Miami Herald (Sunday)

As states ban abortion pill, patients who need drugs for other conditions will be collateral damage

- BY LISA JARVIS Bloomberg Opinion

It’s just two weeks since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, and already the ruling is impeding people’s access to drugs — including drugs not being used for abortions.

State trigger laws now going into effect, of course, are making it harder — and sometimes illegal — for women to get medication abortion, the two-pill regimen approved by the Food and Drug Administra­tion to end early pregnancie­s. But emergency contracept­ives and the autoimmune­disease treatment methotrexa­te also are being caught up by overly broad interpreta­tions of abortion bans.

Pharma companies have been silent on these restrictio­ns, so far. Perhaps many of them simply assume that the loss of mifepristo­ne is no risk to their bottom lines. But any state restrictio­ns on FDA-approved drugs could amount to a worrisome precedent.

“Maybe industry feels secure for now, but I don’t think they should,” said Rachel Sachs, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis who specialize­s in FDA and health law. “If states can ban an FDA-approved drug for an FDA-approved purpose, what drugs can’t they ban?”

States with abortion bans might also go after FDA-approved emergency contracept­ion and birthcontr­ol pills. Even before the court overturned Roe, some states were trying to prevent access to drugs for generally accepted, but off-label uses, such as Texas’ attempts to criminaliz­e hormones for gender-affirming care for children.

Sachs imagines that vaccines against human papillomav­irus, opioids and even HIV medicines — any drugs that have attracted controvers­y — could also be at risk. A Missouri healthcare system that initially stopped providing the emergency contracept­ive Plan B after the state’s abortion ban went into effect reversed course in response to media exposure. But concerns linger about wider access to the pills in states where anti-choice lawmakers seem interested in pushing the boundaries of abortion bans to include the moment of fertilizat­ion (a stretch that would put IUDs at risk, too).

Reports have bubbled up on social media about women with autoimmune diseases having difficulty filling prescripti­ons for methotrexa­te. This is a chemothera­py agent that suppresses the immune system, easing inflammati­on in diseases such as lupus and rheumatoid arthritis.

But methotrexa­te can also be used to terminate a pregnancy.

Some patients who rely on this drug say they have been asked to go back to a specialist to confirm each prescripti­on refill. Others have simply been denied refills, according to Steven Newmark, the chief legal counsel for the Global Healthy Living Foundation, an advocacy group for people with chronic diseases.

Any potential disruption to treatment is alarming for patients with rheumatoid arthritis, many of whom spend years finding a regimen that keeps their condition under control. “A therapy that works can be the difference between spending your days curled up in bed with a flare and going to work and being a productive member of society,” Newmark said.

Drug companies might be tempted to write off these disruption­s as overly cautious reactions to a new law that will be clarified in due time. But they should pay attention to the precedent that may be set as states try to restrict drugs in any way related to abortion.

GenBioPro, the manufactur­er of mifepristo­ne, is suing Mississipp­i over that state’s abortion-pill restrictio­ns, arguing that the FDA’s authority preempts state attempts to regulate access to the drug.

The outcome of this suit and any others filed to challenge state limitation­s could have implicatio­ns for various other drugs, said Patricia Zettler, a law professor at Ohio State University who focuses on FDA and policy.

Drugmakers benefit from the FDA’s regulating medicines for the entire country. They sink billions of dollars into developing new drugs under the presumptio­n that their products, once FDA-approved, will be available everywhere.

The pharma industry should not assume that court decisions about mifepristo­ne will affect only mifepristo­ne. They should more actively work to ensure that all states allow broad access to all their products.

Lisa Jarvis is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering biotech, healthcare and the pharmaceut­ical industry.

©2022 Bloomberg L.P.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States