Being Canadian Dr.s and Hospital visits are covered by provincial health insurance. Pharmaceuticals are not.

at that point an option would be to wait but stands to reason an insurance co would want to cure a virus so the patient can get on with their life

My take on insurance...
It is a business and they could really give a rats ass about anything except making money. Whatever the cheapest option will be is what they will try to push. That goes for health, auto, home whatever.
You better be ready to fight.

the cheapest way may just be these two drugs as a combo, so there is no expensive relapse, but that is wishful thinking

I am quite certain insurance co's will NOT pay for off label hcv tx's.

I've posted this before but they spend more money on advertising and fighting claims for approved tx's than they do on covering health benefits....

Yup, nothing wrong with healthcare in this great land of ours...

Yepper, hepper, I do believe ranger and kat are correct. Insurance companies CARING about US? Ha. Not. All about $$$$$$$$$. Same with Big Pharma - trial sponsors.

For me, long-term effects don't matter - I'm 66 - that's not "old" really, but ... I'm not so young either. I'll take my chances. I live too far from any and all trials, so I'm hoping these drugs are out on the free market (that isn't free) soon.

I never thought you did say that either HC...

You must've misread what I wrote in my previous post.

All I was saying is that BMS is busy developing Ifn & Riba free combo's with other companies instead of Gilead and I gave brief descriptions of some of the obvious as well as not so obvious collaborations currently in various phase clinical trials...

I also explained the even though Daclatasvir wasn't yet submitted to the FDA for an NDA, because they had already completed multiple trials with many patients to accumulate enough research data from the earlier trials, BMS was awarded "Breakthrough" status which basically "leap frog" them from their previous position in the race to a newer position in front of the other companies that were previously ahead of BMS...

This meant that they were gaining tremendous ground to be closer to submitting the NDA way before what they and others presumed they were @ beforehand - that's all! ;>)

I hope this clarifies any confusion that might have been generated in my previous post in this thread. ;>) ;>) ;>)

Respectfully, (For the most part! ;>) )
HVC which are my real initials! ;:>p~

@Hi Hank, yes I understand that Daclatasvir is a good upcoming drug. However, my understanding is also that Daclatasvir, an NS5A inhibitor, must be taken in conjunction with another HCV med, usually an NS5B inhibitor.

Do you have any data that Daclatasvir with the Vertex drug or Asunespvir (or any other drug they're teaming with) is 100% effective (as it was with Sofosbuvir)? I haven't seen data that demonstrate these other combos achieve 100% SVR (even the Gilead Sofosbuvir + Ledipasvir combo). So unless these drug combos produce 100% SVR, they're still not what coulda, woulda been if the Gilead/BMS collaboration had continued.

In that regard, we are all losers. Even the 95% SVR touted by the Gilead and Abbvie trials are not producing the 100% SVR that the Sofosbuvi/Daclatasvir combo achieved. Too bad for all of us, especially the 5% who don't make SVR that coulda.

Thanks again,
HC

very disturbing indeed, may the best drug co win

I agree hepcme! ;>)

Very disturbing indeed!

HC, Who said anything about comparing the other drugs with Sofosbuvir & Daclatasvir??? I know didn't! Besides, that's a totally different discussion... I mean GMAFB! JWTFAYTA???

The 100% SVR is what was found in small populations, during the clinical trials and you know as well as I do that nothing that is finally marketed & sold is ever going to be 100% effective...

Otherwise, the pharma co's would guarantee their products to be 100% effective... I have yet to come across any type of medicine for whatever treatment or illness that has their producer of a prescription drug guarantee that their product as being 100% effective in writing!! None whatsoever!

So let's keep it real when it comes to the numbers found of SVR's during the clinical trials, and the differences of what has previously happened once the drug has been marketed and put to use on a much larger scale... Because the same pattern of falling short of their expectations based on the numbers found in the clinical trials will happen with these newer drugs! That's just a fact of reality!

I'll give you an example: When Telaprevir & Boceprevir were initially tested, their percentage rates for achieving SVR were much higher in the clinical trials than what they were getting shortly after those drugs were marketed and sold...

And the same thing happened with Pegylated Ifn, and the combo of both PIfn & Ribavirin... Their numbers for SVR were not the same as what they were showing during the clinical trials either!

The same pattern of falling short will also happen after these newer drugs are widely marketed and sold because it always does and the same thing happens with the long & short term adverse reactions also!

I mean, let's be realistic! And once again, who said anything about comparing the Gilead/BMS combo with any of the other drugs that I listed in a previous post???

And to answer your question regarding those numbers from vertex and/or any of the other potential products... My answer is simple... I wasn't comparing any of the drugs in the first place which means that I do not need to give you anything to back up because I didn't claim anything like what you're implying HC!!!

If you want those numbers, then go look them up yourself!
So go back and re-read all of my posts just in case you only skimmed through them previously because currently, you're misinterpreting what I wrote in my posts within this thread!

HVC

uhmmmm, the thread is called "rescue therapy" because Sofosbuvir/Daclatasvir was the 100% effective combo, even in the small trials. No one else can claim that. I've seen 95% in other trials but only 100% with this particular trial.

Sorry, i'm not trying to do anything but just read the data and draw conclusions.

This conversation is not meant to be a personal affront and I'm sorry you thought it was so.

HC

I guess there's "that's all" and then there's "that's all".
Well this discussion has generated a lot of key strokes.

i think a year from now this hepc world will be a much different place. same as it has changed so drastically from a year ago

rather i say, much more of a change than from a year ago

You don't offend me @ all HC!

I'm just trying to help you understand what I write better. ;>)

Small trials are simply just that small! Once you increase the numbers like when the drugs are finally marketed & widely used, it's simple mathematics to notice that the percentage numbers will fall...

That's why I don't put much weight to the numbers that come out of clinical trials no matter what size because I know beforehand that the tolerances will always be minus 5 - 10% difference...

And if you study the trials of previously released drugs, you'll notice the differences in the SVR percentages shown between what was generated from the trials and what is generated from actual use after approval & experiences of SVR within the general public...

The numbers always change afterwards because it's a logical conclusion .

HVC