CLL (chronic lymphocytic leukemia) Treatment Internationally: We Can't Always Get What We Want

Below is an article from the Brampton Guardian.

This unfortunate CLL patient can't even get bendamustine and rituximab in Ontario, Canada, let alone ibrutinib or idelalisib or ABT-199 or obinutizumab. OHIP, the provincial insurance won't pay for any of it.

Here in the USA, she would automatically qualify for ibrutinib as as second line therapy or she could get her BR or enter a trial or a host of other choices. Not so in Canada.

I am so lucky to be able to have received ibrutinib in a clinical trial long before it was approved.

Others, mostly those wanting a non-chemo first line therapy, have been less fortunate. Still on clinical trials.gov, a quick look found eight open trials for untreated CLL patients with either ABT-199 or ibrutinib or idelalisib or obinutuzumab. And there are many more options using other very promising TKIs and mAbs in development. It's true that you can't be assured that you can get ibrutinib by prescription for frontline treatment, but at least most American untreated patients have many fine options with or without chemo.

When I advocate for more research on the the multi-drug non -chemo treatments for those of us such as myself not in CR after two years of ibrutinib, it is not meant at the expense of those needing other therapies or better access.

I want to see improved access for all of us. One way that might be possible is by following a path such a Professor Hallek outlined at ASH 2013 to limit the duration of therapy and thus control cost. I would just leave out or at least severely restrict the chemo piece of his protocol. His full article is available and well worth reading. It is a thoughtful discussion and one vision of the possible future of CLL treatment.

This is all new territory and we need the trials on untreated patients and we need the trials on relapsed patients and we need the trials on patients not in CR.

Truth is we are barely at the break of dawn of this new era of treatment and we need so many studies to help guide us. We are making this up as we go along.

What we also need to remember is that we are are all in this together and none of us, myself included, should wish for an option that limits another's choices. At least in the USA, we are not at that point.

Canada may be a different story. There is a petition at the end of the attached article. Her denial of care seems cruel, unjust, unscientific, and just plain dumb to me.

I understand that nearly all cancer treatment is expensive. I understand society must make tough choices about how to allocate limited resources. But making choices based solely on arbitrary protocols and short term dollars signs is not good policy, especially when it clearly stands against both the best evidence based medicine and the specific clinical circumstances of the patient.

Truth is that ibrutinib might be a smarter choice than BR for this patient after relapsing only four years post FR. Truth is we learn nothing in this article about the state of her marrow. Can it handle more chemo? We don't even know her FISH. If she is 17p deleted, BR could be a dangerous waste of time and resources, and might leave her worse off than before the therapy.

In the end with CLL, one has to chose which battles to fight. Anne and her oncologist have made their choice and are pushing for BR, so I am assuming they are on their game and have done their due diligence.

Yesterday, I heard from patients in Turkey and China looking in vain for novel therapies. I quote from the latter email discussing ibrutinib: Indeed the medicine cost is too high, and even if it's approved to be imported to China, the market price in China would be still higher (with extremely high custom rate), and yet any imported medicine is out of the range of medical insurance in China.

It's tough for my friends in Europe too. NICE that regulates new drugs in the EU can be very price sensitive and there seems to be be fewer non-chemo trials.

I know how spoiled I am living in the USA. I know how lucky I am to have nabbed a spot in my trial.

I wish everyone everywhere had access to what they needed to be well.

After all, we are all in this together. 

But there is only one of me and I am spread pretty thin already, so I narrow my focus, and try to make sure that at least those of us in North America get the best possible and smartest treatments out there.

The LLS is doing important work on improving access through its patient advocacy and other efforts. They deserves our support. See the photo below.

Brampton woman denied OHIP coverage for life-saving cancer drugs

Brampton Guardian

BRAMPTON — 

Anne Mitchell is fighting an uphill battle.
After four years in remission, the 67-year-old mother of two is gearing up for her second battle with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia.
But dealing with cancer isn’t the only obstacle the Brampton woman must overcome. The real challenge now — apart from fighting the illness — is coming up with the money to pay for life-saving drugs.
“My mother can’t receive chemotherapy drugs, purely for bureaucratic reasons,” said Mitchell’s daughter Eleanor Elliott, who has launched on an online petition in a bid to pressure the provincial government to dole out the $52,000 her mother needs for the chemotherapy drugs Bendamustine and Rituximab.

The drugs are covered by OHIP.

Mitchell is being denied coverage based on what family members say is a technicality. Bendamustine is covered for first-time chemotherapy treatments.
But, since Mitchell has undergone chemo before, the drug isn’t covered by OHIP. The other drug, Rituximab, is approved for second line use, but only in tandem with Fludarabine — a drug that Mitchell can’t take because she suffered an extreme, adverse reaction to it during her first bout with chemotherapy.
“The drugs that my mother’s oncologist prescribed are funded by the government. However, in my mother’s case, they have denied her funding,” Elliott said. “If a drug is approved for funding, how can you deny a Canadian citizen access to that drug? How is this possible in our great country that prides itself on universal healthcare?”
In October 2010, doctors treated Mitchell’s cancer with Fludarabine and Rituximab, two very powerful chemotherapy drugs.
Mitchell, who has lived in Bramalea for nearly 40 years, received got through two treatments before the regime was abruptly stopped because of her negative reaction to Fludarabine.
Mitchell was hospitalized for weeks with a severe lung infection that nearly killed her.
Despite that setback, her cancer went into remission and Mitchell and husband John, 68, were looking forward to better days.
But the cancer has returned and doctors believe Mitchell’s fighting chances are good if treated with a combination of Bendamustine and Rituximab.
However, the hefty price tag on those drugs now stands in Mitchell’s way.
Mitchell’s latest chemo treatment was to start April 7. Shortly after arriving in the oncology department at Brampton Civic Hospital, she received news that the $8,700 for the Bendamustine and Rituximab would have to come out of her own pocket.
“I felt complete and utter shock,” said an emotional Mitchell, describing her reaction when told OHIP denied her payment.
Mitchell used a credit card to cover the $4,500 cost for the first round of Bendamustine. She needs six treatments in total and can’t afford the cost.
Elliott said the hospital administered the Rituximab at no charge and has put through an appeal to Ontario’s health ministry for the $4,200.
“I sat in shock as my mother had to pull out a credit card to pay for her treatment,” said Elliott, who is concerned that her parents will be forced to spend their retirement savings on cancer treatments.
With her mother facing an uphill fight, Elliott has taken to social media for support. Her online petition has so far garnered more than 600 signatures, She plans to present the petition to provincial health officials.
Bramalea MPP Jagmeet Singh has offered his support in the form of a letter sent to Ontario Health Minister Deborah Matthews appealing for help

Meanwhile, Elliott has also reached out to the manufacturer of Bendamustine.
According to Elliott, Lundbeck Canada has agreed to cover 20 per cent of the cost of the Bendamustine, but the family will have to pay the cost up front and then apply for a rebate.
But, as Elliott noted, that works out to be just about 10 per cent of the total cost of her mother’s required treatment.
Elliott argues that her mother wasn’t able to complete her first round of chemotherapy and therefore should still be considered a first-time patient.
Falling under the category of first-time chemotherapy patient would make her eligible for the Bendamustine. Elliott also wants Ontario to waive the requirement that OHIP will only cover Rituximab if taken with Fludarabine.
She argues that approved chemotherapy drugs be approved “without discrimination and without bureaucratic intervention that could cost Canadians, like her mother, their lives.”
To view the online petition click here .

ASH 2013: Dr. Jeff Sharman Discusses FCR versus BR in Front Line CLL

In this interview, Dr. Jeff Sharman gives us some understanding of the important trial data presented at ASH 2013 that compares FCR (fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, rituximab), the gold standard chemo-immunotherapy (CIT) to BR (bendamusine-rituximab) the new kid on the block and very popular with community oncologists.

In the excitement and promise of the new era of gentler and more effective oral medications for CLL, there is still a diminishing group of patients that for many reasons will continue to chose a chemo-immunotherapy (CIT) approach.

One possible reason is that for a few patients with excellent prognostic factors, a significant subset of those will reach MRD negativity and for that group FCR produces exceedingly durable remissions, starting to hint a possible cure. A half year of harsh but not the worst therapy, and you're done. Time to get on with your life without any daily pill reminding you that you have CLL.

Professor Hallek discusses this special group in my short interview from iwCLL last year.  I would not be completely dismissive of the value of CIT in those special circumstances.

Sadly insurance coverage and expense will be another reason that we will still see chemo. Older drugs are cheaper than newer drugs.

And even more sadly, patients' and physicians' unawareness of the rapidly changing therapeutic landscape will limit some of us CLLer's option to what our oncologist is most comfortable with it.

A few of us won't be able to tolerate the new oral therapies due to side effects, but as more options and new TKI's are approved I suspect that will be a vanishing small number. There are also the very few patients who have progressed on ibrutinib (the only oral TKI approved for CLL at this time and available by prescription) and an unfortunate group of us who both can not qualify for a trial or who have no access to the new meds because of where they live or their insurance and who need treatment NOW and can not wait for a different option.

That said, the FCR versus BR data welcomed as it is, is hardly the blockbuster news that it would have been a few years ago.

Ibrutinib and idelalisib and ABT-199 and obinutuzumab and others have rightly stolen the spotlight at ASH and elsewhere. Their time has come, and not a moment too soon.

Still CIT is not going to quietly fade away so fast so let's look at this important ASH abstract.

This link gives the data.

This link explains what is meant by the grade of adverse events and reminds us that a grade 3 adverse event is severe or disabling, a grade 4 is life threatening and a grade 5 adverse event is polite medical talk for a side effect that kills the patients. So when we see that on the FCR, we patients had a 90% of a Grade 3 or worst hematologic side effect compared to only two out of three in the BR arm.

The price of this higher that high toxicity and small but real risk of dying from FCR was an impressive 98% overall (ORR) response rate with nearly half of those being CR (complete responses). With BR the ORR is the same but the CR is 38%. MRD (minimal residual disease) negative data was not presented. Progression free survival was better for FCR in those under 65 years old, but not in the older group.

So very impressive results, but significant toxicity. This is an old and too common story with chemo: The more toxic the drug, the better it works. FCR is better in younger patients, but comes with more risks and misery.

New targeted and biological therapies break this paradigm and that is why when we have a choice, we should be putting the emerging therapies high on lists of options.

Remember too that this trial was for front line therapy in fit patients where access to the newer treatments in even more difficult.

Listen to Dr. Jeff Sharman and get his take on this important study. Dr. Sharman is a smart, very busy and compassionate guy who has done much to help the CLL and other blood cancer community and I am grateful for the time he gave for this interview at ASH 2013.



Dr. Sharman has an excellent blog himself where he covers much of the same and even more detail on the trial here.

ASH 2013: Dr. Adrian Wiestner Discusses Prognostic and Predictive Factors, the Nuances of 17p deletion and Residual Disease

Merry Christmas.

In the second part of the interview from ASH 2013 in New Orleans, Dr. Adrian Wiestner from the NIH gives us some very carefully considered reflections on the news from the cutting edge changes in our understanding of CLL.

I first asked him to revisit the important issue of predictive versus prognostic factors that I first discussed at iwCLL with Dr. Sharman.

His review of 17p deletion, particularly for those lucky few who are mutated with 17p is very hopeful and nuanced. Listen carefully.

Dr. Wiestner suggested a cut off of 25% to define high risk 17p deletion. The reality is that it depends. While Dr. Tam's research in Blood on de novo 17p del (from the time of diagnosis and not first appearing after treatment) find prognostic significance only when more than 25% of the nuclei are missing the small arm of one of the 17 chromosome, others suggests a lower cut of 20%, some 10%, and some as low as 5% in looking at all cases, de novo and acquired, of 17p deletion. Like many subjects in CLL, consensus is lacking.

My simple take is the less 17p, the better. None is the best.

And we all know that the less disease, the better. Dr. Wiestner points out the obvious but we we need to hear it: You have to get to MRD (minimal residual disease) negativity to get to cure. What does this mean for the new drugs that rarely seem to get to CR, let alone MRD negative? Dr. Wiestner shares some thoughts.

Keep in mind also that 17p is a bad player in that not only does it not allow apoptosis (cell suicide) in response to most chemotherapy and thus rendering common CLL drugs such as fludarabine and cytoxan most ineffective, it also allows the cancer cells to mutate (genomic instability) with no controls on a clone gone bad. Add this clonal devolution to a significant population of residual cancer cells and we begin to understand why initial responses to the new agents such as ibrutinib and idelalsib are excellent, but sadly late relapses are more likely in those of us with a deleted 17p.

This seems to me to be a strong call for dual therapy for the 17p population, but whether that is the answer will only be answered with clinical trials.

Let's listen to Dr Wiestner.



We are so lucky to have a team of doctors working to solve our issues.

More interviews soon.

Saying No to Chemo: Non -Chemo Options for CLL, Part 1

This is probably the most common question that I am asked.

"I know that I need therapy, my CLL is taking off, but I don't want any chemo, so what are my options?"

The answer used to be "not much", but not so anymore. Today there are many choice and soon there will be even more.

But before I give my answer, let me give an important preamble and discuss what we are taking off the table when we veto the chemo option.

When fellow CLLers says no chemo please, I take it to mean that they don't want cytotoxic drugs that work by preferentially killing rapidly dividing cells.

For CLL in the USA, we are mostly taking about two classes of medications.

Number one and the backbone of most chemo cocktails is fludarabine that is a classic purine analog that kills by blocking DNA synthesis. Pentostatin and clardribine are similar adenosine analogs that work the same beat. What these cleverly designed drugs do is pretend to be purine, get themselves incorporated into the dividing DNA and completely gum up the work of replication. Nice.

The other class of pure chemo drugs we see a lot of are the direct descendants of the now banned World War I poison, mustard gas or nitrogen mustard. (The story of how its antileukemic powers were accidentally discovered is worthy of its own post). They destroy by attaching an alkyl group to any and all busy DNA, causing aberrant cross links and preventing it from making copies of itself. The more active the DNA, such as in a fast growing cancer, but also in our fast growing gut and skin, the more damage and the greater the kill. This is how the old standard therapy chlorambucil (AKA Leukeran) works. So too cyclophosphamide  (Cytoxan) the big C in FCR, and bendamustine (Treanda) an old communist drug but a new kid on this side of the Berlin Wall.

There are many many others cytotoxic drugs in oncology that play lesser roles in our disease such as vincristine (Oncovin), the V in CVP occasionally used for refractory CLL and just to confuse us, the O in R-CHOP used for Richter's Transformation and many lymphomas.

Oncologists carefully concoct these toxic cocktails with several goals in mind.

First they want to add to the killing power. Cancer is famously adaptive and will rapidly mutate itself right past a block on its road to lusty growth. Blocking it when it turns to either the left or right is a smart strategy. So too is capturing it in a pincer move with the lengthening lists of the toxic chemicals that make up the alphabet soup that we and others get IV to knock the socks off our cancer, and sometimes (but probably never in CLL) kill it for good.

But doesn't adding one drug on top of another inevitably lead to unacceptable toxicities?

Not necessarily so says our clever oncologists. They look for more than just complementary killing. They look for non-overlapping toxicities. CHOP is the poster boy example, a potentially curative cocktail for some lymphomas, where each of the chemo drugs interferes with the DNA in different synergistic ways AND where each drug has a different toxic target (the marrow or nerves or the heart).

Of course, it is never black and white, and dosing and individual sensitivities widely vary.

Hippocrates famously said that the difference between a medicine and a poison is the dose.

Never was this more true than with chemotherapy. Low dose oral chlorambucil is remarkably well tolerated, even in the elderly, but at the proven price of not doing much to extend the life of the patient.

Some chemo drugs are routinely used at low doses for relatively minor skin problems or auto-immune issues.

But the issue is more than the dose. It is also who is getting the dose.

Is there co-morbid heart disease or nerve damage from uncontrolled diabetes? Has the marrow been beaten up and is having a tough time rising again?

That is why it is so important that we stay well otherwise. Cancer is a hard enough fight without the handicap of a bad heart or bronchitic lungs.

Chemotherapy is not "targeted" in the strict sense, but it does preferentially cull the rapidly dividing cells and that is a good thing. In some cancers, it does such a strong job, it can cure. In CLL, while there are no chemo cures, it can and does give many of us years of healthy happy remission.

The majority of us that end up sitting in the infusion chairs for hours and hours report that while CLL chemo is annoying, it was much gentler that expected. No hair loss, little nausea. FCR or BR are wimpy protocols compared to some of the more potent stews used for more aggressive cancers. I know a surgeon who continue to operate all through his treatments with FCR.

Still cytopenias (low blood cell counts) are all too common including anemia, neutropenia with its high serious infection risk, and low platelets. So hand in hand with the chemo might come a partnering dose of a bone marrow stimulant for either red cells (EPOs), white cells (G-CSFs) or platelets (TPO mimetics) each carrying its own set of side effects and worries. Some of us even need transfusions to just keep going. More decisions. More risks. More time. More expense. More worries.

Long term, there also may be a price to pay. The marrow can only take so much before it gives up the ghost. When our marrow stops making enough of the three lineages of our blood cells, we are in dire straits and the only durable way out may be importing a new one AKA an allogeneic hematopoeitic stem cell transplant.

Chemo wallops our immune cells short term, risks of infections shoots up and may stays up for more than a year after fludarabine which is particularly nasty to our T cells.

Insist that your doctor offers you appropriate antimicrobial prophylaxis.

These drugs by design are mutagenic so we hold our breathe when we get our regular PAPs or mammos or PSAs or colonoscopies. We are getting them aren't we? Please see my earlier post on secondary cancers and do the right thing by yourself.

Infections and secondary cancers are the handle and the blade of the our grim reaper's scythe. So anything we can do to keep it reach short and its edge dull is good.

Eating right, exercise, love, sleep, and avoiding chemo are part of that prescription.

Still, when we face a clear and present danger, we must focus on our imminent needs and worry about tomorrow, tomorrow.

And until very recently, the best tools we had for staying alive when our cancer started to rage was a chemo cocktail, and I for one am grateful that these drugs were and are there in our time of need.

It was only a few years ago that we showed that for the first time a combination of chemo and immune therapy in FCR could prolong our lives. We know that those diagnosed with CLL in the 90s live longer than those diagnosed in the 80's, and much of the credit rests at the doorstep of chemotherapy and the modern management of its side effects.

So before we wave goodbye to chemo as some sort of poison concocted by the a cabal of international pharmaceutical companies, the military and medical industrial complex to keep cancer as a big profit center at our expense (believe me I encounter this line of thinking almost daily), let us calmly look at its risks and benefits.

Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

If you have read any of my posts over the last few years, you have seen me vote with my feet and my blood. You know that I am a fan of the emerging small molecules and have tried to avoid chemo in my own personal journey.

All I am asking for is that we have some balance and keep our eyes wide open as we enter this brave new "post-chemo" world.

"Targeted therapies" while they might be compared a smart bombs or drone, they too like their battlefield equivalents, can pick off innocent target either that look like the enemy or are in the wrong place at the wrong time.

As I said, it isn't black and white.

More on non-chemo choices soon.