Preliminary Information: DAAs

[spitzbar]

...these articles' links should have been posted late last week but the assumption was that someone here would post them...we see that the links haven't been posted so here they are...please be reminded that the information contained therein is preliminary and largely a matter of conjecture until...; however,.........

...to be forewarned is to be forearmed:


1)    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/24/health/hepatitis-c-antiviral-drug-study.html


2)   http://www.drug-injury.com/druginjurycom/2017/01/sovaldi-hepatic-failure-harvoni-liver-injury-drug-safety-issues-side-effects-reports-ismp-fda-faers-database-review.html

[spitzbar]

...because these are relatively new drugs lawyers will be chasing them for $$$$...but they will be hard pressed to come to litigation and proved a direct one-to-one connection/correlation...the important thing here for DAA patients is to separate the chaff from the wheat

[Gaj]

Here is an excerpt from what appears to be a fairly balanced response to that report.

Douglas Dieterich, MD, director of the Institute for Liver Medicine at the Mount Sinai Health System in New York City......He pointed out that the 165 deaths among 250,000 patients comes to a rate of .00066. Even if the drugs caused the liver failure — and this report doesn't prove that — the rate "is likely much lower than that of the liver disease itself," he said. "We don't know how many of these patients were cirrhotics but even healthy cirrhotics have a 10% per year mortality rate. For decompensated, it's more like 30%."

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/875010?src=wnl_edit_tpal&uac=250627FN

[Mugwump]

The specifics of how the individuals died is woefully inadequate to say the least. We are forgetting here that people who were on deaths door are being treated as long as there are no signs of kidney failure and this is for a very good reason. Just perhaps these individuals would have gone into liver failure very soon and the DAA simply triggered the process. 

I was warned that treating at f4 is at best a crap shoot and that liver failure could still occur because essentially one can have very little viable liver left at f4. Some people go on with less than an centimeter of viable liver tissue thickness at f4 and can live for a very long time with only mild hepatic encephalopathy and very little symptoms. Others quickly develop ascites or bleeds and don't live as long. I can well understand how the renal changes caused by Harvoni and other DAAs could be the last straw for some.

As you have stated the lawyers are lining up like a bunch of vultures drooling and chomping at the bit to get a piece of the action and the biggest target on the block is obviously gilead.

Just maybe the financial people at gilead saw all this coming and is a big part of the reason why the drugs cost an arm and a leg in the first place not to mention the corporate greed that seems to be rampant in the pharmaceutical industry in general.

[Lynn K]

Yes the article titles are somewhat alarmist and not really related to the complete facts. Intended to grab the readers attention aka click bait. But a more through reading of the actual reports will as mugwump said show that those who died were already likely fairly advance in their liver disease.

[spitzbar]

...this one opines and refutes:

http://www.mdmag.com/medical-news/liver-specialist-refutes-study-claiming-hepatitis-c-drug-dangers

[spitzbar]

..following up earlier related information
...this newer information might already have been posted here somewhere
....our apologies

http://www.consultant360.com/story/sustained-response-direct-acting-hcv-antivirals-tied-lower-hcc-risk

[CureSeeker]

Ya know, I have been wondering what the catalyst for all this sudden scrutiny is.  I remember when HIV was first discovered, and the communities that were fighting that virus the hardest were demanding new drugs as fast as they could get them.  HIV changed the face of the whole research and development process - and, I believe rightly so.  They were dying too fast for anyone with a good conscience to hold back allowing them access to something that might help. 

What began as a veritable death sentence, has now progressed to be something that has left victims of HIV/AIDS living productive and fulfilling lives, even if they eventually do die from complications associated with HIV.  I'm sure the road that lead to that accomplishment has a fair share of potholes, and some hopeful people died along the way.  Is anyone trying to block that road that continues to seek a cure for them?  Not that I've heard about, tbh.

Why would HCV be so different then?  What is it about HCV that has caused so much drama recently and at a time when cure rates have never been better?  HCV is close to the end of its journey, and I'm not sure money is a valid reason to prevent people from seeking whatever cures they can find.

What is wrong with the World, when the ability to eradicate a disease is present on the horizon, and entities are going out of their way to cover the truth of it in some way.

Although blood & blood products are said to be clean today, there is still a 0.07% chance that some of it can still carry a pathogen due to the mutation process of some pathogens.  Knowing this, would anyone in need of a transfusion be prevented from getting one?  Ridiculous!

Money carries a lot of weight in our global world, no doubt.  But, it needs to be put into perspective, because if some natural disaster destroyed society as we currently enjoy it, the value of money would be little more than as a piece of toilet tissue.

What is a life worth?  Isnt life priceless?

Even for those with one foot in the grave upon starting treatment, even if they are not cured - the 'cure' is enough for them to last long enough to benefit from transplantation, provided a donor becomes available. 

If someone wants to change something about our process of being cured - like lower the price of the drug - there is a much better way to go about it than putting innocent lives at risk.  Too many of us have been cured to believe this BS anyway.  Get your government involved.  Shame it if you have to.

But, in all fairness, even though the base price of the drug(s) may be very high on paper - the manufacturers, themselves, are doing a lot to make it affordable - discounts, copay cards, etc.  I can think of countless numbers of people, who received their treatment totally free of charge, including myself. 

What goes on here?  What would be the benefit of preventing people from being cured of HCV?  What would be the benefit of watching the virus mutate and continue to infect?   It feels like I'm watching Medicine fight against itself, and I'd really like to know why.