Hello, welcome to the forum, while I have not taken this combination I believe there are others who are on it and have done well. I hope someone comes on soon to help you. You can also do a search. There is a block right next to post a questions where you can search. I will try as well and if I find something will send it to you Dee
The 12-week was cancelled. I was told by a nurse (and a letter from Gilead) that it was in part because of objections from the FDA. All 12-week ION-2 study members w/o RIBA were moved over to the 24-week w/o RIBA group.
NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT! The current treatment is Ribavirin and Interferon A... for genotype 1 and then there is Incevik and another new cure (name, can't remember) that is added for 12 wks. along with the Ribavirin and Interferon-A. I've had 3 treatments, one with the Incevik 'cure' & and will soon test 1 yr. later to see if I'm still without the virus. Treatment was incredibly debilitating.
I don't quite understand it and afraid to try to explain it but I *may* (and maybe not) be able to get an explanation, or maybe it will become more clear.
I was kind of....inferring .....that the trial was extended to be on the safe side...... but due to trial results (from a different trial, ION1?) that they changed their minds, the average response (response or cure rate? I dunno) was over 75%, they had that data, so anyone who had not treated 12 weeks could stop at 12 weeks, but if they had treated beyond and we into the 24 week would sty the course. Gilead wants data in 12 or 24 week bundles; not 14 week and 16 and a half weeks. Make sense? The data will be more clear if it is 12 or 24 weeks.
My guess is that they were erring to be on the safe side (in extending), but when the data came in it looked like those in the 12 week arm w/ no riba had a good enough result that they hit a pre-defined stopping point/success point of over 75%. (I am inferring this meant SVR 4, not mere response)
Since ION 1 started in call it Nov 1 that would give 12 weeks and 4 weeks for a SVR 4. Data probably just came in. Not enough time for a SVR12.
This is just my guess, NOT my assertion of what is going on.
I had heard that the first 200 patients in ION-1 were cirrhotics; so I was wondering that without riba, the 7977/5885 combination may not work for these patients - hence why this combination was withdrawn from from ION-2. The question is whether the 7977/5885 without riba for 12 weeks wil work in naive non-cirrhotic patients!
I have to disagree on a few points. You *could* be right, but I doubt it.
ION 1 was open to naives only. Cirrhotics were not excluded but the trial could only include 20% cirrhotics in the entire trial. I'm not a math guy but 200 trial participants in a 800 total trial would seem to me to be about 25%.
I also have to wonder.......just who exactly would know that all 200 people were cirrhotic? No trial participant..... no doctor would know unless they all are furiously comparing information which is supposed to be blinded.
I think I doubt your source,
I'm not trying to be rough on you but I don't think it is a good tor accurate theory.
It would also seem to me that IF all these people were cirrhotic and that 12 weeks w/o riba wouldn't work...... if the evidence supported that (which I doubt, but supposing...), then I would think that they would want to try to extend the period of treatment to 24 weeks. What does one learn by under treating patients that you know will relapse? I would think if they knew they would relapse w/ only 12 weeks they would extend them and see if 24 weeks *would* work.
....but from what I understand they did not extend and they did assert a 75% success rate was hit.
For me the event suggests a level of success not failure. Furthermore, it is possible you are basing your theory on facts that really are not yet known and just could be "false facts".
This could change soon. EASL is this weekend and some data could very well be released. Until then I remain hopeful.
If I were to guess, not all groups may be treated w/o riba in 12 weeks but I think it is possible that some will.
The thing I don't quite grasp is asserting a response curve from TX naives to guide the treatment of past TX failures, which I believe will tend to be a sicker, harder to treat group. The only way I would consider it would be if the 12 week without riba was very successful in naives.
I really don't know, wish I did. I think many people are wondering.
Hi - thanks for the comments - i just re-read my post and also disagree with myself :)
I have searched for data on 7977/5885 without RBV and cant find any - there is data with RBV - so my suspicions were aroused, because if this combination worked without RBV, then why aren't we being told.
One pill once a day - no RBV or IFN - that would be something!
I do not have a copy of it. They just showed it to me at the appointment. And to be honest, I didn't even really read it. The PA just summarized it for me and showed me highlights, so it's possible that she misinterpreted it.
Wait, are you on 12 week w/o riba? You would be the only one I know of. They specifically said they transitioned all the 12 week w/o riba to 24 week at my site.
OK, yes purplecat...that's what my study nurse said this morning, almost word for word. It was a replacement study nurse that told me the opposite thing while the regular one was on vacation. Honestly, I didn't pay too much attention to it, since I was on the 12-week with RIBA (just finished today.)
As far as my status....I keep floating back and forth between <25 and und. Unfortunately, I think I'm liable to relapse, but we'll have to wait for the 12-week post treatment test to be sure.
This site complies with the HONcode standard for trustworthy health information.
The Content on this Site is presented in a summary fashion, and is intended to be used for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended to be and should not be interpreted as medical advice or a diagnosis of any health or fitness problem, condition or disease; or a recommendation for a specific test, doctor, care provider, procedure, treatment plan, product, or course of action. Med Help International, Inc. is not a medical or healthcare provider and your use of this Site does not create a doctor / patient relationship. We disclaim all responsibility for the professional qualifications and licensing of, and services provided by, any physician or other health providers posting on or otherwise referred to on this Site and/or any Third Party Site. Never disregard the medical advice of your physician or health professional, or delay in seeking such advice, because of something you read on this Site. We offer this Site AS IS and without any warranties. By using this Site you agree to the following Terms and Conditions. If you think you may have a medical emergency, call your physician or 911 immediately.