tea-makers Tetley to withdraw their advert for green tea this month.

As the ASA said in their ruling:

We considered that while [the advert] did not imply the tea had the same or similar health benefits to exercise, it did imply that the tea had some general health benefits beyond hydration, in particular because it contained antioxidants.

As we had not seen any evidence to demonstrate that green tea, or the antioxidants in it, had general health benefits we concluded that the ad was misleading.

These sorts of claims pop up all the time in advertising, particularly for foods and drinks, as we’ve blogged about before.

Most of them involve products aimed at improving and prolonging health, or preventing disease. And as long as the balance of evidence suggests that these products cause no harm to healthy people, it’s difficult to see how regulators can prevent these sorts of claims being made.

But nevertheless, we’re concerned about the relentless portrayal of antioxidants as a universal health panacea, in the absence of robust scientific data – partly because there’s emerging evidence, including a paper published in the journal Cancer this month, that the knock-on effect is that some people undergoing cancer treatment may be taking them in high doses without thinking to tell their doctors (we’ll look more at this paper in a follow-up post).

This is worrying, because there have also been suggestions that antioxidants might interfere with treatment, at least in some people.

So we thought it would be worth having a look in detail at what, exactly, ‘antioxidants’ are, what they do, how they work, and where the idea that taking antioxidants is good for you actually comes from.

And in a follow up post, we’ll look at the evidence of whether antioxidants are actually good for us.

Read the rest of this entry »


New tobacco measures are one step closer to becoming law

June 19, 2009
MPs in the House of Commons have been discussing the Health Bill

MPs in the House of Commons have been discussing the Health Bill

In early June, MPs in the House of Commons debated a new Health Bill that, if passed, would introduce several new measures designed to protect children from accessing tobacco products and from insidious tobacco marketing.

While the bill was passed at this stage, we still need your support to urge the Government to go further with a ban on tobacco vending machines, and to ensure that all tobacco products to be sold in plain packages.

While smoking rates have been declining in recent years, there are still roughly 190,000 11-15 year old smokers in England.

What’s more, eight out of ten adult smokers start before the age of 19, meaning that efforts to keep young people from trying cigarettes in the first place could lead to a huge drop in smoking rates over the long term.

This is vital, especially given that researchers estimate that smoking costs the NHS at least £2.7 billion every year – and possibly more.

Read the rest of this entry »


Sunbeds update: experts call for tighter regulation

June 19, 2009
Commerical sunbed use can increase the risk of melanoma, without providing any health benefits.

Commerical sunbed use can increase the risk of melanoma, and doesn't provide any health benefits.

Last year, we blogged about the link between sunbeds and skin cancer, and discussed some of the regulations that we’d like to see to encourage people to make informed choices about their risk.

These included

  • restricting the use of sunbeds to over 18s,
  • providing information on risks to users and
  • ensuring that all use is supervised by trained staff.

These measures have already been introduced in Scotland. In exciting news, they’re now being recommended for the rest of the UK too by COMARE – the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment.
Read the rest of this entry »