Aa
Aa
A
A
A
Close
Avatar universal

Dr. wants to extend tx!!!!! yikes!

2nd tx.  rvr at 4 wks this time.   Now at 41 wks.  still und.  Got a letter from my doc today that he recommends I extend tx 24 more wks past the 48!!!  Even with und at 4 wks????  he states that it is because I relapsed last time.  But last time I was und at 11 wks.  not 4.  I have had a hard time with tx, 3 blood tx.  anemia is awful.  so are the side effects from the neupogen...just to name a few.  I cannot stomach even thinking about an extra six months....what are your thoughts guys?
150 Responses
Sort by: Helpful Oldest Newest
Avatar universal
suem37: thanks - it's interesting that both your husband and jt57 seem to have paid for those rvrs with heavy anemia!

Willy50: yes I recall the approval-for-re-tx-only rumors ; looks like Vertex decided to go for across the board approval instead. Relapsers are still the group with the clearest overall benefit. It's hard to see any reason for the FDA to stall,  but even if they do I would hope they'd consider approval for sub-classes of pts. For null responders, whether a 30% shot at SVR is worth the risk of strengthening resistant mutations seems less clear cut.
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
Thanks for your comments.
===============================================
(you wrote)
"the SVR rates for the telaprevir simultaneous start arm, delayed start arm and control arm, respectively, were 83%, 88% and 24% in relapsers (p<0.0001)"
I guess the 83 vs 88 difference didn't reach stat. sig."
==============================================
I agree that 5% as it gets closer and closer to 100% is a large deal.  It is also a big deal for those who end up failing and having to wait for something better or for the resistant virii to re-convert to wild type.

We need to remember that these were done virtually without rescue drugs (I thinkone  Ph 3 one trial had a 1% usage, others NO usage).  We may be able to see improvement yet post approval when doctors may add these anemia helpers.

I used to think that the 4 week lead in would bring the SVR rate up; I'm sure that it must improve that initial response rate.  The bad news is that it may also increase the drop out rate due to anemia or rash.  Even so, the anemia can be treated.  

I'm sure that you are right; they need to have some instructions for treating.  I really don't follow the need for a past responder/relapser to have to do 48 weeks of TX when.....as a group...... they may have a higher SVR rate than the treatment naive aggregate.  That would defy logic for me.  
          If I recall there was once a time that there was discussion about whether the FDA could approve telaprevir ONLY for past tx failures (in order to get an earlier partial approval for past TX failures).  I thought that I understood (and I may have gotten it wrong) that Prove 3 had all the components needed for a registration NDA for TX failures only.  Therefore, it may follow that the success of the 12 and 12 for RVR  through 12 weeks may be sufficient guide for doctors followed by the 12 & 36 for slower responders.  

Time will tell and yes, I think that some of it has to do with marketing, but some of it has to do with defining the very best way to treat the hardest to treat.  That is probably harder than determining the no brainer 12 and 12 for much easier to treat groups.

Based on viral kinetics I would bet that they have a handle on how the 1 and 2 week responders would fare for TX times.  I don't know if anyone remembers that (was it prove 1?) there was a small group who treated triple therapy and were allowed to quit at 12 weeks; they still netted about a 40% SVR rate.  I'd venture that those viral kinetics could be used to assert various treatment times for various response rates.  These new more powerful drugs are going to make the concept of RVR *so* 2006.

Segue into the newer DDA trials..... The (preliminary) results of the Vertex TVR-VX-222 trials will be out in the first quarter.  It's unknown whether they will be released in time for EASL but particularly in the 4 drug trials there should be some insane viral declines.  I think they are going to have to start looking at a new acronym for the 1 week or 2 week clearance.  I also don't know if anyone remembers but in Prove 1 PLN was clear in something like 2 days.  It would seem that there is a need for the ability to predict SVR rates using the viral response/decline rates.

best,
Willy
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
Yes, my husband also pre dosed ribivarin 1200, for 4 weeks. other than that, everything else was the same. His Hgb was low for most of the treatment, down to 9 at times but epo didn't seem to help.
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
Trish: yes - but no all cevrs are equal. The overall average is around 70% and since for RVRs  it's well above that  for those who clear close to the dealine it's got to be quite a bit lower. Look  at the difference within the blue and yellow teams on the SVR prediction algorithm on my journal between those below the limit of quantitation (BLQ) or above. Also , in Figure 2 from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19091819
how the predictive power of the low-sensitivity test (the CAM) drops off in the w9-12 range.

Any shred of vl remaining by w12 nukes your svr odds on 48w.  The odds for an und11 aren't going to be 70%...

Some of this hits close to home. If I und by w8 and can't add a PI I'll stop at 48 - otherwise I'll hunt around for plan B.

Willy: no argument that there will be many more dials to twist and adjust after PI approval and that  response-guided tx always make more sense than a  cookie -cutter approach. However part of FDA approval is agreeing on the package insert and what it says about dosing and duration. The point from Pockros' slides, which seems reasonable, is that those usage guidelines will  be written using the available evidence - and for tela re-tx that's primarily the REALIZE data with a 12+36 protocol.  

Thanks also for that footnote. Yes, it sounds like they're keeping that for EASL . A bit strange that they couldn't put it in AASLD but maybe their marketing  needs something to keep the drum roll going. Also interesting to see the statement that
"There was no clinical benefit observed with the telaprevir delayed-start treatment arm in any of the subgroups of patients compared to the simultaneous-start arm"
whereas their Sept, 7 release states
"the SVR rates for the telaprevir simultaneous start arm, delayed start arm and control arm, respectively, were 83%, 88% and 24% in relapsers (p<0.0001)"
I guess the 83 vs 88 difference didn't reach stat. sig.
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
Eric & willing;
"Andiamo: thanks.  I looked at their press releases but have found nothing more recent than the Sept. 7 one linked above. Wonder whether the full FDA filing will become publicly accessible at some point.
=======================================
This is from Vertex in their November 26 bulletin that they applied for the NDA.  Note the last sentence;

http://investors.vrtx.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=532555

"In REALIZE, people received 48 weeks of total therapy, which included 12 weeks of telaprevir combined with pegylated-interferon and ribavirin. One of the telaprevir treatment arms was designed to evaluate, for the first time, whether viral cure rates could be further improved by starting pegylated-interferon and ribavirin alone for the first four weeks of treatment (delayed start) compared to a simultaneous start of telaprevir in combination with these medicines. There was no clinical benefit observed with the telaprevir delayed-start treatment arm in any of the subgroups of patients compared to the simultaneous-start arm. Final results from REALIZE, including safety and efficacy data, will be presented at an upcoming medical meeting.
=============================

Vertex has indicted they were very happy with the way the Phase 3 trials went; they were better in all aspects than the phase 2 trials.  We may find out by EASL.

willy
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
"cando: I see your point about not doing the same thing over and expecting different results, but I think an rvr is VERY different from a garden variety evr. In fact I suspect that had jt57 gone through with the Dr's letter she  might  have been the 1st rvr on the planet to do 72w. "

jt57 - jean - is already a rarer bird.  She was a complete eVR who relapsed.  A smaller percentage of those, around 32%.  So perhaps not your everyday RVR.

Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
Hi, I don't know the answer but I believe that the approval will bring us response guided TX, yes even for past TX failures

Here's why;
1) shortening the treatment time one one of the primary goals for a new compound.

#2 There was a level of success with Prove 3 on the shorter TX arms for RVR's;  I don't think they had a lot of difference between the 24 and 48 week TX arms in Prove 3.
==================================
http://www.hivandhepatitis.com/hep_c/news/2008/061308_c.html
"• 73% of prior relapsers achieved SVR12 with 24-week telaprevir-based treatment.

• 41% of prior non-responders achieved SVR12 with 24-week telaprevir-based regimen."
==================================

#3; Quite right about the TX times in Realize, but I'm not sure that it means that they are wed to the concept.
I think they are exploring the longer TX time for 2 reasons;
     a) They were lacking a "12 and 36" arm in Prove 3
     b)  Boceprevir had a longer TX arm that showed a very high success rate; I think Vertex decided to try it as well.  The problem....if you want to call it that, is that telaprevir worked so well that in Prove 3 if memory serves there was not a lot of difference between 24 week total and 48 week total SVR rates, at least not so much in the RVR's.  it is the slower responder that longer treatment times will probably help.

I don't claim to know the correct answer.
But a 24 week TX is one he1l of a sell for a past TX failure. I'd guess that it may be an option for RVR's.
Time will tell.

PS....I'd guess that there were exclusion factors in the trials.  Anyone who treated for ONLY 24 weeks was probably a RVR at 4 through 12 weeks.  I don't even think they are doing 12 week PCR's anymore after a RVR.  IF the didn't attain RVR they surely didn't stop at 24 weeks.

Currently there is also a mitsubishi (telaprevir) trial for past tx failures w/ a 24 week total TX time; 12 & 12.

I'm not sure you'll find it in print yet but I expect there to be 24 week potential TX  with a RVR for past TX failures.  My opinion.

I hope that this isn't too disjointed; if it is I'm posting it anyway.  : 0
Too late to be typing.

best,
Willy
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
suem37: congratulations! So another case of g1  rvr-on-retx. You wouldn't know it from this thread - but these are pretty rare events! Did your husband make other changes besides ifn2a-to-ifn2b? (eg increase rbv, reduce weight or IR?). Anyway - congrats on a great outcome.

cando: I see your point about not doing the same thing over and expecting different results, but I think an rvr is VERY different from a garden variety evr. In fact I suspect that had jt57 gone through with the Dr's letter she  might  have been the 1st rvr on the planet to do 72w.

Re tx,  I'd be lying if I didn't admit it's kicking my *** pretty hard. But hopefully I've  found a steady walking pace I can keep up. Rbv is at 1500 (18mg/Kg) and the Hgb seems to be holding in the low 11s, anc   0.9. Expecting  und by start of the year (about w8). Definitely no rvr but a good improvement over last attempt. Hope to add a PI in summer to cut relapse risk but even if that doesn't pan out,  odds seem fair.

Andiamo: thanks.  I looked at their press releases but have found nothing more recent than the Sept. 7 one linked above. Wonder whether the full FDA filing will become publicly accessible at some point.

bostoncream: Please post where you read that - it would be interesting to compare. REALIZE was vertex's phase III previously-treated trial and all arms did 48w. Study design is in the press release above and at
http://www.vrtx.com/assets/pdfs/VRTXRealizeFactsheet.pdf
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
personally ive never heard of anyone who rvrd only to relapse later  thats not saying its not possible  but its one of the best positive predictors for treatment outcome    also i read the protocol for telaprevir with previous relapsers would most likely be 12 + 24
Helpful - 0
220090 tn?1379167187
I have no additional data on SVR rates for relapsers.  Did you try the Vertex website?
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
My husband repeated the same treatment for a second time. although with Pegintron instead of Pegasys. First time clear at 12 weeks, went 48, relapsed AFTER 4 weeks EOT ( 4 weeks post treatment was negative viral load ). 2nd treatment, Dr said 48 weeks was enough ( was clear at 4 weeks ), but I wanted him to do 72. My husband settled on 58 , from the beginning and stuck to it. Was SVR at 6 months post, and coming up for 12 months post. Feels great and liver function excellent.
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
I was responding to some posts that feel a relapser should do the same exact thing over again for the same amount of time if one is RVR the second time around even though they was evr their first failed SOC.

To me doing the same thing for the same time could bring the same results, and it looks like even with the PI's they feel a relapser should tx longer.

BTW willing how is tx going for you?







Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
not sure I understood your question. Relapsers are a pretty homogenous group. Our ifn response passes the Goldilocks test - we're neither nulls nor partials nor super-responders, just stuck in the good, but not quite good enough box. Tx naives on the other hand are all over the map. It makes sense that the  PI protocol for relapsers (with acceptable but not great ifn response) would be 12+36 whereas for naives (many of whom will be super-responders) 12+12 will work fine among those who rvr. But maybe I completely misunderstood your point ...

Sorry to hear fatigue is still an issue BTW.  It sure is one of the sides I was hoping to leave behind.
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
yes - thanks! I glanced at it at the time and then lost it. Very interesting stuff - looks like the final chapter of the occult/persistent vl saga. Basically both sides were right - yes there is post tx vl and yes it eventually fades.
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
One thing i'm confused about here is it seems  that relapsers will extend tx to 48 weeks when the new pi's come out even with an RVR, (12+36 instead of 12+12) at least thats how they seem to being heading with the trials. So why not with just SOC.? Maybe i'm missing something here but it seems that relapse trumps RVR.
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
Was this it?

Sporadic Reappearance of Minute Amounts of HCV RNA after Successful Therapy Stimulates Cellular Immune Responses.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21040725
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
jt57: congratulations on a very successful if difficult tx, W11 und was already respectable but pushing that back to w4 is really amazing! What strategy did you use to reduce ferritin and what was the change in your rbv mg/kg ? It never ceases to amaze me how one can make such dramatic changes in ifn-responsiveness by tweaking the right dials.

Andiamo/Trin: do you know whether vertx has released anything on REALIZE more recent than their Sept 7. press release? Agreed the numbers for relapsers look very good. Per Pockros' AASLD slides (which will likely become  defacto AASLD usage guidelines after getting cleaned up) on-label PI use will probably follow the trial protocols, so for relapsers 12+36 (and similarly for boce). An interesting detail is that the lead-in arm eked out a better (88%) response than the simultaneous start (83%).
http://investors.vrtx.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=505239
I've been placing my bets on the assumption that if a 4w lead in helps, 24w can't hurt. But in any event starting a month before 1st PI seems a good idea.

all: how history repeat repeats itself!. That Shiffman'96 study was obsolete in '08 and has gotten a couple of years mustier in the interim. There may be good reasons to gradually reduce ifn dosage - but that study  does little more than confirm that in '96 they didn't yet know you can't treat G1s with 24w.  Tapering only makes sense if you believe there is a sizeable population of infected cells at eot - and whether the native immune response can control them determines whether relapse occurs. Mikesimon posted a very interesting recent paper about a month ago that provides uptodate evidence for gradual phasing out of the virus post-EOT, Unfortunately I've lost it and am too frazzled to dig it up at the moment - Anyone have the link?
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
In that case you might want to also monitor 3/4 of the posts on the other existing threads.

Trinity
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
Public domain once you post it on MH Bali!
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
"yes you would wonder"  

hahahaha
Helpful - 0
179856 tn?1333547362
Yes you could buy it with a prescription - although at the cost of $20,00 for 48 weeks who'd want to unless you HAD to?  I dont ever want to have to buy it again even with insurance that is for sure. Evil stuff LOL.
Helpful - 0
1117750 tn?1307386569
bali said you could , thats why i asked , but can youi buy it if the doctor gives you a perscription? maybe thats what he meant
Helpful - 0
179856 tn?1333547362
LOL boy James you really think we live in the land of opportunity here dont you ;)  Us Americans out running around looking for cheap interferon LOL I agree with Trin if I have to go looking it aint interferon or riba I'll be looking for ;)
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
You mean like on the streets?  Oh hell no, but I suppose there's a black market for everything if you know where to look.  If I'm going to hit the streets for drugs it's not going to be interferon I'm looking for. :)
Helpful - 0
Have an Answer?

You are reading content posted in the Hepatitis C Community

Top Hepatitis Answerers
317787 tn?1473358451
DC
683231 tn?1467323017
Auburn, WA
Learn About Top Answerers
Didn't find the answer you were looking for?
Ask a question
Answer a few simple questions about your Hep C treatment journey.

Those who qualify may receive up to $100 for their time.
Explore More In Our Hep C Learning Center
image description
Learn about this treatable virus.
image description
Getting tested for this viral infection.
image description
3 key steps to getting on treatment.
image description
4 steps to getting on therapy.
image description
What you need to know about Hep C drugs.
image description
How the drugs might affect you.
image description
These tips may up your chances of a cure.
Popular Resources
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.