Tag Archives: Janssen

Three HCV Drugs Quietly Pulled From Market

HEAL Blog is the recipient of the ADAP Advocacy Association’s 2015-2016 ADAP Social Media Campaign of the Year Award
By: Marcus J. Hopkins, Blogger

Johnson & Johnson’s hepatitis C virus (HCV) drug Olysio (simeprevir) reached blockbuster status during the second quarter, clocking about $1.2 billion in sales for the first six months of the year (Sheridan, 2014). 

This article from 2014, ominously entitled, “In evolving HCV market, Johnson & Johnson’s Olysio is a blockbuster, for the moment,” a staff writer for BioWorld – a site that provides “actionable intelligence on the most innovative drug development science…” – essentially foretold Olysio’s doom.

The groundbreaking drug first approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2013 was meant to serve as a companion drug to Gilead’s Sovaldi (sofosbuvir) for the treatment of HCV, Olysio was quickly became the odd man out, in terms of treatment regimens. With a Wholesale Acquisition Cost (WAC) of $66,360 for twelve weeks of treatment, Olysio’s use in combination with Sovaldi (WAC – $84,000) had patients and payors looking at a combined cost of $150,360 to cure HCV in 12 twelve weeks. Unsurprisingly, payors balked at this price point, and instead recommended Sovaldi in combination with the much cheaper ribavirin, with a WAC of between $550-$850 for twelve weeks of treatment. It may not have been as easily tolerated as Olysio, but damn it – it was exponentially cheaper.

Olysio

Photo Source: stoprod.se

By the end of 2014, Gilead had gone the extra step to push Olysio into obsolescence by releasing their breakthrough combination therapy, Harvoni (ledipasvir-sofosbuvir) at a WAC of $94,500. This single-pill regimen could be used in most patients without a ribavirin booster, and proved much easier to swallow, despite the high price point.

And then, came Viekira Pak…

And then, came Daklinza…

And then, came Technivie, Zepatier, Epclusa, Viekira XR, Vosevi, and Mavyret…

In just a few years, Janssen might as well have not even entered into the HCV market. In 2017, the company announced that it was exiting the market. And then, in May of this year (2018), Janssen pulled the plug on Olysio, altogether. Effective May 25th, 2018, Olysio became unavailable in all markets. Janssen reasoned that the availability of [cheaper] pangenotpyic drugs to treat and cure HCV had made Olysio’s presence on the market untenable.

Then, in June 2018, AbbVie – makers of Viekira Pak, Technivie, Viekira XR, and Mavyret – quietly pulled the plugs on both Technivie and Viekira XR. Neither of these drugs really got off the ground and were essentially rendered obsolete within a year or two by Mavyret, which is far cheaper and a better product. Both of these drugs will become unavailable on January 01, 2019.

These won’t be the last casualties of the HCV, either. Some Medicaid programs are playing an interesting game, at the moment, when it comes to contracted drugs for treatment. Hawaii’s Medicaid program, Med-QUEST, operates using five different Managed Care Organizations (MCOs) – AlohaCare, HMSA, Kaiser Permanente, ‘Ohana Health Plan, and United Healthcare Community Plan. AlohoCare, from June to August pared their Preferred Drug coverage for HCV treatment to only Harvoni, Zepatier, and Epclusa – a strange move considering all three drugs are more expensive than AbbVie’s Mavyret.

I say “strange,” because nearly every other Medicaid program in the U.S. has shifted to Mavyret as their preferred drug, with Epclusa and Zepatier straggling along behind. In fact, the other four MCOs that service Med-QUEST have all reduced their coverage to include only Mavyret. AlohaCare is unique amongst the other MCOs in that it is a non-profit organization wholly local to Hawaii, whereas the other MCOs are backed by large national insurers – BlueCross/BlueShield, Kaiser Permanente, WellCare, and United Healthcare. That a local non-profit would reduce its coverage of HCV to exclude the cheapest drug on the market is, again, strange.

While I cannot definitively say that there’s anything nefarious afoot, my guess is that Gilead has cut a deal with AlohaCare to offer Harvoni and Epclusa at much lower prices than Mavyret. How low? Well, we aren’t legally allowed to see those prices, because of existing trade secrets laws.

I anticipate that Daklinza will be the next drug on the chopping block, but that’s just speculation.

References:

__________

Disclaimer: HEAL Blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of the Community Access National Network (CANN), but rather they provide a neutral platform whereby the author serves to promote open, honest discussion about Hepatitis-related issues and updates. Please note that the content of some of the HEAL Blogs might be graphic due to the nature of the issues being addressed in it.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Absolute Denial of HCV DAA Treatment Not Only Common, But Rising

HEAL Blog is the recipient of the ADAP Advocacy Association’s 2015-2016 ADAP Social Media Campaign of the Year Award
By: Marcus J. Hopkins, Blogger

The high cost of curing Hepatitis C (HCV) with newer Direct-Acting Antiviral (DAA) drugs has been the fodder of many an article since their introduction into the commercial market in 2013 with Sovaldi (Gilead) and Olysio (Janssen). When Harvoni (Gilead) entered the market in 2014, its Wholesale Acquisition Cost (WAC) of $94,500 for 12 weeks of treatment, it was dubbed “The $1,000-a-Day Pill” by the media and a Congressional investigation was launched in the U.S. State Medicaid programs insisted that treating everyone with HCV on their rolls would not only obliterate their pharmacy budgets, but do so exponentially.

Gilead Sciences tried to do their part by offering a manufacturer Patient Assistance Program (PAP) that offered drastically reduced or free fills on these prescriptions if patients were denied coverage by Medicaid, Medicare, or their private insurer. That program was quickly inundated by patients whose payors instructed them to “…go and get it for free from Gilead.” By 2015, Gilead was forced to restrict the PAP to only the uninsured and those whose insurance denied coverage.

Now, new research published in Open Forum Infectious Diseases has found that, between 2014-2017, 52.4% patients with private insurance who were prescribed DAAs to treat their HCV infection were absolutely denied treatment (defined as “a lack of fill approval by the insurer”). In addition 34.5% of patients on Medicaid were denied, and a paltry 14.7% of patients with Medicare insurance were denied (Gowda, et al, 2018). These findings are compounded by similar research conducted regarding HCV treatment in correctional settings that found less than 1% of inmates infected with HCV in state correctional facilities were receiving treatment (Paukstis, 2018).

denied square red grunge stamp

Photo Source: emdlaw.com

This appalling record of absolute denials of treatment are a large part of why the U.S. has fallen behind comparable nations in achieving the elimination goals set forth by the World Health Organization in 2016, calling for the elimination of HCV as a public health crisis by the year 2030. Worse, these denials have come as the cost of treatment has dropped dramatically, from its high point with Harvoni, to its lowest point with AbbVie’s Mavyret, which has a WAC of $26,400 for 8 weeks of treatment ($39,600 for 12 weeks). Moreover, Mavyret sports comparable Sustained Virologic Response (SVR – “cure”) rates to Sovaldi, Harvoni, and Epclusa (Gilead). Worse still is that the WAC is largely a useless price point, as the vast majority of payors enter into pricing negotiations with the drug manufacturers and receive discounts and rebates that reduce that cost to a mere percentage of the WAC.

And, yet…

America’s healthcare problems are all solvable…in we are willing to go on the offensive against the corporate interests that we’ve allowed to run roughshod over our nation’s healthcare system since the late 1970s. We have allowed private insurers, drug manufacturers, and other private entities to turn healthcare away from being a profession designed to cure people – a system that we, as a nation, helped to flourish and turned into the best in the world in the mid-1900s – and into a for-profit industry whose main priorities revolve around further enriching the already rich.

We can combat diseases like HCV; hell, we managed to eradicate polio in the U.S. by 1979 with a vaccine that was created in 1953 and came into commercial use in 1955, with an oral vaccine following in 1961.

Jonas Salk, the creator of the first polio vaccine, once told Edward R. Murrow, when asked who owned the patent for the vaccine, “Well, the people, I would say. There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?”

Since that time, countless business writers and corporate shills have derided Salk’s statement, going so far as to call it “Communist propaganda.” And, yet, it is because of Salk’s vaccine that we managed to eradicate polio in much of the modernized world.

We need to get back to this way of thinking, as it relates to healthcare. It’s time to pull the profits out of healthcare, altogether, and if that means dismantling the private insurance market, then so be it.

References:

__________

Disclaimer: HEAL Blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of the Community Access National Network (CANN), but rather they provide a neutral platform whereby the author serves to promote open, honest discussion about Hepatitis-related issues and updates. Please note that the content of some of the HEAL Blogs might be graphic due to the nature of the issues being addressed in it.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

HCV Prescribing Lags While Prices Soar

HEAL Blog is the recipient of the ADAP Advocacy Association’s 2015-2016 ADAP Social Media Campaign of the Year Award
By: Marcus J. Hopkins, Blogger

An article in Newsweek in March 2017 talked about a “…crowded and confusing” landscape for treating Hepatitis C (HCV) that prevents many Primary Care Physicians (PCPs) from prescribing the new Direct Acting Agents (DAAs) to treat the disease (Wapner 2017). The argument posed is that, physicians are “…still too unfamiliar with the regimens to speak with confidence about them,” according to Ira Jacobson, a hepatologist who leads the department of medicine at Mount Sinai Beth Israel Hospital in New York. He posits that this discomfort leads them to send patients to liver specialists, or to delay treatment until more severe symptoms arise, the latter of which is a regular pre-requisite on virtually every Prior Authorization (PA) request form.

This argument caught my eye, as someone who writes about and researches coverage for these DAA drugs, as has done so since 2013. One of the most frequent conversations I heard when Sovaldi (Gilead) and Olysio (Janssen) were first released on the market was that there was confusion over which doctors could prescribe them. Unlike HIV, treatments for HCV largely lagged in the ‘completely intolerable’ realm, with patients dropping out of treatment like flies and a success rate of only around 50%. Things, however, have radically changed; the question, then, becomes, “Have doctors?”

Prescription Pad

Realistically, we have a considerable problem, in the United States, with aspiring doctors choosing to specialize, rather than going into general practice, in no small part because it guarantees them higher incomes. Higher incomes for them, however, means higher costs to consumers, in the same way that higher-priced drugs to treat chronic conditions get shunted into the highest pricing tiers. This gets passed along to consumers in the form of higher co-pays for visits ($25 for PCPs; $75 for Specialists), and higher co-pays for medications ($3 for blood pressure medication; $250 for HIV).

This problem extends, also, to prisons and jails – the high cost of treatment serves as a significant barrier to providing inmates with treatment, which presents a larger issue, because inmates have an exponentially higher incidence and prevalence of HCV than the general population (Gloucester Times, 2017). Testing prisoners is expensive, as well, as inmate populations swell, while prison healthcare budgets remain relatively stagnant. Once those prisoners are released back into the general population, if they’re unaware of being infected with HCV or whose infections have gone untreated, they can go on to infect those who are not part of the prison system, are also unlikely to be tested and treated.

Beyond just the cost of co-pays are the long-term costs of PCPs being reticent to screen or prescribe for HCV: failing to address HCV will lead to liver decompensation, liver cancer, kidney diseases and failure, higher HCV viral loads that make spreading the disease easier, jaundice, digestive illnesses, and thyroid issues, none of which are particularly cheap to treat. The host of accompanying side effects of leaving the disease untreated far outweigh the admittedly outlandish prices set by HCV drug manufacturers.

The reality is that any medical doctor who has prescribing privileges can prescribe these new treatment regimens. The vast majority of these doctors also have access to smartphones, all of which have any number of apps designed to compare new drug regimens with existing prescriptions to ferret out counter-indications; there is, in fact, an entire website specifically aimed at finding counter-indications (http://www.hep-druginteractions.org/) that also offers mobile apps. The argument that doctors are unsure of the counter-indications is really rendered moot by the existence of these easy-to-use tools.

With that, the biggest hurdle to overcome, for virtually every party involved, is the cost of treatment, and with the current administration’s funding priorities being…questionable, at best…it’s unapparent if even the existing treatment coverage landscape will exist. We’re hoping for more stable conditions, and less erratic proposals. Until then, we’ll just keep plugging to try and find a solution.

References:

__________

Disclaimer: HEAL Blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of the Community Access National Network (CANN), but rather they provide a neutral platform whereby the author serves to promote open, honest discussion about Hepatitis-related issues and updates. Please note that the content of some of the HEAL Blogs might be graphic due to the nature of the issues being addressed in it.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Hepatitis C and Medicare Part D

HEAL Blog is the recipient of the ADAP Advocacy Association’s 2015-2016 ADAP Social Media Campaign of the Year Award
By: Marcus J. Hopkins, Blogger

HEAL Blog has consistently covered the cost of new Direct Acting Agents (DAA) used to treat Hepatitis C (HCV), as well as the impact those prices have had on state Medicaid and AIDS Drug Assistance Programs (ADAPs). What we haven’t really covered is how those costs have impacted Medicare and the Medicare Part D program.

In addition to writing for HEAL Blog, I also serve as the Project Director for the HIV/HCV Co-Infection Watch. Last year, we looked into expanding our reporting of HCV drug coverage to include Medicare Part D markets, and what we found was that it was simply too much data to fit into an already then-76-page report. In June, I went ahead and looked at coverage for the Part D Standalone drug plans, and wound up scouring 923 different plans across the country and in five territories. What I discovered was that 922 plans covered the two most expensive HCV drugs on the market at that time – Sovaldi and Harvoni (Gilead).

That translates into staggering figures for Medicare Part D expenditures, as outline in reports from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). In 2014, spending on the three most-prescribed HCV drugs – Sovaldi, Harvoni, and Olysio (Janssen) – totaled $4.665 billion (CMS, 2016). Preliminary data obtained by the Associated Press (AP) from CMS estimate that the cost of HCV drugs to Medicare in 2015 nearly doubled, coming in at roughly $9.2 billion (Alonso-Zaldivar, 2015). This figure comes despite the introduction in 2015 of HCV therapies with lower Wholesale Acquisition Costs (WACs) than the $87,000 Sovaldi or $94,500 Harvoni.

Since the introduction of Sovaldi and Olysio in 2013, HCV drugs have consistently ranked in the top ten drug expenditures for Medicare Part D, as they have for Medicaid and the Veterans Administration (VA). The primary difference is that both Medicaid and the VA pay lower prices for the drugs as a result of state Medicaid negotiating power and the VA’s “Best-Price” rule that requires pharmaceutical companies to provide drugs at the lowest possible price. Medicare, however, is prohibited from negotiating drug prices as a result of the Medicaid Modernization Act (2003) that established Medicare Part D. One of the main provisions of the Act states that, “…in order to promote competition,” the Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary “…may not interfere with the negotiations between drug manufacturers and pharmacies and prescription drug plans.”

President Donald J. Trump

Photo Source: UPI

Democrats have long attempted to pass legislation that would amend this provision, and may have found a new, not-so-secret weapon – President Donald Trump (Tribble, 2017). He has repeatedly stated that he believes Medicare should have this power, much to the consternation of Tom Price, Trump’s own Secretary of Health and Human Services, and Republicans, who have long held that Medicare negotiating drug prices amounts to Federal tyranny, Big Government, and anti-“Free Market” practices. But, even those Republicans are balking at the high cost of HCV drugs.

HEAL Blog will continue to watch in the coming months how this situation plays out, but we can be certain that, like every Trump initiative, the path will be fraught with confusion, disarray, and uncertainty.

References:

__________

Disclaimer: HEAL Blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of the Community Access National Network (CANN), but rather they provide a neutral platform whereby the author serves to promote open, honest discussion about Hepatitis-related issues and updates. Please note that the content of some of the HEAL Blogs might be graphic due to the nature of the issues being addressed in it.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Data Analyses Indicate HCV Treatment for All Saves Money; Part 2

HEAL Blog is the recipient of the ADAP Advocacy Association’s 2015-2016 ADAP Social Media Campaign of the Year Award
By: Marcus J. Hopkins, Blogger

Last week, HEAL Blog discussed some of the thinking behind a “Treatment for All” paradigm for dealing with America’s burgeoning Hepatitis C (HCV) problem. The argument put forth in the study released in the American Journal of Managed Care (AJMC; Younossi et al, 2017) suggests that adopting a policy of treating every HCV-infected client on government-funded healthcare rosters will ultimately lead to long-term cost savings by reducing the incidence of multiple co-morbidities, such as cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, and the number of liver transplants. This is a position that advocates (including HEAL Blog) have been arguing for years – since the release of Sovaldi (Gilead) and Olysio (Janssen) in 2013. The pharmaceutical companies who manufacture Direct Acting Agents (DAAs) to treat HCV have been arguing this position, as well.

Read Part 1, “Data Analyses Indicate HCV Treatment for All Saves Money

All of these parties are coming up against the stark reality of the budgetary process. Rather than being calculated based on long-term expenditures, they are calculated using estimated yearly expenditures using the amount of money given to them by the Federal and state governments – resources that are limited, and unlikely to increase without significant increases in tax revenues generated by tax hikes (business, corporate, and personal) or some unexpected increase in profits that comes out of nowhere. Medicaid directors and drug purchasing officials have repeatedly made the claim that treating everyone on their rosters infected with HCV will outstrip their pharmacy budgets several times over. Tom Burns, head of drug purchase for the Oregon Health Authority in 2014, said in an interview that “…Oregon can afford to wait” to see how other HCV drugs develop, and that “…the vast majority [of the 5,600 clients infected with HCV] could wait while we figure out a policy that doesn’t bankrupt this state” (Millman, 2014).

Image of a stethoscope wrapped around a $20 bill , laying next to an open medication bottle

Affordable Healthcare

This line of thinking has been echoed by virtually every state’s Medicaid program. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), however, didn’t buy that line, and in 2015 issued an official guidance that reminded Medicaid programs that they are required by law to cover these drugs under section 1927(b) of the Social Security Act (CMS, 2015). Furthermore, states facing litigation related to treating HCV patients have found little sympathy from the Judicial Branch. In May 2016, Federal U.S. District Court Judge John C. Coughenour ordered Washington state’s Medicaid provider to cover HCV drugs for all patients by granting a preliminary injunction that forced the state Health Care Authority (HCA) to halt a 2015 policy that restricted access to the drugs based on a fibrosis score (Aleccia, 2016). This injunction was in response to a class action lawsuit against Apple Health, Washington’s Medicaid program, on behalf of two clients and 28,000 other enrollees. Another Federal U.S. District Judge, Robert Mariani, ordered the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC) to provide HCV treatment to well-known inmate, Mumia Abu-Jamal (Moran, 2017). While his ruling applied only to Abu-Jamal, the judge went on record, stating that the DOC’s interim protocol for treating HCV “…presents deliberate indifference to the known risks which follow from untreated chronic Hepatitis C.”

The report in the AJCM found that if Medicaid in the U.S. continues its use of restrictions to treatment, the estimated total cost of treating the HCV cohort will come to $9.7 billion, with the majority of costs (50.4%) attributable to downstream costs of care (i.e. – hospitalization costs, outpatient costs, and non-Harvoni pharmacy costs). Conversely, treating all Medicaid patients with Chronic HCV using Harvoni led to a 39.4% savings – $3.8 billion – over the model time horizon and decreased the relative proportion of total costs attributable to downstream costs of care to 18.3% (Younossi).

While most of the cost savings were related to downstream medical cost offsets, even the pharmacy costs attributed to Harvoni treatment over non-Harvoni treatment decreased 2%, from $4.84 billion to $4.75 billion. This is due in part to the 9,618 patients in the cohort potentially eligible for an 8-week regimen of Harvoni to achieve a Sustained Virologic Response (SVR), rather than the traditional 12-week regimen. Treating all Medicaid patients with Harvoni led to a 19.8% savings per SVR, given that earlier treatment of HCV resulted in better health and cost outcomes (Younossi).

Though this analysis is a fantastic tool, another harsh reality is the [potential] repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). It was announced, last week, that the Fiscal Year 2018 budget resolution has been put on hold, pending the repeal of the ACA (Shutt, 2017). This means that any type of Federal budgeting process for Medicaid (as well as the Centers for Disease Control, and other domestic spending programs) has stalled for the foreseeable future, leaving virtually everyone involved in those organizations in the lurch, waiting for their fates to be handed down to them. Most HIV and HCV advocates, however, are heartened by Tom Cole (R-OK) saying, “We thought it was wrong when Democrats said for every increased dollar on defense, you had to increase domestic. It’s just as wrong to say for every increase on defense you have to cut domestic.” He finished that statement, however, by saying that he believes those increases should be offset on “…the entitlement side of the ledger.” That statement is considerably LESS heartening.

References:

__________

Disclaimer: HEAL Blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of the Community Access National Network (CANN), but rather they provide a neutral platform whereby the author serves to promote open, honest discussion about Hepatitis-related issues and updates. Please note that the content of some of the HEAL Blogs might be graphic due to the nature of the issues being addressed in it.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Data Analyses Indicate HCV Treatment for All Saves Money; Part 1

HEAL Blog is the recipient of the ADAP Advocacy Association’s 2015-2016 ADAP Social Media Campaign of the Year Award
By: Marcus J. Hopkins, Blogger

Since the introduction of Sovaldi (Gilead) and Olysio (Janssen) in 2013, Hepatitis C (HCV) advocates have argued several points: (1.) that the price for these drugs was/is too high; (2.) that Medicaid is required to pay for these treatments by law; (3.) that ensuring that HCV-infected patients achieve a Sustained Virologic Response (SVR – “cure”) will reduce the cost of care over time. This last point was the subject of a recent report published in the American Journal of Managed Care (AJMC).

The argument goes like this: HCV is a deadly virus that results in liver cirrhosis, eventual liver failure, and ultimately death; it is also can result in a number of co-morbidities that are costly to treat, including cancer, liver disease, connective tissue disease, abdominal pain, and upper and lower respiratory infections. That said, state Medicaid programs consistently place incredibly stringent Prior Authorization (PA) prerequisites on patients in order for their treatment to be covered, that can include mandatory enrollment in a drug or alcohol recovery program or treatment facility, a mandatory period of abstinence from all drugs or alcohol, failure of other, less easily tolerated treatment regimens, and meeting a certain stage of liver fibrosis (F-Score). These prerequisites are put in place in order to defray the high cost of treatment, ultimately resulting fewer patients being approved and less money being spent.

Advocates and economists, alike, have been arguing for years that the long-term costs associated with leaving HCV patients either untreated, or treated with older Pegylated Interferon-based regimens rather than with newer Direct Acting Agents (DAA) that are more easily tolerated and have a higher SVR rate will ultimately cost Medicaid and other government agencies (as well as private payers) more over time. Medicaid officials from several states have argued that treating every patient on their rosters would not just outstrip their existing pharmacy budgets, but do so four-times over, thus bankrupting the program. Drug manufacturers – Gilead Sciences, in particular – have argued that the cost of one-time treatment for a cure is less expensive than the cost of treating other serious conditions, whose cure rate is far lower, and takes far longer, ranging a period of years, to end in a positive result. The reality is that none of these parties are wrong.

The report in the AJMC, “Treating Medicaid Patients With Hepatitis C: Clinical and Economic Impact,” does an excellent job of outlining all the various consequence related to allowing HCV to go untreated until liver decomposition reaches a certain stage and concludes that adopting a “treat all” strategy will ultimately result in a 39.4% ($3.8 billion) savings and decrease the proportion of total costs attributable to downstream costs of care to 18.3% (Younossi, 2017). It also looks at how Medicaid programs arrived at the current “wait for treatment” model that prevents many patients from being approved for newer DAA regimens.

In next week’s post, HEAL Blog will get into the details of their analysis, their methodology, and their recommendation, as well as look into the feasibility of their proposal – that all state Medicaid programs adopt a “treat all” approach to approving HCV regimens.

References:

__________

Disclaimer: HEAL Blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of the Community Access National Network (CANN), but rather they provide a neutral platform whereby the author serves to promote open, honest discussion about Hepatitis-related issues and updates. Please note that the content of some of the HEAL Blogs might be graphic due to the nature of the issues being addressed in it.

 

 

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Do Black Boxes Mean Red Ink for Drug Companies?

HEAL Blog is the recipient of the ADAP Advocacy Association’s 2015-2016 ADAP Social Media Campaign of the Year Award
By: Marcus J. Hopkins, Blogger

The U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) has recently concluded that new Direct Acting Agents (DAAs) to treat Hepatitis C (HCV) require a boxed warning for the drugs advising clinicians and physicians to screen patients for evidence of a past or current Hepatitis B (HBV) infection before undergoing treatment for HCV. This warning, indicated by black box on the labels of all nine current DAAs, has many investors worried that, along with consistent questions about the Wholesale Acquisition Costs (WACs) of newer HCV drugs, stock prices may face volatility in the coming years.

The new DAAs for HCV have been on the market for roughly three years, beginning with the release of Sovaldi (Gilead) and the companion drug, Olysio (Janssen), in 2013. Since that time, there has been a tremendous outcry from virtually every stakeholder involved in the issue of pricing, save for the pharmaceutical companies, themselves. Additional concerns have been raised that the modules used by companies to determine initial WAC prices is neither transparent, nor representative of the will of consumers. Arguments that pricing structures take into account “what the market will bear” have served as little comfort to advocacy groups, state agencies, and Congressional panels, all of whom are becoming less tolerant of high drug prices.

Drug prices for specialty products – those that are designed to treat very specific conditions – continue to rise at meteoric rates, and regardless of what drug companies believe the markets can bear, state and Federal budgets are largely unequipped to handle the short-term costs to treat HCV without quadrupling their annual budgets, so vast is the pool of infected patients. Beyond just the traditional patient pool, the growing HCV infection crisis in prison populations, which is largely ignored in state reporting and which faces vast issues in screening, prison budgets may soon face extreme funding issues if Federal lawsuits go against them, and require them to provide treatment to all inmates infected with the disease.

These new concerns raised by the FDA represent just the latest hurdle for pharmaceutical companies whose HCV fortunes may turn in the coming years. HBV, an as-yet incurable form of the illness, is much more easily transmittable through sexual intercourse, which may pose an additional risk for HIV/HCV co-infected patients whose HBV infection flares up as a result of using DAAs for HCV. Whether or not the reactivation of HBV in HCV treated patients is widespread is unknown, as the FDA has only identified 24 cases at the time of their ruling.
__________

Disclaimer: HEAL Blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of the Community Access National Network (CANN), but rather they provide a neutral platform whereby the author serves to promote open, honest discussion about Hepatitis-related issues and updates. Please note that the content of some of the HEAL Blogs might be graphic due to the nature of the issues being addressed in it.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized