That's great news... I wish they would announce when it is finally going to be on the market. ????? It's like having someone dangle a delicious piece of chocolate cake in front of your mouth.... but you can't reach it.
"Neil Graham, the Adelaide-trained doctor who is leading the hepatitis C program for telaprevir's maker, Boston-based drug company Vertex, said that if subsequent trials went well, an application to register the drug could be lodged with US regulators in 2011.
The 68% is very good news and goes along with what the nurse at UCD told me about how things have been going with their study trials. She told me when I went there to join a trial that their overall percentage rate was close to 70% with the persons who completed and reached SVR. I'm barrelling down the road to that "whiter shade of pale", as well. I was told that I would receive the consent form around mid- May. Here's to hoping that all goes well and we all have minimum sx. God Bless
no, 68% is not good. The patients were native to therapy, no relapsers or nonresponders. Handselected patients. In addition, the 32% who failed SVR might have resistent clones now against the complete class of proteaseinhibitors and have lost this option for ever, even when there are second generation PIs available.
If one has enough time, it might be better to wait for quadrupel therapy (eg with Telaprevir and R1626) to avoid resistent clones.
Thank you for the information. :-)
Drofi: no, 68% is not good. The patients were native to therapy, no relapsers or nonresponders.
The study compared treatment naive to treatment naive. 68% SVR compared to 48% SVR but perhaps more important IN HALF THE TIME. 24 weeks for Telaprevir as compared to 48 weeks of SOC. That's half the exposure to interferon. What's more, the Telaprevir group had an 18% drop out rate compared to 4% SOC. That could be read two ways -- but one way is that the 68% SVR figure could be a lot higher if they are able to come up with effecive solutions to combat the rash and/or shorten Telaprevir exposure in the future to perhaps even eliminate the rash. I'd say these results are "radically improved" over SOC, using the words of the Australian paper. As to the potential of losing the option to treat with PIs forever, I haven't seen anything published to suggest that this risk outweighs the benefits.
I agree that anyone who can afford to wait for potentially even better treatments -- perhaps one day without interferon -- should. However, if I made a decision to treat -- either because of advanced stage or other reasons -- personally I would not hesitate to choose PI triple therapy over SOC.