Dr. Erinn Maury knew Remicade wasn’t the right drug for Patti Schulte, a rheumatoid arthritis patient the physician saw at her Millersville, Maryland, practice. Schulte’s swollen, painful joints hadn’t responded to Enbrel or Humira, two drugs in the same class.
But the insurer insisted, so Schulte went on Remicade. It didn’t work either.
What’s more, Schulte suffered a severe allergic reaction to the infusion therapy, requiring a heavy dose of prednisone, a steroid with grave side effects if used at high doses for too long.
After 18 months, her insurer finally approved Maury’s drug of choice, Orencia. By then, Schulte’s vertebrae, weakened by prednisone, had started cracking. She was only 60.
Schulte’s story of pain, drug-hopping, and insurance meddling is all too common among patients with rheumatoid arthritis, who often cycle agonizingly through half a dozen drugs in search of one that provides a measure of relief. It’s also a story of how doctors are steered by pharmacy benefit managers — the middlemen of the drug market — as well as by insurers.
We know for a fact that around 50% of people with RA will not respond to TNF inhibitors and there’s a blood test that can identify those people with about a 60% success rate, except insurance companies won’t cover it?
That’s not a non-story. That’s clinically significant.
And the article mentions two other drugs in addition to Orencia, which are not t-cell signalling inhibitors. This is not an ad for a drug. It’s a good article.
The patients were forced to take a drug that had a high likelihood of being ineffective without being permitted access to a test that has a high likelihood of detecting that ineffectiveness.
We don’t know “for a fact” anything of the sort. We expect that only about 50% of people suffering from RA will have a >70% clinical improvement, while we would expect about 10% of patients who do not have an adequate response to TNF inhibitors to have a 70% improvement on abatacept. Source:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16162882/
Which is great. That’s good news. >20% clinical improvement for most patients is the difference between being bedridden and being able to bathe and get around the house.
And yes there are some promising blood tests and genetic markers that would suggest the efficacy of biologics overall, see here:
https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/nsm.2020.0007
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/835000
But neither the genetic test nor the interferon ratio tests are conclusive enough (yet) to be recommended prior to beginning treatment, nor do either even attempt to predict the efficacy of abatacept. It’s a promising pathway for future research, but nobody is recommending routine blood tests to skip TNF inhibitor treatments yet.
I agree with you that we have a problem with medical insurance. For-profit payment providers should not be dictating treatments to doctors and patients, neither forcing certain treatments nor prohibiting clinically-proven effective treatments. That’s major problem that needs fixing immediately.
We also have a problem with pop-science articles drawing sensational conclusions from limited data. Pharmaceutical companies promote their drugs like they’re soft drinks. It would be much easier to argue that insurance companies have no rational basis for overruling decisions made by doctors and patients if we didn’t have patients demanding the latest fad drug they heard about on a morning talk show.
I’m not saying this article is a paid advertisement, but if the drug company had written it, there wouldn’t be much difference. I do think the author implies a more dramatic scenario than what exists in reality. Outrage is good for engagement, but just because the insurance company was wrong to intercede doesn’t mean that the outcome was known in advance. Doctors have to live with uncertainty, and patients have a hard time accepting that their doctors are sometimes going with their intuition because the patient is the data needed to draw conclusions.
I look forward to better predictive tests and new treatments and therapies, since Humira seems to have stopped working for me and I might be moving on to Orencia next. I have the good insurance, so that’s nice for me. But the world will be a better place if medical science directs treatments instead of profit and marketing, and journalistic integrity drives engagement instead of drama.
I’m just quoting what’s actually in the news article, which I didn’t find to be sensationalist at all.
Ok, I’ll quote whats in the article and what I found to be sensationalist.
No, she didn’t. She may have believed, or expected, or felt that Remicade wasn’t the right drug, but she didn’t know.
Implies that patients who don’t reapond to those two drugs won’t respond to Remicade because it’s in the same class of drugs. This is simply not true. It’s possible, you could even say likely, but it isn’t a guarantee.
How could anyone have predicted an allergic reaction to the infusion? Also, Orencia is available as an infusion as well. The patient could have also suffered an alergic reaction to Orencia. This is simply an unfortunate event that really has nothing to do with the insurance company or choice of drug. It just makes you feel sorry for the patient, which is just emotional manipulation.
Prednisone is often prescribed for RA patients for a variety of reasons. Prednisone is known to deplete calcium among other nutrients, and calcium levels should be closely monitored when prescribed to women over 40.
It’s not the insurer’s fault that her vertebrae are cracking, nor can we know that her vertebrae wouldn’t be cracking on Orencia. Again, this information presents Orencia as a solution that could have prevented this, when we don’t know that’s true and it’s irrelevant to the actual problem anyway. Sensationalization.
Pain and drug hopping is just the story of every RA patient. It’s my story, too, and as previously mentioned, I have the good insurance that doesn’t meddle in my treatment. “Cycling through half a dozen drugs in search of one that provides relief” is just the reality of treating autoimmune-related arthritis (not to mention several other illnesses). It’s like doing an article about referees fixing baseball games, and then complaining that these unfortunate players have to run all the way around the diamond, touching every base in sequence, because of these shitty refs. No, that’s just baseball. Shitty refs are a problem, but the players are not victims of the refs because they have to play baseball.
This is the thesis of the article, and ought to be the focus, supported by facts. A doctor chose a treatment for their patient, supported by clinical evidence, and the treatment was delayed because the insurance company wanted to try something else first. That’s a fucking horror story by itself. It doesn’t need window dressing. It would have still been bad if Remicade had been effective or Orencia had caused an allergic reaction because insurers shouldn’t meddle in healthcare decisions due to their conflict of interest. Hell, they should exist at all if we’re looking to fix things.
I don’t find this sensationalist. I find it narrative for members of the public who don’t know about this kind of medical care.