From The Wall
Street Journal (letter.editor@edit.wsj.com)Costs keeping 'rescue' drugs from patients
Health: Physicians advise chemotherapy patients to ask about
treatments that may reduce suffering from side effects. By Marilyn Chase
Many of this country's 11
million cancer survivors have had to deal with the side effects of chemotherapy.
Chemotherapy kills cancer cells, but also damages healthy cells in the digestive tract,
bone marrow, hair follicles and other organs. Research is homing in on new rescue drugs
for these healthy cells all the time. But
some health-care plans don't offer the drugs to patients because they are so costly. (Note: all emphasis
is added.)
"Most patients don't know they exist," says
Marti Ann Schwartz, a Portland, Ore.-based consumer advocate who survived Hodgkin's
disease after radiation therapy and a four-drug medley called MOPP.
"Ask your oncologist, the nurse who administers chemotherapy, your
cancer counselor... everyone and anyone for hints," she says. "Nothing is easy,
but there are tips that make it less horrendous."
Only after Schwartz was hospitalized three
days for nausea did a counselor suggest the drug ondansetron, or Zofran, which quelled her
vomiting. Now that has been joined on the market by a
similar drug, granisetron, and more are coming. Lisa DeAngelis of Memorial Sloan-Kettering
Cancer Center in New York tells of a California managed-care patient who underwent chemo
with-out either ondansetron for nausea, or drugs to help her bone marrow recover from
chemo.
The new anti nausea drugs are expensive,
topping $100 for an intravenous infusion, or $50 dollars for two pills. But by making
tough treatment tolerable, they can enable patients to stay the course and get a shot at a
cure. Moreover, compared with total chemo costs or,
say, an emergency-room visit for uncontrollable nausea, their cost pales. Patients
shouldn't accept misery as unavoidable, health professionals say. They should ask for
relief and enlist their doctor in lobbing insurance companies, which vary on coverage.
"People are on firm ground to ask for
these drugs before their chemotherapy," says Mark
Kris of Memorial Sloan-Kettering. He contends that standard care should seek to prevent
chemo's side effects, and he's pressing pharmaceutical and cancer groups for more liberal
treatment guidelines "to ensure optimal therapy is given to everybody."
Kris also is testing the next generation of nausea fighters, chemicals
that target substance P, a neurochemical involved in digestion and pain perception. At
least three drug companies are in hot pursuit of products based on this research.
Additional new rescue agents aim to take the sting out of chemotherapy's other tonicities.
Memorial's DeAngelis and Brigitte Widemann of the National Cancer Institute are testing an
enzyme that limits toxicity of the drug methotrexate. A staple of the chemotherapy armory, methotrexate is used on many cancers, including leukemia, lymphoma, bone cancer and head and neck tumors. Among its side effects is kidney dysfunction, which hampers
excretion of the potent drug, raising blood levels and, in turn, raising its potential to
damage other organs.
The rescue enzyme, carbodypeptidase-G2, or CPDG2, detoxifies excess
methotrexate in the blood, rendering it harmless to other organs. DeAngelis is using CPDG2
in experiments treating patients with brain tumors. At NCI, Wildemann is using CPDG2 and
another rescue drug- thymidine- to mute methotrexate toxicity in several cancers. Because
they're still classed as investigational drugs, CPDG2 and thymidine are available only to
patients under a compassionate-use program. Doctors can obtain the drugs by contacting the
NCI's Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program in Bethesda, Md., at (301)496-5725.
To be sure, not all
chemo side effects can be counteracted by rescue agents. But many can. Patients can arm themselves with information about their
particular tumor types, the recommended drugs and potential toxicity and remedies for it.
"Ask your physician lots of questions and ask what drugs are
available to prevent toxic effects," says Robert Witherspoon of the Fred Hutchinson
Cancer Research Center in Seattle. Do this before treatment begins, he advises. But
remember, he adds, "Oncologists have to walk a tightrope. You want to make sure you
don't protect the cancer in trying to protect the patient."
Some rescue strategies that may seem harmless- self-medicating with
megadoses of antioxidant vitamins, for example- could undermine treatment, he warns. Ice
caps or skull bands to limit hair loss might be OK during treatment of solid tumors far
from the head, but not for blood cell malignancies such as leukemia or lymphoma, where
stray cells might take refuge under hair-sparing devices.
"Most toxicities are short term and reversible," Memorial's
DeAngelis says. "Every now and then, some are not." The essential thing is to
understand what potential toxicities are before they even get the drug," she adds.
"Ask what the options are, should they develop toxicity."
"Prevention is the goal of therapy," adds Memorial's Kris
urging patients to plan their rescue strategies well before toxicity develops. Schwartz
concludes, "No one making a
decision to withhold drugs has ever gone through chemotherapy." Thanks to treatment- and the drugs that eased it- she's reveling in her renewed
ability to "take felling good for granted."
Copyright the Wall Street Journal. Reprinted under the fair use doctrine.
Link to Nahas versus Kassirer: How The Wall
Street Journal defrauded the readers of its editorial page. A critique of a column by
Gabriel Nahas printed on the editorial page of the WSJ which denied that there is any need
for the medical use of marijuana.
Comment by the editor of Marijuananews.com:
This article does not mention medical marijuana. (Would the Wall Street Journal have
published it, if it did?) However, knowing that much of this suffering could be eliminated
by a few puffs of marijuana -- costing only a few cents even on the black market -- makes
this even more horrendous.
There are two points of relevance to the medical marijuana issue here.
First, prohibitionists claim that there are pharmaceuticals that make medical marijuana
unnecessary. This article makes clear that this is simply not true. Second, even if it
were true, there are large numbers of people in America, and many more in other countries,
for whom this is irrelevant because they just cannot afford these very expensive
pharmaceuticals. Could this be why so many cancer wards are said to reek of marijuana?
Also note the ironic header: "Physicians advise chemotherapy patients to ask about
treatments that may reduce suffering from side effects." Consider
this in the context of the recent efforts to make it a crime for a doctor even to
recommend the medical use of marijuana.