Decision not to fund life-saving cancer drugs on NHS causes outrage

Pensioner Richard Eckley rose at 6.30am and worked on the family farm until the sun went down, as he has done practically every day of his adult life.

But the  grandfather, 69, could only do so because he is one of the lucky few to have won a funding battle for the drug Sutent that keeps his advanced kidney cancer at bay.

Yesterday,THU the shocked farmer took time out from preparing his cattle for market to blast a decision that will deny other patients the same  drug that has allowed him vital extra time with his family.

Mr Eckley joined the outcry caused by the decision by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (Nice) not approve NHS funding for four drugs used to prolong the life of patients with advanced forms of kidney cancer.

He said: “It’s absolutely horrifying. It’s unbelievable that, in 2008, desperately ill people are being denied treatment that can help them. It makes me very, very angry.”

The Herefordshire farmer started paying about £4,000 a month for Sutent out of his own pocket in January this year after doctors at Cheltenham General Hospital told him it could help him live longer.

Paying for the drugs also made him liable to pay for the cost of NHS treatment. But, two weeks ago, his local health chiefs agreed to pay his bill in full after hearing medics describe how he had made amazing progress.

Mr Eckley said his tumour has now virtually shrunk to nothing and most days he is fit enough work from dawn until dusk on the family’s 250-acre farm at Glasbury-on-Wye.

His solicitor has assured him Nice’s decision yesterday not pay between £23,000 and £30,000 a year per patient for the radical cancer drugs will not affect his case. However, his family are angry on behalf of other sufferers.

His wife Barbara Eckley said: “Without Sutent, Richard would be very ill and he could not cope with sitting around all day. As far as he is concerned, if he can’t work, he may as well be dead. Our hearts bleed for all those people out there who have been given a death sentence today.

“It’s disgusting. It’s all wrong.

“The NHS can find the money to fund treatment for obese people who could help themselves with diet and exercise, but they tell cancer sufferers that these new drugs are too dear.”

The drugs Avastin (bevacizumab), Nexavar (sorafenib), Sutent (sunitinib) and Torisel (temsirolimus) were found by Nice to provide “significant gains” in survival rates.

But news that they will not be funded because they do not meet Nice’s criteria for “cost-effectiveness” has caused uproar and calls for the system to be changed.

More than 7,000 people are diagnosed with kidney cancer every year, while 1,700 have incurable renal cell carcinoma that has spread from the initial tumour.

Officially, Nice admits the drugs can prolong life by about four or five months, but they are routinely denied to patients.

In October 2007, Geraldine Frost, from Coleford, died at the age of 44 after losing her fight to win Sutent from health chiefs in Gloucestershire. Meanwhile, Jack Rosser, 56, is currently fighting to get health bosses in South Gloucestershire to pay for Sutent so he can have more time with his baby daughter, Emma. He was diagnosed with cancer of the kidney three days after she was born last July.

Former Yeovil Town Football Club captain Paul Smith, 58, was one of the lucky ones to win his fight for the drug sorafenib after doctors in Bristol said he was special case.

Patients can be prescribed interferon, but many cannot tolerate it. Yesterday, Professor John Wagstaff, from the South Wales Cancer Institute, said about 75 per cent of patients did not gain any real benefit from the NHS-approved drug.

Broadcaster James Whale, 49, who was diagnosed with kidney cancer in 2000, accused  Nice of being “barbaric” for denying cancer patients the latest generation of drugs that are available abroad.

But Professor Peter Littlejohns, clinical and public health director at Nice, said although he could understand the concern and distress caused by the decision, the NHS could not  afford to fund all new treatments. Bringing the price down would be the best way to make the drugs available on the NHS, he said.

“The evidence has shown that, although these treatments are clinically effective, they are not a cost-effective use of NHS resources.

“If these treatments were provided on the NHS other patients would lose out on treatments that are both clinically and cost effective.”

The draft guidelines for England and Wales, which are subject to appeal, recommend people already on the drugs should be able continue their treatment.