New NHS 'trojan horse' drug gives cancer patients years longer with loved ones
A new 'trojan horse' drug is being offered on the NHS to give terminal blood cancer patients years more life.
NHS England says it is the first health service in the world to offer Blenrep which can halt disease progression by three times as long as existing drugs. It is administered via a drip every three weeks and binds to BCMA which is a protein expressed on the surface of myeloma cells. The drug is then taken into the myeloma cell, at which point it detonates and the mafodotin chemotherapy is released, killing the cell. Around 1,500 patients a year with multiple myeloma could now be offered the drug, full name Belantamab mafodotin.
One of them who has received it already is Paul Silvester, 60, from Sheffield, was diagnosed with multiple myeloma – an aggressive cancer of the bone marrow – in July 2023 after his cancer caused broken bones in his back. It was discovered he had a tumour in his spine and initial treatments failed to stop his cancer's progression. He received Blenrep at Royal Hallamshire Hospital in Sheffield via an early access programme and was in remission within weeks.
Paul said: 'I feel like this treatment has brought the party balloons back in the house. It has been amazing – within the first two or three weeks, after the first dose, I was in remission. It gives me quite a lot of confidence in the drugs and it makes me more optimistic about the future. I've been feeling well and I'm still quite active – that's what's important in terms of your quality of life. One of my daughters is graduating from university in October and it's a goal for me to be there.'
Multiple myeloma often affects multiple parts of the body, including the spine, skull, pelvis and ribs. Each year, more than 6,000 people are diagnosed in the UK and it is estimated there are around 33,000 people living with the cancer. Trials showed that Blenrep, in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone delayed progression of the disease by an average of three years, compared to just over a year for patients taking commonly-used drug daratumumab instead.
Professor Peter Johnson, NHS England's cancer director, said: 'Myeloma is an aggressive type of blood cancer, but we have seen a steady improvement in the outlook for patients over recent years as we have introduced new targeted therapies. I am delighted that patients in England will be the first to benefit from this new treatment, which has the potential to keep cancer at bay for years longer, giving people the chance of more precious time with friends and family.
'This treatment could be life-changing for many patients and their families and that's why it is so important that the NHS continues to secure quick access to the latest, innovative treatments like this, at affordable prices to the taxpayer.'
Multiple myeloma is more common in men than women, adults over 60, those with a family history of the condition and is twice as common in black populations than white and Asian populations. It cannot be cured and patients often experience multiple relapses.
Treatment is usually about halting the cancer for as long as possible with the least side-effects from treatment. The disease can have a significant impact on quality of life, with the possibility of relapse having a major psychological effect on patients.
Shelagh McKinlay, director at blood cancer charity Myeloma UK, said: 'It's fantastic to see the UK at the forefront of myeloma treatment. NHS England has demonstrated that it is possible for myeloma patients to have world-first access to innovative drugs. We have been working very hard for the last year to get this treatment approved and we know it will transform the lives of thousands of people with myeloma.'
NHS England is fast-tracking access to the treatment for patients from today through funding via the Cancer Drugs Fund.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
38 minutes ago
- BBC News
Panel backs decision over Shropshire out-of-hours GP service
An independent panel has backed a decision to select a different company for a proposed contract for a Shropshire out-of-hours GP a not-for-profit company staffed by local doctors, has run the service since 1996. But in February, NHS Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin (NHS STW) said approval was granted for intending to award the contract to Wiltshire-based representations by Shropdoc, the panel stated it found STW integrated care board (ICB) acted in accordance with regulations and so it had advised it to proceed with the proposed contract said due to the "legal standstill period" in place, it was unable to comment. Healthcare campaigner Gill George from Shropshire Defend Our NHS said she was devastated and thought most people in the region would be."They know local services like the back of their hand – Shropdoc has got that local knowledge and local expertise of GPs and community services."The contract had an initial term of three years starting on Tuesday this week, with the option of a two-year extension and an estimated value, including the extension, of about £36m excluding VAT, the panel ICB had six bids, according to Tuesday's report from the independent patient choice and procurement panel's review of the proposed award. Nearly 600 surveys The document said that in February the board announced the successful bidder. Shropdoc's proposal was ranked fifth, with a score of 68.52%, compared to 86.85% for Medvivo, the report STW launched a scheme in August last year that saw residents share views and said nearly 600 surveys were completed. If a GP out-of-hours service contract was awarded to a new provider, NHS STW has stated, one of its priorities would be to ensure as little change to patients as would be no change to its palliative care line and home visits would still be available, it stated it acknowledged the "outcome of the procurement process and the associated report relating to the GP Out of Hours (GPOOH) service have now been published".Medvivo is based in the south-west of England, according to its website, and in 2020 joined HealthHero to become the group's NHS service specialises in integrated urgent care and associated services. Follow BBC Shropshire on BBC Sounds, Facebook, X and Instagram.
New Statesman
an hour ago
- New Statesman
We need a culture change in maternity services
Photo by Matthew Cheetham / Getty Images The Health and Social Care Secretary is staking his reputation on providing safe care to women giving birth. 'Maternity safety will become the litmus test for all safety in the NHS,' Wes Streeting said on 23 June, as he announced a rapid investigation into maternity and neonatal services. He will take 'personal responsibility for it', noting that successive governments have failed to grip this national scandal adequately. Streeting has said the government's long-awaited ten-year plan for the NHS, which will be published on 3 July, will tackle maternity's 'safety crisis at its root, with an overhaul of the wider patient safety landscape'. The Health Secretary has already placed new personnel at the top of the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to turn around the 'failing organisation' – part of an attempt to 'declutter' the regulatory landscape in which more than 150 bodies will be scrapped. A shift from analogue to digital will be seen first in maternity, too, where AI technology will flag higher than expected rates of stillbirth, neonatal death and brain injury, triggering inspections. A focus on tackling inequalities in health outcomes – another theme of the plan – is also hugely relevant to maternity care: black women are two to three times more likely to die during pregnancy or shortly after birth than white women. While Streeting's aim to tackle 'the biggest patient safety challenge facing our country' is admirable, the task is mammoth. The rapid investigation will look at up to ten English maternity units that give ministers and NHS bosses the 'greatest cause for concern'. How will they be chosen? In its National Review of Maternity Services in England 2022 to 2024, the CQC found nearly half of all units either required improvement (36 per cent) or were deemed inadequate (12 per cent). Not one was rated outstanding for safety. Nearly two thirds (65 per cent) either required improvement or had inadequate safety provision. Streeting is right: the problem is systemic. 'It's not just a few bad units up and down the country. Maternity units are failing. Hospitals are failing. Trusts are failing.' Streeting could limit his choices to the 20-plus units that are currently rated inadequate by the CQC: from Scarborough and York hospitals in the north, to Poole in the south; Great Yarmouth's James Paget Hospital in the east, or Somerset's two failing units in the west, one of which was closed in May for at least six months. This approach would still leave half the services acknowledged to be unsafe unexamined. The units to be investigated will be chosen after analysing various NHS data sets. But each data set provides different answers. In the 2024 maternity survey, the CQC found two trusts performing 'much worse than expected': University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. Six trusts were 'worse than expected'. While some run inadequate maternity services, the majority do not. Then there's the danger of putting too much faith in the CQC when the regulator is facing heavy criticism. It has been accused of failing to heed concerns about maternity services until long after they've been raised by whistleblowing staff and by families who have been harmed. In Leeds, for example, where a BBC investigation found that the deaths of two mothers and 56 babies could potentially have been avoided between 2019 and 2024, maternity services were not rated inadequate until May – at least five years after concerns were first raised. In Oxford, where more than 500 families are calling for an inquiry, maternity services are not judged inadequate. Nor are Nottingham's, where around 2,500 families are taking part in the former midwife Donna Ockenden's independent investigation into failings. The Health Secretary could look at data on deaths. Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust had a neonatal mortality rate nearly twice the average of similar services in 2023. Among smaller hospitals, Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust appears to be an outlier in the rate of stillbirths. But official data sets can be flawed. As Streeting acknowledged to doctors, 'some services don't even record incidents that have resulted in serious harm'. Other information indicating poor maternity care doesn't exist at all: there are no recent, reliable data on the life-changing injuries women can suffer during childbirth. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Behind every number, every set of statistics, are real lives – and deaths. Too many babies are dying and being harmed because of poor maternity care. Too many women are receiving life-changing injuries. Too many mums and dads are being left traumatised. And we are spending an eye-watering amount compensating families for that poor maternity care. In the financial year 2023-24, maternity payouts comprised 41 per cent of total NHS clinical negligence payments: £1.15bn of £2.8bn. The NHS predicts that 49 per cent of the £5.1bn it will pay out in future as a result of care delivered in 2023-24 will be to maternity cases. To put that into perspective, NHS England spends around £3bn a year in total delivering maternity and neonatal services. It is vital that maternity services are not seen as just another part of the NHS that needs improving. For there is something bigger going on – something unique that cannot simply be explained by staff shortages, low morale or a lack of funding. Many hospitals provide good care in all other departments but have an inadequate maternity unit. This is a problem of culture. And with the best will in the world, that is the hardest thing of all to change. [See also: Cover Story: Just raise tax!] Related
Leader Live
an hour ago
- Leader Live
Hancock: Moving patients from hospitals to care homes was least-worst decision
Bereaved people whose loved ones died in care homes have urged truth and accountability from those appearing before the UK Covid-19 Inquiry, as its focus for the next month falls on the care sector. The inquiry has previously heard there were more than 43,000 deaths involving the virus in care homes across the UK between March 2020 and July 2022, and a civil servant was quoted earlier this week describing the toll as a 'generational slaughter within care homes'. Appearing before the inquiry on Wednesday, Mr Hancock acknowledged the discharge policy was an 'incredibly contentious issue', but he added: 'Nobody has yet provided me with an alternative that was available at the time that would have saved more lives.' When the pandemic hit in early 2020, hospital patients were rapidly discharged into care homes in a bid to free up beds and prevent the NHS from becoming overwhelmed. However, there was no policy in place requiring patients to be tested before admission, or for asymptomatic patients to isolate, until mid-April. This was despite growing awareness of the risks of people without Covid-19 symptoms being able to spread the virus. Mr Hancock, who resigned from government in 2021 after admitting breaking social distancing guidance by having an affair with a colleague, has given evidence to the inquiry multiple times. Returning for a full-day session to face questions specifically about the care sector, he said the hospital discharge policy had been a government decision but had been 'driven' by then-NHS chief executive Sir Simon Stevens, now Lord Stevens. Mr Hancock said: 'It was formally a government decision. It was signed off by the prime minister. It was really driven by Simon Stevens, the chief executive of the NHS, but it was widely discussed.' The inquiry heard Mr Hancock said in his witness statement that NHS England had 'insisted' on the policy, and while he did not take the decision himself, he took responsibility for it as then-health secretary. He said it was an 'incredibly contentious issue' but added that 'nobody has yet provided me with an alternative that was available at the time that would have saved more lives'. He said there were no good options, adding: 'It's the least-worst decision that could have been taken at the time.' Pressed further, he said he had both agreed with and defended the decision at the time. The High Court ruled in 2022 that Government policies on discharging hospital patients into care homes at the start of the pandemic were 'unlawful'. While the judges said it was necessary to discharge patients 'to preserve the capacity of the NHS', they found it was 'irrational' for the Government not to have advised that asymptomatic patients should isolate from existing residents for 14 days after admission. Asked about March 17, 2020 when NHS bosses were instructed to begin the discharge process, Mr Hancock said officials were 'pushing very hard' to get more PPE into care homes. He said not advising care homes to isolate returning residents without symptoms was a 'mistake', but it was in line with clinical guidance at the time. In 2023, appearing for a separate module of the inquiry, Mr Hancock admitted the so-called protective ring he said had been put around care homes early in the pandemic was not an unbroken one, and said he understood the strength of feeling people have on the issue. At a Downing Street press conference on May 15 2020, Mr Hancock said: 'Right from the start, we've tried to throw a protective ring around our care homes.' Mr Hancock told the inquiry: 'I would stress in that piece of rhetoric, what I said is that we had 'tried' – it was not possible to protect as much as I would have wanted.' He added: 'The protection, what at the time, was clearly not as much as we would have liked, but the alternatives were even worse. 'We were trying to put as much protection in place as possible. 'All I can do is take you back to the actual decisions and the resources that we had at that moment. He went on: 'We were trying to do everything that we possibly could, we were in bleak circumstances.' Counsel to the inquiry Jacqueline Carey KC highlighted anonymous evidence given to the inquiry, saying: 'One person in particular said he (Mr Hancock) blatantly lied about the situation with care homes, there was no blanket of protection. We were left to sail our own ships. He wasn't heartfelt. He had no understanding or appreciation of the challenges care homes face, pandemic or not, it felt like we were the sacrifice, a cull of older people who could no longer contribute to the society.' Mr Hancock said it was 'not helpful' for the inquiry to 'exchange brickbats', but went on: 'I've been through everything that we did as a Department, a big team effort, and we were all pulling as hard as we possibly could to save lives – that's what I meant by saying that we tried to throw a protective ring around. 'Of course, it wasn't perfect. It was impossible – it was an unprecedented pandemic, and the context was exceptionally difficult. 'What I care about is the substance of what we did, the protections that we put in place, and most importantly, what we can do in the future to ensure that the options available are better than they were last time.' Bereaved families have previously called this 'protective ring' phrase a 'sickening lie' and a 'joke'. Nicola Brook, a solicitor representing more than 7,000 families from Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK (CBFFJ), said Mr Hancock's claim that the discharge policy had been the least-worst decision available was 'an insult to the memory of each and every person who died'. She added: 'He knew at the time that many care homes did not have the ability to isolate the people who would be discharged from hospital and that Covid was airborne. 'It's frankly ridiculous and insulting that he says they tried to throw a protective ring around care homes when his department's policies caused Covid to spread like wildfire amongst society's most vulnerable loved ones. 'Mr Hancock claims the decision to discharge people into care homes was driven by Simon Stevens, the chief executive of the NHS, yet the inquiry is not calling him. We would call for this decision to be urgently reviewed.' The CBFFJ group had already written to inquiry chairwoman Baroness Heather Hallett, to express their concern at some 'key decision-makers' not expected to be called in this module, including former prime minister Boris Johnson. Outlining the state of the adult social care sector at the outbreak of the pandemic, Mr Hancock said it 'was badly in need of, and remains badly in need of, reform', but rejected the suggestion of it being a 'Cinderella service to the NHS'. He said pandemic contingency plans, prepared by local authorities for adult social care, had been 'as good as useless' at the time, and described a 'hodge podge of accountability' between local councils and Government departments. He claimed the situation has 'got worse not better' for care homes in the event of another pandemic hitting, and suggested a series of recommendations, including having isolation facilities in care homes and ensuring a stockpile of personal protective equipment (PPE). Module six of the inquiry is focused on the effect the pandemic had on both the publicly and privately funded adult social care sector across the UK. Public hearings for the care sector module are expected to run until the end of July.
