How do we put pressure on Gilead/Bristol??

[UKgirl55]

That's my question because this just makes me sick!

http://hepatitiscresearchandnewsupdates.blogspot.com/2012/04/gilead-bristol-put-profits-ahead-of.html

[mdudley]

I just signed it!!!!  Yay!  Let's let the world know that there is a CURE and we want it, and we want it NOW!!!

[Bill200]

They said they wanted to wait a few more months to see if their own compounds worked as effectively as the combo with BMS compounds.  The article was kind of slanted.  Of course if they can come up with their own 100% cure rate why should they collaborate with BMS?  

I guarantee you I want a cure as much as anybody on this board but I'm not gonna begrudge them yet, if more time passes perhaps another story then.

If you want something to complain about how about how long it takes drugs to get to normal people not in trials?  I think it should be more up to the doctor and patient whether to prescribe early or not.  Especially critical cases where time is of the essence and after it reaches a certain phase (II or III) with results.  The FDA is the main problem in my opinion.

[Willy50]

Consider this quote;
http://investors.vrtx.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=665491

""More than 30,000 patients have been treated with INCIVEK in the United States and Canada in less than a year, making it the most prescribed direct-acting antiviral for chronic hepatitis C," said Christopher Wright, M.D., Ph.D., Vertex's Senior Vice President..."
-----------------------------------------------------------------

But Gilead wants to sit and wait to see results?  They have no plans made at the moment, no agreement at the moment.  If they were in a hurry to earn they could be in an even better position than Vertex is now.  

======================
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11503957/1/grading-hep-c-stocks-exiting-easl-confab.html

"Results from the ELECTRON AND QUANTUM studies of GS-7977 were important but not the star of EASL. What got everyone really excited were data from the mid-stage study combining GS-7977 with Bristol-Myer Squibb's(BMY_) NS5A replication complex inhibitor daclatasvir. Among the patients with genotype 1 hepatitis C, GS-7977 plus daclatasvir resulted in an SVR4 rate of 100%.  Yes, the combination therapy cured all treated patients."
============================

They have a winner and they are going to hold their compound and develop from within.  That means a delay in approval I believe.  I also believe that it is not yet known how effective the new GS compound is, or how safe.  (it could be more or less that the BMS compound).  Several compounds have been found unsafe in the last 6 months and it could happen again with any drug or combination of drugs.

Since these things don't happen in a vacuum, a non-partnership could spawn other non-Gilead collaborations.  The first pairing of 2 or 3 DDA's may bring a lot of revenue upon approval

willy

[rivll]

By Nathan Sadeghi-Nejad 04/23/12 - 06:00 AM EDT
Let me make one general observation about the future of hepatitis C treatment before I recap and grade each of the companies with a significant presence at the EASL meeting. Interferon -- the injectable immune system booster saddled with troublesome side effects -- is dead. The future of hepatitis C therapy belongs to interferon-free regimens. Physicians at the conference talked about interferon as if it were invented in medieval times.
An impressive 88% of treatment-naive patients in ELECTRON achieved sustained virologic response four weeks after stopping treatment (an early indication of "cure" known as SVR4) with 12 weeks of GS-7977 and ribavirin (RBV), a companion drug used in hepatitis C. Expectations leading into EASL were for an SVR4 of 70%.

Results from the ELECTRON AND QUANTUM studies of GS-7977 were important but not the star of EASL. What got everyone really excited were data from the mid-stage study combining GS-7977 with Bristol-Myer Squibb's(BMY_) NS5A replication complex inhibitor daclatasvir. Among the patients with genotype 1 hepatitis C, GS-7977 plus daclatasvir resulted in an SVR4 rate of 100%. Yes, the combination therapy cured all treated patients. These data literally elicited high fives from several of the generally reserved hedge fund analysts in attendance. It's hard to argue with an SVR4 of 100%, but longer-term follow-up data are needed to confirm these results. Physicians traditionally use SVR12 (12 weeks) or SVR24 (24 weeks) as a final indication of cure, although recent data show a strong correlation between SVR4 and later follow up assessments.
As if that weren't enough excitement, Gilead also generated some drama at the meeting -- and elicited a "patients-not-profits" rebuke from my colleague Adam Feuerstein -- when word got out that the company had refused an offer from Bristol-Myers to collaborate on further development of GS-7977 and daclatasvir.

[rivll]

I hacked up this poor article to make it fit-please go to the original. Same link as the article by Adam Fuerstin.
The bottom line is that Gilead is still saying it has not refused to partner with BM-if that is true, a Facebook campaign may change it's mind. They will always be profit first, but their image means something to them. Maybe...

[UKgirl55]

I was asked by this forum to respond and recognize which reply was the best answer to my original post. There are so many good answers and I want to thank everyone for responding. I continue to hope people will still post their views because we're not finished by a long shot!

I chose Willy50's comment posted on April 20th. In response to the possibility of Gilead not partnering with BMS for the cure;
His last sentence of, "How many lives lost, how many dollars earned?" said it all for me.