In mid-June of this year while at a baseball game watching my childhood hometown Minnesota Twins defeat my adopted home town team San Francisco Giants, a friend asked if I was excited about the news in the paper that morning about the new cure for Hepatitis C. He said that it cured 80% of all patients in clinical trials and that the treatment might last only 24 weeks instead of the standard 48 week therapy. The news was stunning. Which drug was it? I had been keeping up with the various new drugs in the FDA approval pipeline and had never heard of one with a viral clearance rate of more than 65%. Of course he couldn’t remember the name and none of us had a smart phone with us, so it took until after game and back at home before I could do any research.
This article appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle. It stated that about 80% of HEP C patients “with the most common strain” and relapsers from previous treatment were cured by the new drug. The drug was the protease inhibitor telaprevir, brand named Incivek by its developer Vertex Pharmaceuticals. Imagine the amount of money they must have paid a naming company to develop that brand name; rolls right off the tongue. The results from earlier studies had indicated that telaprevir increased the Sustained Viral Response (SVR) in genotype 1 HEP C, the most common genotype infecting US residents, to 65%. It seemed prudent to search out the source material to sort out all these percentages. A quick search of the web found this press release. In the fourth paragraph of the release it stated that “The sustained virologic response for patients treated with Incivek across all studies, and across all patient groups, was between 20 and 45 percent higher than current standard of care.” This seems to indicate that the low end of the SVR rate was indeed 65% and the high end might be almost 90%. The article and press release also indicated that 60% of treatment naïve patients achieved a rapid viral response (RVR) in 4 weeks and these folks not only would only be in treatment for 24 weeks, but had a 90% chance of achieving an SVR as well. It is not clear what the SVR rate for the folks who don’t achieve a RVR and continue for 48 weeks of treatment has been in the tests. It is also unclear whether there is a difference in SVR rates between genotype 1a and 1b. Folks who had relapsed after previous treatments had a 32% SVR rate when treated with the telaprevir, interferon and Ribavirin cocktail. This is very good news indeed for HEP C patients.
A month earlier, this article appeared in the NY Times announcing the debut of Victrelis the brand name of boceprevir (again where do these brand names come from) another protease inhibitor, this one developed by Merck. This drug, which is taken for either 24 or 48 weeks in combination with interferon and Ribavirin, has an SVR rate for treatment naïve genotype 1 HEP C patients of 65-70%. The SVR rate for patients who relapsed after previous treatment is about 40%. Boceprevir is a bit different in that the patient starts with 4 weeks of standard treatment and then adds the boceprevir for either an additional 24 or 48 weeks depending on the viral response. So we have two competing drugs available whose addition to the standard of care treatment increases the SVR rate by a range of 20 to 40 percent. Good news indeed but what is the rest of the story.
The rest of the story has several chapters from side effects to cost of treatment. Looking at side effects first, both boceprevir (Victrelis) and telaprevir (Incivek) have additional side effects to add to those caused by interferon and Ribavirin and both can somewhat intensify the interferon and Ribavirin side effects as well.
Boceprevir can increase the risk of anemia and neutropenia, cause strange taste sensations and cause intestinal tract issues.
Telaprevir also increases the risk of anemia, causes diarrhea, and most importantly can cause an itchy rash. The rash can be serious enough to require that the patient stop taking the telaprevir.
The new drugs are very much like the established treatment in that those with lower viral loads at the beginning of treatment have a better chance of success than those with high viral loads. Also like the established treatments, anyone who has ever tried a treatment, whether standard or experimental, and failed also has a considerably lower chance of success.
Both drugs are protease inhibitors. This means that they inhibit the action of an enzyme that the virus needs to reproduce. They are similar to the protease inhibitors developed to fight the AIDS virus. This means that they must be taken on a fairly rigid schedule: three pills per day, one every eight hours. If that means waking up to take it, wake up you must. They also need to be taken with food, so you cannot pop a pill and run off. You have to have certain types of food with the dose of the drug. This means that for 12 weeks (telaprevir) or 24-48 weeks (boceprevir) your life will be scheduled around your drug dosing.
Both drugs are vastly expensive as discussed in this article. Boceprevir/Victrelis will cost $1,100 per week making the cost of a full course of the drug either $26,400 (24 weeks) or $52,800 (48 weeks) depending on your viral response. Telaprevir/Incivek has been priced at $49,000 for the 12 week course of treatment. This cost is in addition to the $15,000-$20,000 (24 weeks) or $30,000-$40,000 (48 weeks) for the interferon and Ribavirin with which they must be taken. This also does not count the cost of the Procrit to fight anemia ($500 per week) or the Neupogen to fight neutropenia (also about $500 per week) should you need them. There are also the costs involved with antidepressants, sleep medications, thyroid medications, pain medications and whatever you will be using to deal with the rash and itching in the case of the telaprevir.
It is also not clear how quickly insurance plans will add them to their drug formularies. Kaiser Permanente, my HMO here in California, has added both to its formulary. I do not know which other insurance providers have done the same. Even if they are added, it is not clear what the requirements will be for a patient to be eligible to be prescribed and how easily insurance companies will make them available. From an economic point of view they should make them easy to get as even at these prices the cost of treatment is still much less than the cost of a liver transplant.
For those without insurance, I do not know how anyone but the wealthy could afford the additional cost. The cost of standard of care treatment is by itself so high as to exclude many HEP C sufferers from being treated. There are programs to assist those with low resources to get treatment but even with the drugs deeply discounted the ability to come up with as much as $20,000 for a course of treatment would seem impossible.
Despite all these potential problems, the advent of new drugs to combat HEP C is excellent news. Ramping up the SVR rate to a range of 60% - 80% is a vast improvement over the standard of care treatment rate that topped out at 45%. Psychologically, it is far more encouraging to go into a course of treatment thinking you have a 2-1 shot at beating the virus than to go in thinking you have just under a 50-50 shot. These drugs are also only the leading edge of a wave of new drugs and new therapy approaches that are under research and testing. There are new polymerase inhibitor drugs that have SVR rates similar to telaprevir, but with fewer and less severe side effects. Testing on the holy grail of finding a treatment regimen that does not have to include interferon is also underway with early stage results coming in soon. Within the past year, scientists have discovered a method of growing the HEP C virus in the lab. This means that future early stage testing of drugs can be done directly on the virus instead of with animal models. This should increase the pace of research dramatically. In all it is a good time to have HEP C if you are one of us infected. There are established treatments, there are promising new treatments and there are drugs and treatments in the research and development pipeline that seem to point to future in which HEP C can be attacked and treated with a high expectation that it will be successfully cleared from the human body.
Perhaps we can believe the hype surrounding these new drugs. Despite the problems of determining the actual efficacy of the drug in your own case, the potential difficulties in obtaining and paying for the treatment and persevering through the side effects, they have advanced the cause of combatting Hepatitis C.
The more cures, the fewer pig livers will have to be implanted in humans (sorry, I’ve been reading far too many science fiction novels during treatment).
Showing posts with label telaprevir. Show all posts
Showing posts with label telaprevir. Show all posts
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
The Magic Bullet Theory
Waiting for the “Next Best Thing”
Last Tuesday was the annual Holiday Pot Luck for the twice-monthly Hepatitis C support group that meets in the California Pacific Medical Center Pathology Conference room. There were about two dozen people there and, in the tradition of potluck dinners everywhere, enough food for twice that number. Best of all, there were plenty of desserts.
Of the two dozen people or so people attending, about half were either currently in treatment or had successfully completed treatment; another quarter had undergone treatment and either failed to respond or the virus had reappeared after the completion of treatment and the last quarter had yet to make a decision about treatment. About half the folks who had successfully completed treatment and never had a recurrence of the virus were people with Hepatitis C genotype 2. This genotype has about an 80% chance of clearance, and excellent prospects of a sustained viral response, with 24 weeks of standard interferon and ribavirin treatment.
After people had settled down with their plates of food and glasses of non-alcoholic libations (ginger potions of all sorts were quite popular), everyone reported on their general state of health, how they felt and any significant issues they had that might be caused or intensified by the disease or their treatment status. Several common themes emerged as people told their stories.
The people who had successfully completed treatment reported that by and large they felt they were back to normal functioning (one individual reported that she felt that after 2 years she still did not feel she was back to her previous cognitive function level). They felt their energy had returned, they no longer had shortness of breath, their strength was back and generally they were physically in good condition. Most felt that their mental faculties and their memory had returned to pre-treatment levels as well. To a person, they reported that it took considerably longer to return to full function than the time that is considered standard by the medical establishment. The usually quoted time to recover from the effects of interferon, ribavirin and the other associated drugs used in treatment is 3 to 6 months. Everyone reported that the time it took them to recover from treatment was in the range of 6 months to 1 year with a few reporting longer times than that.
The people currently in treatment (and for that matter, the folks who had completed treatment) reported two side effects as most debilitating: fatigue and brain fog. The fatigue ranged from merely difficult to extreme with no one reporting only mild fatigue. That said, person after person stated that the most irritating and frustrating side effect was the cognitive deficit associated with interferon brain fog. It was not just the increased memory difficulties, it was the inability to concentrate, the ease of distraction, the loss of train of thought that drove everyone crazy. Most folks also reported nausea of varying degrees, insomnia, sweats etc.; but those paled in comparison to the frustration of brain fog and the annoyance of being tired all the time.
The rest of the people at the meeting, the non-responders to treatment and the people yet to attempt treatment, all had the same outlook: they were waiting for the new and better drugs to become available. They had very different reasons for this viewpoint, but it was surprising to see the uniformity of their point of view.
The non-responders and fail-to-sustainers had all failed at the standard interferon and ribavirin treatment. They and their doctors had come to the conclusion that the two drug standard treatment was not going to successfully defeat the virus in their bodies. They need the additional punch of one of the new drugs in order to have a real chance at success. You can’t argue with that conclusion, when what is available has failed, you have to await further developments to move forward.
The people who had not done any treatment had different reasons for waiting for the next new and better drugs. Many were afraid of the side effects but most were looking for a therapy with a better chance of success that the standard therapy. The standard treatment has about an 80% chance of clearing genotype 2 Hepatitis C. It has a 40-45% chance to clear genotype 1 Hepatitis C. The drug most likely to be approved next is Telaprevir, a protease inhibitor (Boceprevir, a similar protease inhibitor is supposedly not far behind). Telaprevir has demonstrated in research testing that, in combination with interferon and ribavirin, it has a genotype 1 clearance rate of about 60-65% (Boceprevir has similar test results). On the surface the reasons for waiting for the new drugs are clear-cut, 60% is a much better chance than 40%. There are a lot of other factors to consider before pinning one’s hopes on the next best thing, however.
First is the discovery of variations in the IL28B gene and how these variations affect response to treatment. If you have the CC variant of the gene, the evidence indicates that your chances of responding well to standard treatment rise to the 60% level, or about the same as the telaprevir response rates. The test to determine which variant you have is available, not extremely expensive and clearly gives information you can use to make a decision about treatment. For a more info the link is here.
Secondly, the new drugs are not assured of either approval or timeliness. The latest Telaprevir application was submitted to the FDA in November, 2010 which means a decision is 6 to 10 months away. Boceprevir has not even reached the “it’s coming in the next x months stage of rumor yet.” There is also the, admittedly small, chance that Telaprevir is never approved. I have many friends who are in the gene-splicing and drug development fields who report a number of instances when companies were extremely confident of FDA approval only to be turned down during the final application. The FDA might come back with concerns that require further testing or additional data submissions, all of which could move the timeline much further out. The promising new polymerase inhibitors (RG7128 and RO5024048 for example) are only just beginning phase II trials which means they are at least 3-5 years away from any sort of approval and only if they succeed in further trials. There are other drugs even further away, etc.
Thirdly, these new drugs are expensive. They project to be about twice as expensive as the current interferon and ribavirin. The plan is that you only need 24 weeks of treatment, but it will be a very expensive 24 weeks. Therefore the question of once the drugs are approved how long it will take for them to be added to insurance company drug formularies so they will be covered by your insurance becomes extremely important. As we all know, insurance companies can be quite recalcitrant about approving new therapies.
Finally, there are all the considerations about your personal situation. What stage is your liver disease? What is your viral load? What is your general health? How old are you? These questions only start to list your issues. What is your financial situation? What is your insurance coverage? What is your work situation? Do you have solid family support? If you have to go on disability, how would that affect your job future? Can you even tell your employer, family, friends and coworkers that you have the disease? All of these and more are considerations that may be more important than the rates of viral response of the various drugs.
Remember two things as think about all the ramifications of when and how to deal with your Hepatitis C: first, there is always a newer, shinier, more promising therapy in the future and second, the best is the enemy of the good.
Last Tuesday was the annual Holiday Pot Luck for the twice-monthly Hepatitis C support group that meets in the California Pacific Medical Center Pathology Conference room. There were about two dozen people there and, in the tradition of potluck dinners everywhere, enough food for twice that number. Best of all, there were plenty of desserts.
Of the two dozen people or so people attending, about half were either currently in treatment or had successfully completed treatment; another quarter had undergone treatment and either failed to respond or the virus had reappeared after the completion of treatment and the last quarter had yet to make a decision about treatment. About half the folks who had successfully completed treatment and never had a recurrence of the virus were people with Hepatitis C genotype 2. This genotype has about an 80% chance of clearance, and excellent prospects of a sustained viral response, with 24 weeks of standard interferon and ribavirin treatment.
After people had settled down with their plates of food and glasses of non-alcoholic libations (ginger potions of all sorts were quite popular), everyone reported on their general state of health, how they felt and any significant issues they had that might be caused or intensified by the disease or their treatment status. Several common themes emerged as people told their stories.
The people who had successfully completed treatment reported that by and large they felt they were back to normal functioning (one individual reported that she felt that after 2 years she still did not feel she was back to her previous cognitive function level). They felt their energy had returned, they no longer had shortness of breath, their strength was back and generally they were physically in good condition. Most felt that their mental faculties and their memory had returned to pre-treatment levels as well. To a person, they reported that it took considerably longer to return to full function than the time that is considered standard by the medical establishment. The usually quoted time to recover from the effects of interferon, ribavirin and the other associated drugs used in treatment is 3 to 6 months. Everyone reported that the time it took them to recover from treatment was in the range of 6 months to 1 year with a few reporting longer times than that.
The people currently in treatment (and for that matter, the folks who had completed treatment) reported two side effects as most debilitating: fatigue and brain fog. The fatigue ranged from merely difficult to extreme with no one reporting only mild fatigue. That said, person after person stated that the most irritating and frustrating side effect was the cognitive deficit associated with interferon brain fog. It was not just the increased memory difficulties, it was the inability to concentrate, the ease of distraction, the loss of train of thought that drove everyone crazy. Most folks also reported nausea of varying degrees, insomnia, sweats etc.; but those paled in comparison to the frustration of brain fog and the annoyance of being tired all the time.
The rest of the people at the meeting, the non-responders to treatment and the people yet to attempt treatment, all had the same outlook: they were waiting for the new and better drugs to become available. They had very different reasons for this viewpoint, but it was surprising to see the uniformity of their point of view.
The non-responders and fail-to-sustainers had all failed at the standard interferon and ribavirin treatment. They and their doctors had come to the conclusion that the two drug standard treatment was not going to successfully defeat the virus in their bodies. They need the additional punch of one of the new drugs in order to have a real chance at success. You can’t argue with that conclusion, when what is available has failed, you have to await further developments to move forward.
The people who had not done any treatment had different reasons for waiting for the next new and better drugs. Many were afraid of the side effects but most were looking for a therapy with a better chance of success that the standard therapy. The standard treatment has about an 80% chance of clearing genotype 2 Hepatitis C. It has a 40-45% chance to clear genotype 1 Hepatitis C. The drug most likely to be approved next is Telaprevir, a protease inhibitor (Boceprevir, a similar protease inhibitor is supposedly not far behind). Telaprevir has demonstrated in research testing that, in combination with interferon and ribavirin, it has a genotype 1 clearance rate of about 60-65% (Boceprevir has similar test results). On the surface the reasons for waiting for the new drugs are clear-cut, 60% is a much better chance than 40%. There are a lot of other factors to consider before pinning one’s hopes on the next best thing, however.
First is the discovery of variations in the IL28B gene and how these variations affect response to treatment. If you have the CC variant of the gene, the evidence indicates that your chances of responding well to standard treatment rise to the 60% level, or about the same as the telaprevir response rates. The test to determine which variant you have is available, not extremely expensive and clearly gives information you can use to make a decision about treatment. For a more info the link is here.
Secondly, the new drugs are not assured of either approval or timeliness. The latest Telaprevir application was submitted to the FDA in November, 2010 which means a decision is 6 to 10 months away. Boceprevir has not even reached the “it’s coming in the next x months stage of rumor yet.” There is also the, admittedly small, chance that Telaprevir is never approved. I have many friends who are in the gene-splicing and drug development fields who report a number of instances when companies were extremely confident of FDA approval only to be turned down during the final application. The FDA might come back with concerns that require further testing or additional data submissions, all of which could move the timeline much further out. The promising new polymerase inhibitors (RG7128 and RO5024048 for example) are only just beginning phase II trials which means they are at least 3-5 years away from any sort of approval and only if they succeed in further trials. There are other drugs even further away, etc.
Thirdly, these new drugs are expensive. They project to be about twice as expensive as the current interferon and ribavirin. The plan is that you only need 24 weeks of treatment, but it will be a very expensive 24 weeks. Therefore the question of once the drugs are approved how long it will take for them to be added to insurance company drug formularies so they will be covered by your insurance becomes extremely important. As we all know, insurance companies can be quite recalcitrant about approving new therapies.
Finally, there are all the considerations about your personal situation. What stage is your liver disease? What is your viral load? What is your general health? How old are you? These questions only start to list your issues. What is your financial situation? What is your insurance coverage? What is your work situation? Do you have solid family support? If you have to go on disability, how would that affect your job future? Can you even tell your employer, family, friends and coworkers that you have the disease? All of these and more are considerations that may be more important than the rates of viral response of the various drugs.
Remember two things as think about all the ramifications of when and how to deal with your Hepatitis C: first, there is always a newer, shinier, more promising therapy in the future and second, the best is the enemy of the good.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Science Café About Hepatitis C Research
San Francisco has a thriving science and nerd community. A symptom of that is the wide array of science events that occur throughout the Bay Area every month. One of them is a monthly series titled “Science Café” in which a scientist or two is inveigled to come to a local café and talk for a few hours about their area of expertise. The most recent event was about Hepatitis C.
The Atlas Café was the scene and the scientists were Dr. Melanie Ott of the Gladstone Institute who researches the reproduction cycle of the Hep C virus and Dr. Todd Frederick a Hepatologist at the California Pacific Medical Center who treats Hep C patients. As a disclaimer I must mention that Dr. Frederick has examined, palpated and prescribed for me as part of the Polymerase Inhibitor study I was in.
Dr. Frederick gave an overview of the scope of the Hep C epidemic and the nature of current treatments available to combat it. He talked about the new protease inhibitors Telaprevir and Boceprevir that are awaiting FDA approval to be used in combination with interferon and ribavirin. He also gave a hint at possible future therapies using polymerase inhibitors with interferon and ribavirin and the possible combination of polymerase and protease inhibitors with ribavirin to create a treatment regimen that does not use interferon.
Dr. Ott gave us a basic yet thorough crash course in the reproductive cycle of the Hep C virus. She revealed its dependence on fat molecules in human cells and the promising area of research involved in using fat disabling compounds to interfere with the ability of the Hep C virus to reproduce itself. She also had a very cool animation that illustrated the reproductive cycle of the virus. She was quick to state that this was still basic, in the petri dish research and many years away from demonstrating efficacy in living organisms. It was fascinating stuff and the crowd of 30 was intent throughout both presentations.
A few of the questions asked in the Q & A were about the new compounds being developed and particularly about the issue of deciding whether to treat now or wait for new developments. Dr. Frederick clearly attempted to be balanced in his answers, but as a doctor involved in clinical trials of promising new compounds he is really exited about the possibilities of the new treatment combinations and he showed a bit of a bias towards waiting for new developments.
I respect Dr. Frederick’s viewpoint a great deal, but I think if you are seriously considering entering treatment, you need to consider a wide range of factors beyond the simple consideration of treatment outcome percentages. The condition of your general health, the condition of your liver, the amount of impact the disease is having on your quality of life, your family situation, your housing situation, your work situation, your insurance situation, your financial situation, the quality of support you can expect, all of these are important factors to consider in your decision. We still don’t know when the new drugs will be approved, how quickly they may be included in insurance company covered drug rosters, and how much they will cost (though we do know they will be expensive). So think it all through thoroughly and carefully before making a decision. While the future may be so bright we gotta wear shades, the shades might be very expensive and the future a bit further off than we would wish.
The Atlas Café was the scene and the scientists were Dr. Melanie Ott of the Gladstone Institute who researches the reproduction cycle of the Hep C virus and Dr. Todd Frederick a Hepatologist at the California Pacific Medical Center who treats Hep C patients. As a disclaimer I must mention that Dr. Frederick has examined, palpated and prescribed for me as part of the Polymerase Inhibitor study I was in.
Dr. Frederick gave an overview of the scope of the Hep C epidemic and the nature of current treatments available to combat it. He talked about the new protease inhibitors Telaprevir and Boceprevir that are awaiting FDA approval to be used in combination with interferon and ribavirin. He also gave a hint at possible future therapies using polymerase inhibitors with interferon and ribavirin and the possible combination of polymerase and protease inhibitors with ribavirin to create a treatment regimen that does not use interferon.
Dr. Ott gave us a basic yet thorough crash course in the reproductive cycle of the Hep C virus. She revealed its dependence on fat molecules in human cells and the promising area of research involved in using fat disabling compounds to interfere with the ability of the Hep C virus to reproduce itself. She also had a very cool animation that illustrated the reproductive cycle of the virus. She was quick to state that this was still basic, in the petri dish research and many years away from demonstrating efficacy in living organisms. It was fascinating stuff and the crowd of 30 was intent throughout both presentations.
A few of the questions asked in the Q & A were about the new compounds being developed and particularly about the issue of deciding whether to treat now or wait for new developments. Dr. Frederick clearly attempted to be balanced in his answers, but as a doctor involved in clinical trials of promising new compounds he is really exited about the possibilities of the new treatment combinations and he showed a bit of a bias towards waiting for new developments.
I respect Dr. Frederick’s viewpoint a great deal, but I think if you are seriously considering entering treatment, you need to consider a wide range of factors beyond the simple consideration of treatment outcome percentages. The condition of your general health, the condition of your liver, the amount of impact the disease is having on your quality of life, your family situation, your housing situation, your work situation, your insurance situation, your financial situation, the quality of support you can expect, all of these are important factors to consider in your decision. We still don’t know when the new drugs will be approved, how quickly they may be included in insurance company covered drug rosters, and how much they will cost (though we do know they will be expensive). So think it all through thoroughly and carefully before making a decision. While the future may be so bright we gotta wear shades, the shades might be very expensive and the future a bit further off than we would wish.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Bad/Good News 3 – Participating in Future Research Trials
The final item that concerned me about moving out of the research trial and getting treatment through standard channels is one that will concern anyone in the same situation. Does making this decision preclude you from participating in future research trials?
I specifically asked AVB, the research coordinator about that issue. I framed the question to her that “since I am dropping out of the trial to pursue treatment outside the protocols and on my own…” She immediately cut me off at that point. Her statement to me was that I was not dropping out of the study. I was consulting with the medical personnel in the study and my own doctors and making a decision about what was in my best interests as a patient. This decision transcends the study and is about what is best for the patient in their attempt to fight their disease as effectively as possible.
She stated that I have followed all the protocols, come to all appointments, kept accurate records and come in for additional testing as the situation required. Patients who have done these things are considered to be good research subjects. That fact that patients who have been reliable subjects make decisions to pursue courses in the best interests of their long-term health does not preclude them from being included in further studies. She stated that given a history of positive participation in previous trials she would be inclined to include them in future studies for which they passed the screening.
She mentioned that their have been people who have dropped out of this and other studies she has been involved in either due to viral breakthroughs, inability to tolerate side effects or inability to follow the study protocols. Some of these patients have cut off all communication with the study, not returning phone calls, emails and letters and not returning the unused study medications. In some cases they cannot be found and their ongoing health cannot be determined. These are the sorts of patients she would not include in any future trial. They are not reliable subjects.
This was a load off my mind as my percentages are low to clear the virus on continued treatment. While Telaprevir will no doubt be approved soon, there is not guarantee that I would succeed with it either and having the possibility to participate in trials of future promising treatments is another arrow in the quiver, so to speak.
The only real downside is that I am no longer treatment-naive…
I specifically asked AVB, the research coordinator about that issue. I framed the question to her that “since I am dropping out of the trial to pursue treatment outside the protocols and on my own…” She immediately cut me off at that point. Her statement to me was that I was not dropping out of the study. I was consulting with the medical personnel in the study and my own doctors and making a decision about what was in my best interests as a patient. This decision transcends the study and is about what is best for the patient in their attempt to fight their disease as effectively as possible.
She stated that I have followed all the protocols, come to all appointments, kept accurate records and come in for additional testing as the situation required. Patients who have done these things are considered to be good research subjects. That fact that patients who have been reliable subjects make decisions to pursue courses in the best interests of their long-term health does not preclude them from being included in further studies. She stated that given a history of positive participation in previous trials she would be inclined to include them in future studies for which they passed the screening.
She mentioned that their have been people who have dropped out of this and other studies she has been involved in either due to viral breakthroughs, inability to tolerate side effects or inability to follow the study protocols. Some of these patients have cut off all communication with the study, not returning phone calls, emails and letters and not returning the unused study medications. In some cases they cannot be found and their ongoing health cannot be determined. These are the sorts of patients she would not include in any future trial. They are not reliable subjects.
This was a load off my mind as my percentages are low to clear the virus on continued treatment. While Telaprevir will no doubt be approved soon, there is not guarantee that I would succeed with it either and having the possibility to participate in trials of future promising treatments is another arrow in the quiver, so to speak.
The only real downside is that I am no longer treatment-naive…
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Sitting In Limbo
After not getting in to the Vertex – Telaprevir study in January of 2009 and being thrust into a primary management role in my employer’s reorganization and construction project in early 2009, I ended up in limbo regarding my plans for dealing with Hep C. I was so exhausted from running the project that I did not have the energy and mental focus to make any informed decisions.
One of the good pieces of fallout from not being in the study was getting to meet the team at the California Pacific Medical Center (CPMC) Hepatology Center. The study coordinators are not only intelligent, empathetic people, but they genuinely felt bad about the circumstances of my not qualifying for the study. They knew that the bad test result had been a result of a lab testing glitch and that I was a good candidate for being in a study. So they kept me informed of the various studies that were in the pipeline at their center. I told them that I would not be able to do anything until the summer as I needed time to recover and get the new systems at work up and running. But as soon as May and June arrived, I began to get phone calls about studies. I turned down one that was an early phase 1 trial of another protease inhibitor as it was a short (4 week) trial to determine whether the drug had any efficacy against the Hep C virus. I did not want to do a short course of treatment. When I committed to a program, I wanted to have it be for a full-term course of treatment designed to wipe out the virus. I also did not want to give up my treatment-naïve status unless it was for a serious, later stage study that was trying to determine whether the test drug was good for a cure, not just good for some effect against the drug.
Treatment-naïve means that you have never taken drugs to combat Hepatitis C. This is the state that most researchers look for in test subjects. They want to test their compounds on people whose Hep C virus has never had the chance to react to any attacking drugs. You are only treatment-naïve once. As soon as you have taken drugs to attack your Hep C, whether it be the standard Interferon and Ribavirin therapy or a drug study involving alternate or additional drugs. So, if you are considering entering a medical research trial, you may want to protect your treatment-naïve status until you see a study you like. Of course, if you are in serious later stage liver disease, you take the treatment that sounds best to deal with the situation you have and the hell with preserving treatment-naïve status for the future.
There are also studies for treatment-experienced patients as well. These studies are often somewhat later phase 2 or 3 studies that are trying to determine if the study drug works were other drugs have not. Let’s face it, if you can develop a drug that not only can cure Hep C in treatment-naïve patients, but also can cure the disease in people have tried other treatments and failed, you are looking at a much bigger slice of the treatment money pie. So drug companies all want to know if their drug works where others have failed. There is no need to despair of being able to access experimental therapies just because you have already tried a drug regime and failed. This is a thought that I hold clearly in my head when I think about the possibility of relapsing after the trial ends. I can still go for other options, assuming I want to go through this experience again.
So I was indeed drifting a bit, trying to see if an interesting study came up and indeed thinking about the whole necessity of entering treatment Right Now. As the immortal Jimmy Cliff would have it, I was indeed sitting here in limbo, waiting for the dice to roll.
One of the good pieces of fallout from not being in the study was getting to meet the team at the California Pacific Medical Center (CPMC) Hepatology Center. The study coordinators are not only intelligent, empathetic people, but they genuinely felt bad about the circumstances of my not qualifying for the study. They knew that the bad test result had been a result of a lab testing glitch and that I was a good candidate for being in a study. So they kept me informed of the various studies that were in the pipeline at their center. I told them that I would not be able to do anything until the summer as I needed time to recover and get the new systems at work up and running. But as soon as May and June arrived, I began to get phone calls about studies. I turned down one that was an early phase 1 trial of another protease inhibitor as it was a short (4 week) trial to determine whether the drug had any efficacy against the Hep C virus. I did not want to do a short course of treatment. When I committed to a program, I wanted to have it be for a full-term course of treatment designed to wipe out the virus. I also did not want to give up my treatment-naïve status unless it was for a serious, later stage study that was trying to determine whether the test drug was good for a cure, not just good for some effect against the drug.
Treatment-naïve means that you have never taken drugs to combat Hepatitis C. This is the state that most researchers look for in test subjects. They want to test their compounds on people whose Hep C virus has never had the chance to react to any attacking drugs. You are only treatment-naïve once. As soon as you have taken drugs to attack your Hep C, whether it be the standard Interferon and Ribavirin therapy or a drug study involving alternate or additional drugs. So, if you are considering entering a medical research trial, you may want to protect your treatment-naïve status until you see a study you like. Of course, if you are in serious later stage liver disease, you take the treatment that sounds best to deal with the situation you have and the hell with preserving treatment-naïve status for the future.
There are also studies for treatment-experienced patients as well. These studies are often somewhat later phase 2 or 3 studies that are trying to determine if the study drug works were other drugs have not. Let’s face it, if you can develop a drug that not only can cure Hep C in treatment-naïve patients, but also can cure the disease in people have tried other treatments and failed, you are looking at a much bigger slice of the treatment money pie. So drug companies all want to know if their drug works where others have failed. There is no need to despair of being able to access experimental therapies just because you have already tried a drug regime and failed. This is a thought that I hold clearly in my head when I think about the possibility of relapsing after the trial ends. I can still go for other options, assuming I want to go through this experience again.
So I was indeed drifting a bit, trying to see if an interesting study came up and indeed thinking about the whole necessity of entering treatment Right Now. As the immortal Jimmy Cliff would have it, I was indeed sitting here in limbo, waiting for the dice to roll.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Deciding About Treatment - did I avoid a disaster?
I few posts ago I wrote a bit about Questions you need to think about in regards to treatment.
Let me tell you about the first time I made a decision
It was my second visit to the Gastroenterologist, the fabulous Doctor C. The first visit was relatively brief in that we went over a bit about the disease and he order a full set of labs to determine the genotype of the virus, the viral load and a bunch of liver function tests as well as some general blood work. The primary result of the visit was to realize that I had a great doctor on my side. Doctor C is a warm, supportive personality and also a doctor who Listens. He is not one of those folks who are merely waiting for a chance to talk when he is silent. He listens carefully, gives considered answers and is well versed in the details of the disease. He is not a certified Hepatologist, but he does a great deal of work with coinfected HIV patients and is up on the research and the treatments for Hep C.
The second visit was more detailed as we went over the results of the labs. The bad news was that I had genotype 1 which is the hardest to cure. It is also the one infecting the vast majority of North Americans. My viral load was over 4,000,000 IU per ml. which put me in the category considered to be medium-high viral load. My liver seemed to be in good shape with the various enzyme and function tests not indicating there was much damage. By this time my wife and I had read a great deal about Hep C (interestingly enough for those of you following the progression of side effects, I have forgotten a great deal of that information and have to keep looking stuff up to refresh my memory). We had lots of questions and Doctor C took a great deal of time answering them. Then he asked the fateful question. Do you want to be aggressive in your approach to the disease?
Yes, I replied. He told me that he knew of one of his colleagues currently enrolling a study for a Vertex compound VX-950 (now Telaprevir) and reached for the phone. He caught the doctor in, set up an appointment for two days hence and I was in the process of potentially beginning treatment for the disease. I spent the next 2 days doing research on VX-950. It is a protease inhibitor in phase 3 testing and has a Sustained Viral Response result of 62-64% in trials when it is combined with the Standard of Care (Interferon and Ribavirin). The study in question was an open label phase 3 study wherein every participant got the experimental drug; they were just testing for dosage effects. I admit I had a romantic fantasy about the possibility of being in the study: Man is diagnosed with Hep C on Halloween, goes into treatment in January, finishes treatment in December and is declared clear of the virus under 18 months after being diagnosed. We all have our fantasies, mine are usually not about drugs, but this time they were.
I went to the meeting, learned about the study, was told about the drug and the SOC side effects, signed the papers and went in for the lab tests the next day. It turned out that I showed a thyroid abnormality in my blood tests and there was not enough time to get me retested by the official lab in time to get me into the trial. So close and then the chance for the experimental drug was snatched away. It was particularly painful at the time because there are so few phase 3 tests of promising drugs and so very few tests as well wherein everyone gets the experimental drug and there is no placebo group.
As it turned out, it was probably for the best that I did not make the trial.
The next 3 months were spent in an extremely high-stress situation. My organization was moving an entire portion of its operation into a new space. I had been managing a great deal of the operation for my boss, who was in the middle of number of large projects. In January as the facilities move hit is most vital period, his wife became dangerously ill and they suffered a financial reverse which threatened to wipe out their life savings. I had to step forward and assume control of the entire project and manage it through the actual move and start-up of the new facility. I managed to do it, but the cost to my health was extreme. I was exhausted all the time. I went home from work every day and was capable of merely sitting for a few hours before going to bed. My wife is convinced to this day that the stress load spiked my viral load from the 4,000,000 range to the 6,500,000 number it hit in my next test in June.
If I had been going through treatment, I would never have been able to handle the job that was thrust upon me. I would most likely have collapsed either physically or mentally due to the strain. So, even though I lost the chance to get a late-stage experimental drug which raises SVR rates 40% above the standard of care treatment, my health may be better in the long run for missing the opportunity.
I did not examine all the ramifications of my decision before I made it. That is why it is so important to examine all sides of the issue before you reach a decision. It is hard to go through treatment. Even at its best, it is tiring and depressing and long. So think clearly and try to plan for as many eventualities as you can. It can make the difference between a successful outcome and something potentially very ugly.
Let me tell you about the first time I made a decision
It was my second visit to the Gastroenterologist, the fabulous Doctor C. The first visit was relatively brief in that we went over a bit about the disease and he order a full set of labs to determine the genotype of the virus, the viral load and a bunch of liver function tests as well as some general blood work. The primary result of the visit was to realize that I had a great doctor on my side. Doctor C is a warm, supportive personality and also a doctor who Listens. He is not one of those folks who are merely waiting for a chance to talk when he is silent. He listens carefully, gives considered answers and is well versed in the details of the disease. He is not a certified Hepatologist, but he does a great deal of work with coinfected HIV patients and is up on the research and the treatments for Hep C.
The second visit was more detailed as we went over the results of the labs. The bad news was that I had genotype 1 which is the hardest to cure. It is also the one infecting the vast majority of North Americans. My viral load was over 4,000,000 IU per ml. which put me in the category considered to be medium-high viral load. My liver seemed to be in good shape with the various enzyme and function tests not indicating there was much damage. By this time my wife and I had read a great deal about Hep C (interestingly enough for those of you following the progression of side effects, I have forgotten a great deal of that information and have to keep looking stuff up to refresh my memory). We had lots of questions and Doctor C took a great deal of time answering them. Then he asked the fateful question. Do you want to be aggressive in your approach to the disease?
Yes, I replied. He told me that he knew of one of his colleagues currently enrolling a study for a Vertex compound VX-950 (now Telaprevir) and reached for the phone. He caught the doctor in, set up an appointment for two days hence and I was in the process of potentially beginning treatment for the disease. I spent the next 2 days doing research on VX-950. It is a protease inhibitor in phase 3 testing and has a Sustained Viral Response result of 62-64% in trials when it is combined with the Standard of Care (Interferon and Ribavirin). The study in question was an open label phase 3 study wherein every participant got the experimental drug; they were just testing for dosage effects. I admit I had a romantic fantasy about the possibility of being in the study: Man is diagnosed with Hep C on Halloween, goes into treatment in January, finishes treatment in December and is declared clear of the virus under 18 months after being diagnosed. We all have our fantasies, mine are usually not about drugs, but this time they were.
I went to the meeting, learned about the study, was told about the drug and the SOC side effects, signed the papers and went in for the lab tests the next day. It turned out that I showed a thyroid abnormality in my blood tests and there was not enough time to get me retested by the official lab in time to get me into the trial. So close and then the chance for the experimental drug was snatched away. It was particularly painful at the time because there are so few phase 3 tests of promising drugs and so very few tests as well wherein everyone gets the experimental drug and there is no placebo group.
As it turned out, it was probably for the best that I did not make the trial.
The next 3 months were spent in an extremely high-stress situation. My organization was moving an entire portion of its operation into a new space. I had been managing a great deal of the operation for my boss, who was in the middle of number of large projects. In January as the facilities move hit is most vital period, his wife became dangerously ill and they suffered a financial reverse which threatened to wipe out their life savings. I had to step forward and assume control of the entire project and manage it through the actual move and start-up of the new facility. I managed to do it, but the cost to my health was extreme. I was exhausted all the time. I went home from work every day and was capable of merely sitting for a few hours before going to bed. My wife is convinced to this day that the stress load spiked my viral load from the 4,000,000 range to the 6,500,000 number it hit in my next test in June.
If I had been going through treatment, I would never have been able to handle the job that was thrust upon me. I would most likely have collapsed either physically or mentally due to the strain. So, even though I lost the chance to get a late-stage experimental drug which raises SVR rates 40% above the standard of care treatment, my health may be better in the long run for missing the opportunity.
I did not examine all the ramifications of my decision before I made it. That is why it is so important to examine all sides of the issue before you reach a decision. It is hard to go through treatment. Even at its best, it is tiring and depressing and long. So think clearly and try to plan for as many eventualities as you can. It can make the difference between a successful outcome and something potentially very ugly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
