Is rituxan classified as a cytostatic drug? My insurance wont pay for it and say it is not.

Well the answer is probably yes and no. 'Cytostatic' means something that halts or stops or interrupts a cell's ability to grow and multiply. While this may sound like a catch-all term for all cancer drugs and therapies-- they all find some way to stop cancer growth--, in reality it's not so broad.

For instance, take a common lymphoma chemo drug like cyclophosphamide. This falls into the class of chemo drugs called alkylating agents. In basic terms, this drug "alkylates" a cancer cell by adding a type of molecule to the cell during mitosis. This addition has the effect of throwing the process of mitosis out of whack to the point that the cell doesn't divide and instead it dies. this drug has had a directly cytostatic effect on the cancer cell.

Rituxan is a form of biological therapy, or immunotherapy. it seeks out a protein on the surface of cancer cells and kills those cells. the thing is, how precisely it accomplishes this is not fully known. The mechanism of action in many drugs, new and old, is not always entirely known.

perhaps your insurance company is trying to pull a fast one here by claiming that rituxan isn't a standard cytostatic chemotherapy drug because instead of inhibiting the process of division, rituxan actually induces cell death, or apoptosis. In the end they achieve the same thing, but they go about it a little differently.

Either way, some insurance company--- willing to pay for cytostatic drugs that kill all cells they meet, cancerous or otherwise, but unwilling to pay for a drug that only kills cancer cells. that's nonsense.

Ross

Thanks Ross. More or less what you have said what I thought. i've found many web pages which call it a cytostatic drug, and some which refer to 'non-cytostatic treatment for lymphoma', so I obviously have a fight on my hands with the insurance company. I hope to collate as much information as possible which refers to the cytostatic qualities of rituximab, and even if I don't win I shall make them work hard defeating me. Thanks again for your input. Valerie

Valerie-
Good luck. I think you're facing an uphill battle, sadly. I don't get why they would refuse to pay for a drug that is proving to be one of the biggest breakthroughs in cancer treatment in decades.

Ross

Obviously the reason has to be financial, although at a meeting with their local director yesterday, he refused to accept that. Fortunately, here in Europe we have quite a good national Health system, so I can get the treatment free through that. The private sector is just so much quicker and easier, though . . .I think it is just a clever way of making prospective clients think they are covered for cancer treatment, when in fact many forms of cancer which need immunotherapy are not covered unless you pay for the drug. . .I enjoy a good fight though . . .