The Implications of the Drug Bexxar in Cancer Patients and Why Bexxar Should Be Continued

Abstract

The subject throughout this essay will be the drug Bexxar and the implications of this drug on cancer patients. The argument will be made as to why Bexxar should be continued and not be taken off the drug market due to its success so far in trail tests. Within this topic, the point will be made as to why Bexxar is successful as a cancer-fighting drug and what effects it has had on people thus far. Combining these ideas together, the point should be clear as to why it is against patients’ best interest for pharmaceutical companies to pull this drug off the shelves.

The Implications of the Drug Bexxar in Cancer Patients and Why Bexxar Should Be Continued

“Finding the cure for cancer” seems to be the national goal of this country in regard to medicine for the last twenty years. Statistically speaking, 40% of people will be diagnosed with some form of cancer at some point in their lifetime (“Cancer statistics, 2013”). This overwhelming statistic proves that this is a national epidemic that nearly everyone will be affected by in some way or another. Why then, are successful cancer-fighting medicines discontinued? Does a financial obligation overtake a moral one in regards to profit sales versus mortality rate? These questions directly reflect an effective drug, Bexxar, which will be pulled off the market on February 20, 2014 (“GSK to discontinue,” 2013). It is important to recognize the negative outcomes that will emerge for cancer patients who found relief in this drug, and understand the effects that this drug had on those who benefited from its short time on the market; these two variables will intertwine as evidence to why this drug should not be discontinued.

To begin with, the Bexxar drug was specifically targeted to patients that were suffering from a specific type of cancer- non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Statistics on this type of cancer are not favorable to sufferers, with only 58% of people having a ten-year survival rate with this specific form of cancer (“Survival rates,” 2013). This is why, when Bexxar was tested on so many individuals that resulted in positive outcomes, people took notice. For a drug that has “…about a 70 percent response rate, in one shot. You don’t have to keep giving it for 2-3 years” (Timmerman, 2013), why would there suddenly be a movement to discontinue this drug? Bexxar has previously been named a “miracle drug” by CNN news reports; why would there suddenly be a movement to discontinue a “miracle drug?” A miracle drug that has a 70% response rate on a group of people who have a 58% chance of life after ten years of suffering from their disease? It’s nonsensical.

The effect that Bexxar had on its patients is unprecedented. Specifically targeting an audience that had relapsed previously in their fight against cancer, Bexxar is the drug that doctors would prescribe when all else failed- the beauty of it? It worked. Patients would have previously been through the wringer in their fight with cancer, who have sat through endless prognosis, never-ending radiation and chemotherapy to only be told that the monster was back? This drug saved them. Even more so innovative is the fact that Bexxar held “fewer harsh side effects” than any other drug out there today on the market in relation to cancer treatment (Schroeder, 2014). Countlessly, patients have remarked on not the cancer that causes them pain but the treatment- the chemotherapy, the fatigue, nausea, all these variables that are associated with treatment. Why then, is a cure being pulled that significantly decreases these horrific side effects? It’s inhumane.

So what are the effects on the people that have used Bexxar in the past, and it is now being taken from them? Luckily, the shot usually works in one dosage on individuals- there is very rarely a need to administer Bexxar more than once unless there has been a drop in the patient’s white blood cell count (Timmerman, 2013). Therefore, most of the recipients of Bexxar will not be disadvantaged due to this pull from the market. However, what about the effects on the individuals who have not had a chance to use Bexxar? What about the individuals who could have benefitted from this drug, when nothing else would help? They are the unseen faces that are suffering, as Dr. Press (a chairman of the scientific advisory board of the Lymphoma Research Foundation) from “the market-driven forces that can distort medical decisions” (Berenson, 2007). Ultimately, this is the sole reason that a patient who has nowhere else to turn, no other drug left to find solace in- financial losses reflected in the politics of the medical community that have continuously put others at a loss due to the market economy that they have been derived into. Why must market executives rely solely on profit gains to dictate whether or not a drug that has saved a countless number of the “unsavable” is fit to stay on the shelves? It’s a vicious materialism.

Ultimately, there is no one reason that Bexxar should be discontinued other than politics associated with the scientific community. The reason, specifically, that doctors choose not to use Bexxar is because it was made with a radiation component; this means it cannot be administered in a doctor’s office by an average doctor (Schroeder, 2014). Specifically needing to be administered by a doctor who is licensed in either nuclear medicine or radiation oncology, there is competition associated with this drug. A competition that does not have a high pay off financially by those administering the drug, despite the high pay off that is received by those being administered. Ethically, however, can a market simply wave away a product due to its financial shortages? Are dollar signs trumping survival rates?

In conclusion, it is important to recognize that Bexxar is not simply a “fad” drug. There was merit to this drug; simply ask the patients who benefitted from its repercussions. Ask Dan Wheeler, who suffered through two bouts of cancer before Bexxar cured him in 2004 (Berenson, 2007). Would Dan Wheeler, and people like him, agree with a drug that single-handedly saved his life being discontinued at the expense of profit gains? Realizing what this drug has done is vital in advocating for Bexxar’s continuation; while many have been cured thanks to this drug, many still have not. The effects on those who haven’t had a chance to experience Bexxar are just as important as the effects on those that have. This discontinuation of this drug will harm the multitudes of sufferers in a way that is unable to be measured.

References

Berenson, A. (2007). Market forces cited in lymphoma drugs' disease. Retrieved February 7, 2014, from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/14/health/14lymphoma.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Cancer statistics. (2013). Retrieved February 5, 2014, from http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/all.html

GSK to discontinue manufacture and sale of the BEXXARA therapeutic regimen (tositumomab and iodine I 131 tositumomab). (2013). Retrieved February 6, 2014, from http://us.gsk.com/html/media-news/pressreleases/2013/GSK-to-discontinue-manufacture-and-sale-of-the-BEXXAR-therapeutic-regimen.html

Schroeder, K. (2014). Wonder cancer drug discontinued because of low profits. Retrieved February 7, 2014, from http://www.opposingviews.com/i/health/conditions/cancer/wonder-cancer-drug-bexxar-discontinued-because-low-profits#

Survival rates and factors that affect prognosis (outlook) for non-Hodgkin lymphoma. (2013). Retrieved February 7, 2014, from http://www.cancer.org/cancer/non-hodgkinlymphoma/detailedguide/non-hodgkin-lymphoma-factors-prognosis

Timmerman, L. (2013). Why good drugs sometimes fail: The Bexxar story. Retrieved February 5, 2014, from http://www.xconomy.com/national/2013/08/26/why-good-drugs-sometimes-fail-in-the-market-the-bexxar-story/