The article is already off to a bad start, assuming the existing therapy they're talking about is Pegetron:
> The interferon-based treatments weren't successful half the time, and the side effects were so debilitating few patients could endure the months-long punishing protocol.
If the success rate is 50%, I would say that's pretty good, especially since we're talking about treatment, not just managing the disease (as we can only do nowadays with HIV). And from the product monograph: "The most frequently reported adverse reactions were mostly mild to moderate in severity and were manageable without the need for modification of doses or discontinuation of therapy. "
But no doubt, the pre-existing therapy sure has a pile of side-effects.
> "The most frequently reported adverse reactions were mostly mild to moderate in severity and were manageable without the need for modification of doses or discontinuation of therapy."
Having gone through two interferon treatments for HCV, one with the most current regimen of pegalated interferon and ribavirin, I can personally attest to this description being ridiculously inaccurate. The OP may exaggerate some, but the contrast with Harvoni is stark.
Headaches, flu-like symptoms, anemia, lethargy, and chemical depression, not to mention high stress on the liver you're ultimately trying to cure, are just some of the lovely side effects of interferon-based treatment, which could last up to 72 weeks. Many people dropped out, many weren't cured. Success rates depended on viral genotype; certainly for some people it was well below 50%. And don't forget the two forms of birth control, since ribavirin basically guarantees birth defects (as if you'd be in the mood).
Harvoni may be expensive, but it and the drugs related to it are unbelievably effective in doing something many thought impossible 10 years ago: curing HCV.
I cleared the virus on the clincal trials with no side effects. Unfortunately, it wasn't soon enough to spare me from a liver transplant. Hopefully the new drugs will reach enough people in time to let them avoid severe liver disease. There aren't enough donor livers to cure, and liver failure is a uniquely crappy way to die.
I know someone who took interferon for Hep C. It permanently damaged the nerves in his extremities to the point where he can barely walk and is in constant pain. It changed his personality, and not in a good way.
There are some reports of side effects of varying degree, but in general Harvoni's side effects are extremely mild.
When I did the trial, my physician indicated that in previous trials, patients couldn't reliably distinguish Harvoni from a placebo. My experience aligns with this statement.
While I was on a 24 week trial (longer than most people today) with ribavirin (which is only used with a minority of patients today), I experienced nothing I could directly attribute to the medication. My viral load dropped to undetectable in six weeks, and has remained so since.
The only place I saw them list side effects was when an article for a newer drug argued for it's use. It was the one for those who'd previously tried interferon.They said it had no sides as opposed to Harvonihttp://www.fiercepharma.com/regulatory/updated-zepatier-beat...
> The interferon-based treatments weren't successful half the time, and the side effects were so debilitating few patients could endure the months-long punishing protocol.
If the success rate is 50%, I would say that's pretty good, especially since we're talking about treatment, not just managing the disease (as we can only do nowadays with HIV). And from the product monograph: "The most frequently reported adverse reactions were mostly mild to moderate in severity and were manageable without the need for modification of doses or discontinuation of therapy. "
But no doubt, the pre-existing therapy sure has a pile of side-effects.