Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Germany's drug price war

Roche Holding's CEO Severin Schwan praised Germany for giving patients speedy access to critical new medicines without stopping to haggle over prices, signaling that he isn't bracing for a dispute as he prepares to introduce two new treatments with blockbuster potential.
Other drugmakers are less sanguine: Denmark's Novo Nordisk in January withdrew its newest insulin Tresiba from Germany after price negotiations that would be the basis for rebates and discounts offered to state-run health insurers fell through.
Both sides are watching closely as the nation now prepares to tighten rules further, following a public outcry over Gilead Sciences's breakthrough hepatitis C medicine Sovaldi in 2014. The treatment made more than $10-billion in its first year for Gilead, though its price incensed health authorities and payers. The health ministry laid out plans this month for new legislation that would cap reimbursements for drugs in the first year.
"There is a lot of emphasis on making innovative medicines available to patients immediately" in the European nation, Schwan said in an interview on Tuesday. "I am absolutely sure we'll find ways to make those medicines available to patients in Germany, irrespective of the ongoing discussion about the system overall."
Drugmakers are free in Germany to choose the price of a new prescription drug that is patent-protected for an initial period that typically lasts a year. Public insurers, who cover some 90% of the population, pick up the cost.
During that time, a drug assessment body- the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health - determines whether the new product is better than existing ones. Using that recommendation, the Federal Joint Committee then makes a decision on reimbursements and discounts given to the insurers.

AZN Breathes Easy, EXEL Scores FDA Nod, SRPT Disappointed, PETX On The Rise

 Shares of Aratana Therapeutics Inc. (PETX) were up over 15% in extended trading on Monday, after the company announced a Collaboration, License, Development and Commercialization Agreement with Eli Lilly and Co. (LLY).

Elanco Animal Health, Lilly's animal health division, has been granted rights to develop, manufacture, market and commercialize Aratana's products based on licensed grapiprant rights and technology, including GALLIPRANT, an FDA-approved therapeutic for the control of pain and inflammation associated with osteoarthritis in dogs.

PETX closed Monday's trading at $6.91, down 4.29%. In after hours, the stock was up 15.77% to $8.00.

AbbVie's (ABBV) supplemental New Drug Application for the use of VIEKIRA PAK without ribavirin in patients with genotype 1b chronic hepatitis C virus infection and compensated cirrhosis has been approved by the FDA.

VIEKIRA PAK is a fixed dose formulation of ombitasvir, paritaprevir and ritonavir tablets co-packaged with dasabuvir tablets. Paritaprevir is Enanta's lead protease inhibitor identified within the ongoing Enanta-AbbVie collaboration.

VIEKIRA PAK received its first FDA approval in December 2014 to treat patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 infection, including those with a type of advanced liver disease called cirrhosis.

VIEKIRA PAK registered total sales of $1.64 billion in 2015, and is expected to bring in total revenue of $2 billion this year.

ABBV closed Monday's trading at $60.97, down 0.73%.

AstraZeneca plc (AZN) has scored FDA approval for BEVESPI AEROSPHERE inhalation aerosol, which is indicated for the long-term, maintenance treatment of airflow obstruction in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BEVESPI AEROSPHERE is a twice-daily, fixed-dose dual bronchodilator combining glycopyrrolate, a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), and formoterol fumarate, a long-acting beta-2 agonist (LABA). The product is not indicated to treat asthma or for the relief of acute bronchospasm.

AZN closed Monday's trading at $30.01, down 0.30%. In after hours, the stock was up 1.63% to $30.50.

On May 6, 2016, AveXis Inc. (AVXS) will present data as of April 1, 2016 from the ongoing phase 1 clinical trial of AVXS-101 in Spinal Muscular Atrophy Type 1.

This gene therapy company for neurological diseases went public on the Nasdaq on February 11, 2016, priced at $20 per share.

AVXS closed Monday's trading at $22.71, down 1.35%.

Shares of Exelixis Inc. (EXEL) were up over 6% in extended trading on Monday, following FDA approval for CABOMETYX for the treatment of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who have received prior anti-angiogenic therapy. The FDA approval comes nearly two months ahead of the decision date of Jun 22, 2016.

CABOMETYX is also under accelerated assessment by the EMA and a decision is expected by the end of June 2016.

EXEL closed Monday's trading 5.67% higher at $4.66. In after hours, the stock was up 6.01% to $4.94.

The FDA panel has voted down Sarepta Therapeutics Inc.'s (SRPT) Eteplirsen, proposed for the treatment of Duchenne muscular dystrophy amenable to exon 51 skipping.

The advisory committee voted 6-7 against the finding of substantial evidence from adequate and well controlled studies that show that Eteplirsen induces production of dystrophin to a level that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit.

In addition, the panel members voted 3 - 7, with three abstentions, against finding substantial evidence based on the clinical results of the single historically controlled study that Eteplirsen is effective for treatment of DMD.

The FDA's final decision is set for May 26, 2016. The FDA usually follows the recommendations of its advisory panels, although it is not mandatory to do so.

SIGA Technologies Inc. (SIGA.OB) has begun enrolling the second and final cohort of healthy subjects for the phase III study of its lead drug candidate, TPOXX, for the treatment of orthopoxvirus.

The initial phase III lead cohort of 40 subjects in the trial has already completed participation without any reports of serious adverse events.

TPOXX is being developed under the FDA "Animal Rule,", and therefore there are no efficacy endpoints in the clinical trial.

SIGA.OB closed Monday's trading at $1.00, up 2.04%.

Hospital will seek compensation for 'negative' hep C payouts

EXETER — A federal judge has given Exeter Hospital the green light to demand compensation for payouts it made to patients who tested negative for hepatitis C during the 2012 crisis.
In the ongoing litigation, hospital attorneys allege that Triage Staffing was negligent in placing David Kwiatkowski, the temporary employee who injected himself with fentanyl he stole from the hospital, replaced it with saline and then left infected needles to be used on patients.
Attorneys also allege that the American Registry of Radiologic Technologists were aware of similar cases involving Kwiatkowski, but failed to revoke his license.
According to court documents, Exeter Hospital reached pre-suit agreements with 188 patients claiming the anxiety of being tested and waiting days or weeks for their negative results caused them “diverse physical and emotional injuries.”
More than 3,000 patients were tested, according to the hospital's motion. The amount of the settlements reached with the negative patients remains confidential.
On Dec. 2, 2013, Kwiatkowski, who was responsible for infecting 47 patients, including 33 at Exeter Hospital, was sentenced to 39 years in federal prison. He pleaded guilty to multiple federal charges of stealing fentanyl from syringes intended for patients, replacing the medication with saline solution and allowing the needles he had infected with the disease to be used on patients.
Thirty-three civil suits were filed against Exeter Hospital and various staffing agencies by patients who tested positive for hepatitis C. Exeter Hospital settled most of the suits out of court for undisclosed amounts, and subsequently filed suit against Kwiatkowski, ARRT and Triage Staffing, requesting partial relief for the settlements.
Exeter Hospital’s attorneys have argued that ARRT was negligent in failing to investigate a 2010 complaint in Arizona that Kwiatkowski had abused fentanyl while working at Arizona Heart Hospital. According to court documents, Arizona Heart Hospital did alert ARRT to Kwiatkowski’s alleged activities, but ARRT took no action.
ARRT’s attorneys argue that Exeter Hospital was negligent in failing to monitor and investigate the drug diversion Kwiatkowski committed over one-and-a-half years at the hospital, and that Triage Staffing failed to follow its own procedures in vetting Kwiatkowski before placing him.
Triage Staffing and ARRT both argued that Exeter Hospital’s payments to the negative patients were voluntary and any liability claims against them are futile.
According to court documents, Triage and ARRT are aware of the identities of the 188 patients and the amount of the settlements.
ARRT argued in a recent objection to Exeter Hospital’s motion that none of the claimants' sustained a “legally compensable” injury in being tested.
Referring to a New Hampshire case in which a woman bit into a takeout order and discovered a Band-Aid, after which she tested negatively for HIV and hepatitis C, ARRT points to the woman’s claims being denied by a judge.
The court did not question the legitimacy of her anxiety, but said that, “recovery for mental angst, absent additional objectively verifiable physical symptoms is inconsistent with our prior case law,” according to ARRT’s filings.
Citing the difference between “imagined possibilities” and “actual exposure,” ARRT has asked for oral arguments in order to make their case, and Triage asked that Exeter Hospital’s request be denied outright.
Magistrate Judge Andrea Johnstone, however, ruled after a hearing conducted by conference call last Friday that Exeter Hospital was free to amend its complaint and sue for compensation. Johnstone's decision dismissed ARRT and Triage Staffing's objections without prejudice, meaning that Triage and ARRT are also free to refile their objection or file a new one.

AG: NY health insurers agree to ease limits on hepatitis C coverage



Most health insurance companies in New York will now cover treatment for hepatitis C before patients are in advanced liver disease, under agreements announced Tuesday by state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.

My colleague Claire Hughes reports over on The Pulse:

    The attorney general’s office has reached agreement with seven insurers statewide, including Schenectady-based MVP Health Care and the parent of Latham-based BlueShield of Northeastern New York, to eliminate three restrictions to coverage found during an investigation of the insurer’s practices.

    The agreements follow a lawsuit filed on the same issue by Schneiderman’s office against Albany-based CDPHP earlier this month. The attorney general has not reached an agreement with CDPHP.

    In addition to MVP and BlueShield’s parent (HealthNow), agreements were reached with Affinity Health Plan, Empire BlueCross BlueShield, Excellus Health Plan, Independent Health and United Healthcare/Oxford.

    Prior to the agreement, five of the seven insurers limited chronic hepatitis C coverage to members with advanced liver scarring or other complications, according to Scheiderman. Following these agreements, coverage will be considered “medically necessary” before members are in an advanced state of disease.

    Four of the insurers had denied coverage for hepatitis C based on the members’ use of alcohol or other drugs, and three permitted treatment to be authorized by specialists only. These insurers have now agreed not to deny coverage based on alcohol or drug use and to permit treatment authorization from all appropriately trained providers.

    Hepatitis C is a blood-borne virus that can cause chronic infection of the liver and, in the worst cases, liver failure. An estimated 25,000 new cases occur each year in New York. Medications developed in the last couple of years offer a cure for most of the patients who take them, but they come with a hefty price tag, of over $90,000 for a complete round of treatment, before the insurer’s discounts are factored in.

    “New Yorkers diagnosed with Hepatitis C deserve to be treated, and these agreements will vastly improve access to the medications needed to cure their disease,” Schneiderman said.

    MVP would not comment on the specifics of its agreement with the attorney general, but said in a statement that it evaluates its policies on the latest medical evidence.

    “Our agreement with the Attorney General’s Office about this category of drugs is consistent with these principles and practices already in place at MVP,” the statement said.

AbbVie Gets FDA Approval Of Viekira Pak sNDA For HCV Genotype 1b

AbbVie (ABBV) has announced U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for a supplemental New Drug Application (sNDA) for the use of VIEKIRA PAK® without ribavirin in patients with genotype 1b (GT1b) chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and compensated cirrhosis.

The FDA accepted the application under Priority Review in January. This designation is given to investigational therapies that treat a serious condition and provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness. The European Medicines Agency‘s Ad Comm committee backed approval in February.

Michael Severino, M.D., executive vice president, research and development and chief scientific officer, AbbVie, said:

    “We are constantly striving to advance clinical care for patients living with chronic hepatitis C. This approval is especially significant because patients with chronic HCV with compensated cirrhosis are among the tough to treat, and in our study VIEKIRA PAK demonstrated 100 percent cure rates in GT1b patients without the use of ribavirin.”

VIEKIRA PAK (ombitasvir, paritaprevir, and ritonavir tablets; dasabuvir tablets), is a prescription medicine used with or without ribavirin to treat adults with genotype 1 (GT1) chronic HCV infection, and can be used in people who have a certain type of cirrhosis (compensated). VIEKIRA PAK is not for people with advanced cirrhosis (decompensated).

The Child-Pugh score is used to assess the prognosis of chronic liver disease, mainly cirrhosis. Although it was originally used to predict mortality during surgery, it is now used to determine the prognosis, as well as the required strength of treatment and the necessity of liver transplantation.

According to estimates from The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in the United States, approximately 2.7 million people are chronically infected with HCV.1 Genotype 1 is the most common HCV in the U.S. Of the total U.S. population with GT1 HCV infection, approximately 77 percent are genotype 1a (GT1a) and 23 percent are GT1b.

TURQUOISE-III lead investigator Jordan J. Feld, MD, MPH, research director and clinician scientist, Toronto Center for Liver Disease, Toronto, Canada, said:

    “This provides a very useful option for people infected with genotype 1b infection and compensated cirrhosis. The ability to cure these individuals with just 12 weeks of treatment and without the need for ribavirin is a great benefit. The outstanding 100 percent cure rate from the study confirms that this is likely to be a very effective strategy.”

TURQUOISE-III is a multi-center, open-label, single-arm Phase 3b study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of 12 weeks of treatment with VIEKIRA PAK without ribavirin in adult patients (N=60) with genotype 1b chronic hepatitis C virus infection and compensated liver cirrhosis who were treatment-naïve or treatment-experienced (failed previous therapy with pegylated interferon and RBV). The primary endpoint is the rate of sustained virologic response 12 weeks after treatment (SVR12).

AbbVie (ABBV) Receives FDA Approval of Viekira Pak sNDA for Use Without RBV

AbbVie (NYSE: ABBV) announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a supplemental New Drug Application (sNDA) for the use of VIEKIRA PAK® (ombitasvir, paritaprevir, and ritonavir tablets; dasabuvir tablets) without ribavirin (RBV) in patients with genotype 1b (GT1b) chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and compensated cirrhosis (Child-Pugh A). The application was previously granted priority review by the FDA, a designation given to investigational therapies that treat a serious condition and provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness.

VIEKIRA PAK is a prescription medicine used with or without RBV to treat adults with genotype 1 (GT1) chronic (lasting a long time) HCV infection, and can be used in people who have a certain type of cirrhosis (compensated). VIEKIRA PAK is not for people with advanced cirrhosis (decompensated). Patients with cirrhosis should talk to a doctor before taking VIEKIRA PAK.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that in the United States, approximately 2.7 million people are chronically infected with HCV.1 Genotype 1 is the most common HCV in the U.S.2 Of the total U.S. population with GT1 HCV infection, approximately 77 percent are genotype 1a (GT1a) and 23 percent are GT1b.2

"We are constantly striving to advance clinical care for patients living with chronic hepatitis C," said Michael Severino, M.D., executive vice president, research and development and chief scientific officer, AbbVie. "This approval is especially significant because patients with chronic HCV with compensated cirrhosis are among the tough to treat, and in our study VIEKIRA PAK demonstrated 100 percent cure rates in GT1b patients without the use of ribavirin."

"This provides a very useful option for people infected with genotype 1b infection and compensated cirrhosis. The ability to cure these individuals with just 12 weeks of treatment and without the need for ribavirin is a great benefit," said TURQUOISE-III lead investigator Jordan J. Feld, MD, MPH, research director and clinician scientist, Toronto Center for Liver Disease, Toronto, Canada. "The outstanding 100 percent cure rate from the study confirms that this is likely to be a very effective strategy."

The TURQUOISE-III study included in the sNDA evaluated the use of VIEKIRA PAK without RBV for 12 weeks in GT1b patients with compensated cirrhosis (Child-Pugh A). Results demonstrated 100 percent (N=60/60) sustained virologic response at 12 weeks post-treatment (SVR12). Patients who achieve SVR12 are considered cured of HCV, as the virus is no longer detectable in the blood. No patients discontinued treatment due to adverse events. The most commonly-reported adverse events (≥10 percent) were fatigue (22 percent), diarrhea (20 percent), headache (18 percent), arthralgia (10 percent), dizziness (10 percent), insomnia (10 percent) and pruritus (10 percent).3

Simeprevir with peginterferon/ribavirin for patients with hepatitis C virus genotype 1: high frequency of viral relapse in elderly patients

 Doug Long, vice president, industry relations for IMS Health, kicked off Thursday morning, April 21, at the Academy of Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting 2016, with his presentation on marketplace trends, “Charting the Course for Change: Industry Update."

LongLongThe news is not good: U.S. spending on drugs increased 12.2% to $424.8 billion in 2015, spiking 46 billion over the past year due to higher brand spending and fewer patent expirations; however, spending on brands without exclusivity reduced growth by $14.2 billion in 2015.

On the positive side, net price growth slowed in 2015 to 2.8% as concessions from manufacturers rose sharply. Other metrics from 2015 include: Brands accounted for 11% of prescriptions but drove 73% of sales; prescriptions rose 1% in the last 12 months; diabetes, autoimmune diseases, hepatitis and oncology led the spending growth; specialty new brands continued to spur growth (up 21.5%); and Abilify, Celebrex and Nexium lost patent protection.

Long looked back at 2015 and pointed out the most notable events, which included exclusive launches and price wars for hepatitis C, the arrival of the first biosimilar, Zarxio, and of generic Nexium, rescheduling of controlled substances, the unforgettable price gouging by Valeant and Turing, and merger mania extending into 2016.

As far as specialty goes, 2015 brought more innovation to hepatitis C, along with the emergence of PD1s, PCSK9 inhibitors, orphan drugs, generic Copaxone and more orals, more copayment program cooperation by payers, the patient as payer and more value-driven metrics.

Long predicted that 2016 will continue along the same path with another biosimilar approved, a CMS ruling on Part B reimbursement, a new hepatitis entrant from Merck, new FDA/DEA guidelines on controlled substances, price discussions on orphan drugs and gene therapies and a more-crowded specialty space.

Long said that total prescriptions at chains are expected to far exceed market growth, while mail-order, long-term care and independent pharmacies are going to continue to decline through 2020, at which time, chains could consume a 45.8% share of the market.

Ninety-day prescriptions are becoming more common with chains, up 2% to 3% between 2016 and 2020; they are currently 14% of overall volume.Abstract
Purpose

The tolerability and efficacy of simeprevir in combination with peginterferon and ribavirin in patients infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 under actual clinical conditions were investigated.
Methods

A total of 176 patients with chronic HCV genotype 1 infection were treated with simeprevir for 12 weeks plus Peg-IFN/RBV for 24 weeks. Overall, 107 (60.7 %) patients were aged 60 years or more, and 16 (9 %) patients were aged 70 years or more. Treatment discontinuation, sustained virological response 12 (SVR12), and viral relapse were evaluated and compared between younger patients and elderly patients.
Results

The rates of undetectable HCV RNA at the end of treatment were 95.8, 100 and 93.1 % in treatment-naïve, prior relapse, and prior non-responders, respectively. However, the rates of SVR12 were 82.4, 88.2 and 69.2 %, respectively. Especially in prior non-responders, viral relapse was relatively frequent. Treatment discontinuation and SVR12 were not different between patients aged <70 and ≥70 years, but viral relapse after completing treatment was significantly more frequent in patients aged ≥70 years (p = 0.012).
Conclusions

In simeprevir with peginterferon and ribavirin therapy, viral relapse was relatively frequent. Especially in elderly patients, the relapse rate was high after completing treatment, instead of low frequency of discontinuation by the adverse events.
Keywords
Simeprevir (TMC435) Elderly patients Viral relapse Adverse events
Background

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is a major public health concern. About 150 million individuals are infected worldwide, and every year, 3–4 million individuals become infected with the virus (European Association for the Study of the Liver 2011; Manns and von Hahn 2013). Japan has one of the highest rates of HCV infection worldwide, and around 2 million people are estimated to be infected, with the majority being infected with HCV genotype 1b (Chung et al. 2010). Chronic infection and liver cirrhosis with HCV are major causes of liver disease (Lavanchy 2009), and hepatocellular carcinoma is a leading cause of cancer mortality in Japan, with more than 70 % of the cases related to HCV infection (Yuen et al. 2009).

The goal of chronic HCV infection treatment is virus eradication, to prevent progression to cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. Combination therapy with peginterferon (Peg-IFN) and ribavirin (RBV) for 48–72 weeks has been standard care for HCV genotype 1 infection for many years (Editors of the Drafting Committee for Hepatitis Management Guidelines: The Japan Society of Hepatology 2013; Ghany et al. 2011), resulting in sustained virologic response (SVR) in approximately 50 % of patients (Kuboki et al. 2007; Manns et al. 2001).

The development of direct-acting antiviral agents (DAAs), including protease inhibitors (PIs), represents a major breakthrough in the treatment of chronic HCV infection. The addition of PI to Peg-IFN and RBV has markedly improved treatment outcomes in both treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced patients (Bacon et al. 2011; Hayashi et al. 2012; Jacobson et al. 2011; Kumada et al. 2012). However, first-generation HCV PIs, such as telaprevir and boceprevir, are associated with multiple daily dosing and the potential for adverse events, including anemia, rash, and renal dysfunction (Poordad et al. 2011; Zeuzem et al. 2011), leading to high rates of treatment discontinuation (Hayashi et al. 2012; McHutchison et al. 2009).

Simeprevir (TMC435) is a once-daily, oral HCV PI, with potent antiviral activity against HCV genotype 1, as well as against genotypes 2 and 4–6, although the efficacy against genotype 2 has been demonstrated only in vitro (Reesink et al. 2010; Moreno et al. 2012). In international phase 3 studies, simeprevir combined with Peg-IFN and RBV has shown good tolerability and high SVR rates in both treatment-naïve (Jacobson et al. 2014; Manns et al. 2014) and treatment-experienced patients (Forns et al. 2014; Reddy et al. 2015). In these studies, almost all treated patients were genotype 1 (1a: 41–56 %, 1b: 44–58 %), and 7.0–15.6 % of patients had liver cirrhosis. Japanese phase 3 studies of simeprevir combined with Peg-IFN and RBV have been reported in treatment-naïve patients (CONCERTO-1, 4) (Hayashi et al. 2014; Kumada et al. 2015), non-responders (CONCERTO-2), and relapsers (CONCERTO-3) to previous IFN-based therapy (Izumi et al. 2014). In these Japanese studies, almost all treated patients were genotype 1b, and no patients with liver cirrhosis were included.

However, in Japan, after these clinical trials, the tolerability and efficacy in patients under real-world conditions have not been reported. Additionally, in the CONCERTO 1–4 study, the eligible patients were younger than 70 years, even though in Japan, the percentage of elderly patients with hepatitis C virus infection is high (Tanaka et al. 2004, 2011). In this study, efficacy and treatment discontinuation for adverse events of simeprevir/Peg-IFN/RBV therapy were evaluated in actual clinical practice, and these were compared between younger patients and elderly patients.
Patients and methods
Study population

A total of 176 patients with chronic HCV genotype 1 infection and plasma HCV RNA of 5.0 log10IU/mL or more at screening were treated with simeprevir for 12 weeks plus Peg-IFN/RBV for 24 weeks at 10 hospitals belonging to the Ehime Kan-en Network (EKEN net; Ehime University Hospital, Matsuyama Red Cross Hospital, Ehime Prefectural Central Hospital, Uwajima City Hospital, Saiseikai Imabari Hospital, Matsuyama Shimin Hospital, Ehime Prefectural Imabari Hospital, Shiritsu Oozu Hospital, Ehime Prefectural Niihama Hospital, and National Hospital Organization Ehime Medical Center). The Ethics Committee of Ehime University Hospital approved the study protocol (approval ID 1411010), which conformed to the ethical guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki amended in 2008. Written, informed consent was obtained from each patient.

Exclusion criteria included liver cirrhosis or hepatic failure, liver diseases of non-HCV etiology, co-infection with non-genotype 1 HCV, hepatitis B virus, HIV-1 or HIV-2, and any other clinically significant disease, organ transplant, or defined obvious laboratory abnormalities at screening, as well as a history of hepatocellular carcinoma within 5 years before study entry.
Treatment administration

Simeprevir (Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K., Tokyo, Japan) 100 mg was administered orally once daily as a single capsule. Simeprevir dose adjustments were not permitted. Two kinds of Peg-IFN/RBV were administered, namely Peg-IFN α-2a (Pegasys®, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) and RBV (Copegus®, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd) or Peg-IFN α-2b (PegIntron®, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA) and RBV (Rebetol®, Merck Sharp & Dohme). Peg-IFN α-2a was administered by subcutaneous injection (180 μg once weekly), and Peg-IFN α-2b was administered by subcutaneous injection (1.5 μg/kg body weight). RBV was administered as oral tablets (600–1000 mg total daily dose, depending on body weight). Dose changes, temporary interruptions, or discontinuation of Peg-IFN and RBV had to be conducted in accordance with the manufacturer’s prescribing information.

Patients stopped simeprevir if they experienced any of the following: grade 4 elevation of total bilirubin or aspartate transaminase; grade 3/4 skin events/allergic reactions; or worsening of hepatic disease. All study medications were stopped if patients experienced grade 4 adverse events or laboratory abnormalities that were not considered to be related to simeprevir specifically or were not expected toxicities of Peg-IFN/RBV or HCV infection or if patients experienced worsening of hepatic disease.

Additionally, all study medications were stopped if the following defined virologic stopping criteria were met: <2 log10IU/mL reduction in HCV RNA at week 12 relative to baseline, or HCV RNA levels of more than 2 log10IU/mL at week 12.
Study assessments

Plasma HCV RNA was quantified at screening at baseline, and at 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 24, 28 and 36 weeks using the Roche COBAS® TaqMan® HCV Auto assay system (Roche Molecular Diagnostics, Pleasanton, CA, USA) with a lower limit of quantification of 1.2 log10IU/mL.

The major efficacy end-point was the proportion of patients with undetectable HCV RNA at the end of treatment and 12 weeks after the last treatment (SVR12). Other efficacy end-points included the proportion of patients with: undetectable HCV RNA at the end of treatment (EOT); undetectable HCV-RNA at the end of treatment and 4 weeks after the last treatment (SVR4); increase of >1 log10IU/mL in plasma HCV RNA level from the lowest level reached or plasma HCV RNA level >2.0 log10IU/mL in patients whose plasma HCV RNA level had previously been <1.2 log10IU/mL detectable or undetectable (viral breakthrough); detectable or quantifiable plasma HCV RNA during the post-treatment follow-up period in patients who had undetectable plasma HCV RNA at the end of treatment (viral relapse); and the proportion of patients who discontinued treatment due to adverse events or virologic stopping criteria.
Statistical analysis

Differences were evaluated using the χ2-test, Student’s t test, or Welch’s t test. Factors that were not normally distributed were evaluated by Welch’s t test. Predictors of SVR12 and viral relapse after treatment completion were evaluated using multivariate logistic regression analyses. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95 % confidence intervals were also calculated. All p values <0.05 on two-tailed testing were considered significant. Data were statistically analyzed using SPSS software ver. 18.
Results
Patients
This was a prospective, multicenter study. In total, 176 patients received treatment; 85 patients were treatment-naïve, and 90 patients were treatment-experienced. In treatment-experienced patients, 51 patients were prior relapsers (patients who had undetectable levels of HCV RNA at the last assessment while on IFN-based therapy and subsequent detectable levels of HCV RNA within 12 months from their last treatment), 26 patients were prior non-responders (patients who did not achieve undetectable HCV RNA on prior IFN-based therapy), and there was no prior treatment information for the remaining 12 patients. Demographic and disease characteristics at baseline are shown in Table 1. The patients’ median age was 62 years (range 28–78 years); 107 (60.7 %) patients were aged 60 years or more, and 16 (9 %) patients were aged 70 years or more. IL28B rs8099917 polymorphisms were determined in 91 patients; 69 patients were major allele TT, and 22 patients were minor allele TG/GG.
Table 1

Clinical and virological characteristics of patients with HCV infection

Sex (male/female)
   

95/81

Age (years)
   

62 (28–78)

AST (IU/L)
   

43.5 (18–217)

ALT (IU/L)
   

48.0 (11–225)

Total bilirubin (mg/dL)
   

0.8 (0.1–2.7)

Hemoglobin (g/dL)
   

14.5 (10.1–18.3)

White blood cells (/µL)
   

4905 (2100–9610)

Platelet count (×104/µL)
   

15.3 (5.9–28.0)

HCV RNA (log copies/mL)
   

6.5 (5.0–7.8)

IL28B genotype (SNP8099917) (TT/non-TT)
   

69/22

HCV Core aa70 (wild/mutant)
   

38/13

HCV Core aa91 (wild/mutant)
   

32/19

Treatment-naïve/relapsers/non-responders/unknown
   

85/51/26/14

Prior therapy (IFN only/IFN + RBV/Peg-IFN/Peg IFN + RBV/teraprevir/Others)
   

12/7/5/49/3/12

Histological fibrosis (METAVIR score) (F0/F1/F2/F3/F4/ND)
   

1/28/34/30/4/79

ALT alanine aminotransferase, AST aspartate aminotransferase, HCV hepatitis C virus, SNP single nucleotide polymorphism, Peg-IFN peginterferon, RBV ribavirin
Virologic response
The rates of HCV RNA negative conversion during the treatment period in patients grouped according to past treatment experience are shown in Fig. 1 (ITT analysis); most patients in all groups had achieved levels below the lower limit of quantification. Non-responders had slightly lower rates of HCV RNA negative conversion at each time point, but significant differences were not seen.
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2Fs40064-016-2190-9/MediaObjects/40064_2016_2190_Fig1_HTML.gif
Fig. 1

The proportion of HCV RNA negative conversion at each time point after treatment start (ITT analysis). The black line shows the proportion of HCV RNA negative conversion in all patients. The gray line shows that in treatment-naïve patients, the black dotted line shows that in prior relapsers, and the gray dotted line shows that in prior non-responders. Non-responders have slightly lower rates of HCV RNA negative conversion at each time point, but no significant differences are seen
The EOT response, SVR4 response, and SVR12 response are shown in Fig. 2. In all patients, EOT, SVR4, and SVR12 responses were 96.0, 88.6 and 81.8 %, respectively. There was a relatively high frequency of viral relapse. The viral relapse rate was higher in non-responders than in treatment-naïve patients or relapsers.
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2Fs40064-016-2190-9/MediaObjects/40064_2016_2190_Fig2_HTML.gif
Fig. 2

The proportions of EOT, SVR4, and SVR12 achievement in all patients, treatment-naïve patients, relapsers, and non-responders are shown. EOT, undetectable HCV RNA at the end of treatment; SVR4, undetectable HCV-RNA at the end of treatment and 4 weeks after the last treatment; SVR12, undetectable HCV-RNA at the end of treatment and 12 weeks after the last treatment
Treatment discontinuation
Treatment discontinuation was seen in 20 patients (11.3 %). The reasons for discontinuation are shown in Table 2. Viral breakthrough was seen in three patients, and two patients stopped treatment according to the virologic stopping criteria. Three of these five patients had a mutation in the HCV NS3 Protease domain at position 168 (D168V, D168E, and D168A, respectively) at the end of treatment or at viral relapse.
Table 2

Reasons for discontinuing treatment with simeprevir plus Peg-IFN/RBV

Reason for discontinuation
   

No. of patients

Viral breakthrough
   

3

Virological stopping criteria
   

2

Depression
   

3

Rash
   

1

Retinopathy
   

1

Anemia
   

3

General fatigue
   

5

Others
   

2
Treatment discontinuation and efficacy in elderly patients
In Japan, the percentage of elderly patients with hepatitis C virus infection is high. In fact, 60.7 % of the present patients were aged 60 years or more, and 9 % of the patients were aged 70 years or more. The rates of treatment discontinuation and SVR12 achievement were compared between patients aged 60 years or more and patients aged <60 years. Similarly, the rates of treatment discontinuation and SVR12 achievement were compared between patients aged 70 years or more and patients aged <70 years. The rates of treatment discontinuation and SVR12 achievement were not significantly different between patients aged 60 years or more and patients aged <60 years (p = 0.225, p = 0.556, respectively) (Fig. 3a). Similarly, the rates of treatment discontinuation and SVR12 achievement were not significantly different between patients aged 70 years or more and patients aged <70 years (p = 0.090, p = 0.081, respectively) (Fig. 3b).
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2Fs40064-016-2190-9/MediaObjects/40064_2016_2190_Fig3_HTML.gif
Fig. 3

The proportions of treatment discontinuation and SVR12 achievement in patients aged 60 years or more and patients aged <60 years (a). The proportions of treatment discontinuation and SVR12 achievement in patients aged 70 years or more and patients aged <70 years (b). No significant differences are seen between younger and elderly patients
As mentioned above, there was a relatively high frequency of viral relapse after completion of 24 weeks therapy. Thus, the rates of viral relapse after completion of 24 weeks therapy were also compared between patients aged 60 years or more and patients aged <60 years, and between patients aged 70 years or more and patients aged <70 years. The rates of viral relapse after treatment completion were not significantly different between patients aged 60 years or more and patients aged <60 years (p = 0.49) (Fig. 4a). However, viral relapse after treatment completion was significantly more frequent in patients aged 70 years or more than in those aged <70 years (41.6 vs 12.5 %, p = 0.018) (Fig. 4b).
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2Fs40064-016-2190-9/MediaObjects/40064_2016_2190_Fig4_HTML.gif
Fig. 4

The proportions of viral relapse after 24-week therapy completion. There is no significant difference between patients aged 60 years or more and patients aged <60 years (a). However, viral relapse is more frequent in patients aged 70 years or more than in patients aged <70 years (b) (41.6 vs 12.5 %, p = 0.018)
Predictors of SVR12 achievement
Factors that might contribute to SVR achievement were evaluated (Table 3). Potential predictive factors associated with SVR12 included age (70 years or more/<70 years), sex, ALT, platelet count, AFP, HCV-RNA, IL28B rs8099917 polymorphisms (TT/non-TT), HCV Core aa70 (wild/mutant), HCV Core aa91 (wild/mutant), treatment-naïve/treatment-experienced, non-responders to past treatment/others, Peg-IFN adherence, and RBV adherence. HCV NS3 Q80 K status, which has been reported as a predictor of simeprevir failure, was tested in 38 patients, and only 1 (2.6 %) patient had Q80 K; thus, this was not evaluated as a predictive factor. It was found that the presence of IL28B rs8099917 polymorphisms was the only predictive factor (p = 0.02). Platelet count, HCV core aa70, and non-responders tended to be associated with SVR12 achievement, but they were not significant. Multivariate analysis was performed using the factors whose p values were <0.1 on univariate analyses (age 70 years or more/<70 years, platelet count, HCV-RNA, IL28B polymorphisms, HCV core aa 70, non-responders to past treatment/others). Only IL28B polymorphism (TT vs non-TT, odds ratio: 0.145, p = 0.029) was identified as a significant factor (Table 4).
Table 3

Factors associated with SVR12 achievement
    

SVR12
   

Non-SVR12
   

p value

Sex (male/female)
   

82/62
   

13/19
   

0.11

Age 70 years or more/<70 years
   

134/10
   

26/6
   

0.08

ALT (U/L)
   

62.5 ± 45.9
   

64.9 ± 36.4
   

0.81

Platelet count (×104/µL)
   

15.8 ± 4.7
   

14.1 ± 4.9
   

0.08

AFP (ng/mL)
   

12.3 ± 34.4
   

16.0 ± 19.4
   

0.56

HCV-RNA (log copies/mL)
   

6.4 ± 0.68
   

6.6 ± 0.58
   

0.10

IL28B (TT/non-TT)
   

61/14
   

8/8
   

0.02

HCV Core aa70 (wild/mutant)
   

35/9
   

3/4
   

0.06

HCV Core aa91 (wild/mutant)
   

26/17
   

6/2
   

0.69

Treatment naïve/re-treatment
   

70/73
   

15/17
   

0.84

Non-responders/others
   

18/115
   

8/21
   

0.09

Peg-IFN adherence (%)
   

88.6 ± 22.4
   

78.6 ± 39.1
   

0.18

RBV adherence (%)
   

82.3 ± 22.4
   

76.7 ± 45.1
   

0.50

Histological fibrosis (F0-2/F3-4)
   

55/28
   

8/6
   

0.55

Data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation

SVR sustained virological response, ALT alanine aminotransferase, AFP α-fetoprotein, HCV hepatitis C virus, Peg-IFN peginterferon, RBV ribavirin
Table 4

Independent factors associated with SVR12 achievement on multiple logistic regression analysis
    

Odds ratio
   

95 % CI
   

p value

IL28B (TT/non-TT)
   

0.145
   

0.026-0.822
   

0.029

CI confidence interval
Predictors of viral relapse after treatment completion
In simeprevir/Peg-IFN/RBV therapy, since viral relapse after completion of 24 weeks of therapy was frequent, an attempt was made to identify the predictors of viral relapse after treatment completion (Table 5). Potential predictive factors associated with SVR12 included age (age 70 years or more/<70 years), sex, ALT, platelet count, AFP, HCV-RNA, IL28B rs8099917 polymorphisms (TT/non-TT), HCV Core aa70 (wild/mutant), HCV Core aa91 (wild/mutant), treatment-naïve/treatment-experienced, non-responders to past treatment/others, Peg-IFN adherence, and RBV adherence. Age 70 years or more, IL28B rs8099917 polymorphisms, and platelet count were identified as predictive factors (p = 0.018, 0.012, 0.023, respectively). Multivariate analysis was conducted using the factors whose p values were <0.1 on univariate analyses (age 70 years or more/<70 years, platelet count, IL28B polymorphisms, non-responders to past treatment/others). Age (age 70 years or more vs <70 years, odds ratio: 15.1, p = 0.037) and IL 28B polymorphisms (TT vs non-TT, odds ratio: 6.29, p = 0.022) were identified as significant factors (Table 6). The factor age 70 years or more had the highest odds ratio for predicting viral relapse after treatment completion.
Table 5

Factors associated with viral relapse after treatment completion
    

Viral relapse
   

SVR12
   

p value

Sex (male/female)
   

9/14
   

73/60
   

0.18

Age 70 years or more/<70 years
   

5/18
   

7/126
   

0.018

ALT (U/L)
   

62.6 ± 38.0
   

63.6 ± 46.9
   

0.92

Platelet count (×104/µL)
   

13.5 ± 4.5
   

15.9 ± 4.6
   

0.023

AFP (ng/mL)
   

16.6 ± 21.8
   

12.3 ± 35.4
   

0.58

HCV-RNA (log copies/mL)
   

6.6 ± 0.57
   

6.4 ± 0.69
   

0.14

IL28B (TT/non-TT)
   

4/6
   

57/14
   

0.012

HCV Core aa70 (wild/mutant)
   

1/2
   

33/9
   

0.14

HCV Core aa91 (wild/mutant)
   

3/1
   

24/17
   

0.64

Treatment naïve/re-treatment
   

10/13
   

66/66
   

0.65

Non-responders/others
   

6/17
   

16/106
   

0.10

Peg-IFN adherence (%)
   

88.6 ± 19.5
   

91.8 ± 18.6
   

0.46

RBV adherence (%)
   

90.6 ± 43.9
   

84.8 ± 20.7
   

0.33

Histological fibrosis (F0-2/F3-4)
   

7/6
   

52/25
   

0.35

Data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation

SVR sustained virological response, ALT alanine aminotransferase, AFP α-fetoprotein, HCV hepatitis C virus, Peg-IFN peginterferon, RBV ribavirin
Table 6

Independent factors associated with viral relapse after treatment completion on multiple logistic regression analysis
    

Odds ratio
   

95 % CI
   

p value

Age 70 years or more/<70 years
   

15.1
   

1.18–194
   

0.037

IL28B (TT/non-TT)
   

6.29
   

1.29–30.5
   

0.022

CI confidence interval
Discussion

In patients treated with just Peg-IFN and ribavirin, IL28B genotype (non-TT) and advanced fibrosis are associated with a low rate of SVR (Tanaka et al. 2009; Manns et al. 2001; Fried et al. 2002). In an international study of simeprevir and Peg-IFN/Ribavirin, simeprevir treatment also resulted in higher SVR12 in patients with advanced fibrosis than just Peg-IFN and ribavirin (Jacobson et al. 2014; Manns et al. 2014; Forns et al. 2014). In the present study, platelet count and histological fibrosis did not affect the rate of SVR12. In these international studies, since the difference in SVR12 according to IL28B polymorphism was substantially smaller than in the placebo group, the correlation between IL28B genotype and efficacy of simeprevir was smaller than for just Peg-IFN/ribavirin therapy. In a Japanese study, the results of the subgroup analysis by IL28B polymorphism also showed that there were no significant differences in efficacy according to this genotype (Hayashi et al. 2014; Kumada et al. 2015; Izumi et al. 2014). On the other hand, in the present study, only IL28B genotype was a factor affecting SVR12. Though in the past clinical studies of simeprevir therapy the median age of patients was in the forties or fifties, that of the present patients was 62 years, and patients over 70 years were also included, which would be the reason for the difference in the effect on treatment efficacy between the present results and those of past studies. In Japanese actual clinical practice, the proportion of elderly patients is high, so the present results should be taken into account.

The present study showed that, especially in prior non-responders, there was a relatively high frequency of viral relapse (p = 0.060 compared with prior relapsers). This result agreed with past studies; for example, in CONCERT-2 (prior non-responders), viral relapse was seen in 38.6 % compared to 8.2 % in CONCERT-3 (prior relapsers). In the past reports, the factors involved in viral relapse after treatment completion were not analyzed; therefore, these factors were examined in the present study. It was found that low platelet count and IL28B SNP8099917 non-TT genotype were the significant risk factors for viral relapse. Moreover, patients aged over 70 years had a significantly higher frequency of viral relapse after treatment completion. In the present study, the number of patients aged over 70 years was small, so the result must be viewed in that light. However, multivariate analysis indicated that age over 70 years was an independent contributing factor to viral relapse after treatment completion. These data indicate that, for suppression of viral relapse, the treatment effect of Peg-IFN/ribavirin is important, because hepatic fibrosis, IL28B genotype, and age have previously been reported as factors affecting SVR in Peg-IFN/ribavirin therapy (Tanaka et al. 2009; Manns et al. 2001; Fried et al. 2002; Dienstag and McHutchison 2006).

Some mutations, such as D168E/T/V, Q80R/K, and R155K, have been previously described in HCV genotype 1b after exposure to simeprevir in vitro and in clinical studies (Hayashi et al. 2014; Lenz et al. 2010; Fried et al. 2013). Additionally, the majority of patients with viral breakthrough or relapse had emerging mutations in the HCV NS3 protease domain. These mutations were mostly at position 168 (Lenz et al. 2010). In the present patients at treatment start, only one of 40 tested patients had a position 80 mutant, and all 40 tested patients were wild type at position 168 of the HCV NS3 protease domain. In the present study, viral breakthrough was seen in three patients, and two patients stopped treatment according to virologic stopping criteria. Three of these four patients had mutations in the HCV NS3 Protease domain at position 168 (D168V, D168E, D168A, respectively) at the end of treatment or viral relapse. Unfortunately, these mutations could not be examined in viral relapse patients.

In studies of first-generation protease inhibitors, rates of treatment discontinuation due to severe adverse events have been reported to be 10–20 % (Bacon et al. 2011; Hayashi et al. 2012; Jacobson et al. 2011; Kumada et al. 2012; Poordad et al. 2011). However, in simeprevir with Peg-IFN/ribavirin therapy, treatment discontinuations were much less frequent, at 3–5 % (Hayashi et al. 2014; Kumada et al. 2015; Izumi et al. 2014). Manns et al. (2015) reported a pooled safety analysis from international phase IIb and III studies. In this report, most adverse events were grade 1/2, and most grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in <5.0 % of patients. Moreover, tolerability did not vary with histological hepatic fibrosis. In the present study, the rate of treatment discontinuation was not different between patients aged <60 and ≥60 years, and even between those aged <70 and ≥70 years. These results mean that simeprevir therapy is well tolerated even in the actual clinical setting.

The combination of simeprevir and other direct-acting antivirals such as sofosbuvir as an HCV NS5B inhibitor is expected to be the treatment option for patients with chronic HCV genotype 1 infection by providing interferon-free treatment (Schinazi et al. 2014). Efficacy of the interferon-free combination of simeprevir and sofosbuvir, with or without ribavirin, in patients with HCV genotype 1 infection was reported to be more than 90 % (SVR12 rate) (Lawitz et al. 2014). Moreover, although direct-acting antiviral combinations in an interferon-free regimen would be main stream in the future, Peg-IFN and ribavirin-based treatment could remain the standard of care in parts of the world in which the very high treatment costs of direct-acting antiviral interferon-free regimens would be prohibitive. Then, the present data of simeprevir with Peg-IFN and ribavirin in the actual clinical setting would be valuable.

In conclusion, in simeprevir with peginterferon and ribavirin therapy, both efficacy and tolerability are good, even in elderly patients, but viral relapse after completing treatment was high in patients aged over 70 years. Patients <70 years old and those discontinuing previous DAAs would be suitable for this treatment.
Declarations
Authors’ contributions

TW, YT, YH: Study design; TW, KJ, HS, KM, NH, YK, YT, SN, KN, TN, KY, MO, MA: Data acquisition; TW, YT, YH: Quality control of data and algorithms; TW, YT, YO, MH: Data analysis and interpretation; TW, YT: carried out the molecular genetic studies and participated in the sequence alignment; TW, YO, YT, MH: Statistical analysis; TW, YH: drafted the manuscript; TW, YH: Manuscript preparation; TW, YH: Manuscript editing; TW, YH: Manuscript review. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Acknowledgements

This study was supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (JSPS KAKENHI number 15K09006) from Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (to Y.H.).

Predictions for the future of high-cost specialty drugs

Generics’ share of sales growth is slowing, dropping from 42% in 2011 to 8% in 2015; however, the number of total prescriptions for generics far outweighs those for brands, 83.4% and 16.6% respectively.
The U.S. healthcare system has saved $1.7 trillion in the last 10 years because of low-cost generics, $222 billion from antidepressants alone.
The end of patent exclusivity for Abilify and Nexium, helping to save $5 billion a week, along with a generic equivalent of Copaxone (Glatopa), played out in the market last year. During that time, generic price inflation ebbed, and Teva bought Actavis to take control of 20% of the generics market.
This year thus far has seen the final rule for average manufacturer prices under the Affordable Care Act and approval of the launch of generic Gleevec, and awaits patent expirations for Crestor, Benicar and Zytiga; final guidance for approval standards for generic versions of tamper-resistant opioids and for biosimilar interchangeability; and negotiations completed for reauthorization of the generic drug user fee amendments of 2012 and the biosimilar user fee program. 2016 also has set its sights on approval of additional biosimilars.
Although Long expresses optimism for the arrival of more biosimilars, he outlines the challenges: Development costs on average of $200 million compared to regular generics topping out at $4 million. In addition, he points out that not only is there an uncertain regulatory framework, but manufacturers are hard pressed to justify the costs for a limited user population.
Moving ahead
Long jumped ahead to 2020, when according to IMS Health, U.S. spending on medicines will reach $610 to $640 billion on an invoice price basis, with steady mid-single digit growth. In addition, Long expects innovation to drive a transformation of disease treatments, including more than 470 drugs to treat orphan diseases; breakthrough therapies for hepatitis C and autoimmune, heart and orphan diseases; and cancer drugs as market leaders; the latter comprised one-third of all launches last year.  
He anticipates that specialty spending will eat up 35% of dollars for 1% to 2% of prescriptions; innovation around the diseases recounted above; near-term focus on hepatitis C, PCSK9s, PD1s and orphan drugs; tools for managing generics, biosimilars and the appropriate use of medications; targeting of appropriate patient populations; exclusive contracts; and more price negotiations.
Despite the high cost of new specialty drugs, there are opportunities to curb rising healthcare and drug costs, Long says, by reducing readmissions, proving timely treatment, optimizing the use of drugs and improving adherence. Failure to take medications as directed drives $260 billion in additional care costs.
“Tomorrow’s models will be built on alignment and cooperation,” Long concluded, “having moved from a fee-for-service model to managed care and integrated delivery systems and finally to population management.”
Mari Edlin is a frequent contributor to Managed Healthcare Executive. She is based in Sonoma, California.

It would add Amgen Inc’s Repatha cholesterol treatment to its list of covered drugs for special plans over a competing treatment from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi SA

U.S. drug benefit manager CVS Health said on Monday it would add Amgen Inc’s Repatha cholesterol treatment to its list of covered drugs for private plans over a competing treatment from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi SA.
CVS chooses Amgen’s new cholesterol drug over competitor

The two competing treatments, which can slash “bad” LDL cholesterol by more than 60 percent, were approved this summer by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and belong to a new class of medicines called PCSK9 inhibitors.

But the cost of the drugs has drawn criticism at a time when the national focus has turned to increases in healthcare costs, and in particular, the out-of-pocket costs to consumers.

The FDA approved Repatha and Praluent, made by Regeneron and Sanofi, within weeks of each other last summer for patients with hereditary forms of high cholesterol and those with cardiovascular disease requiring additional cholesterol lowering.

Sales of the PCSK9 inhibitors have been held back by strict access policies at CVS and other pharmacy benefit managers who say their more than $14,000 annual price tag is too high. Other independent cost benefit agencies have backed that view.

Amgen shares rose 1.8 percent, or $2.81, to $162.72 on Monday, while Regeneron fell by 1.2 percent, or $6.76, to $572.82. Both trade on the Nasdaq.

Sanofi and Regeneron said patients and physicians should have a choice regarding their treatment. “We are in ongoing discussions with other insurers to provide access to Praluent for appropriate patients,” the companies said a statement provided by Sanofi spokeswoman Mary Kathryn Steel.

Praluent costs $14,600 for a year of treatment and Amgen set an annual price of $14,100 for its Repatha. The companies were expected to offer rebates and discounts that would bring down the cost to the mid-$12,000 range. In comparison, the annual cost of generic statins, which are used by millions of Americans who have high levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, is in the hundreds of dollars.

Dr. Troyen Brennan, chief medical officer of CVS Health, declined to provide details of the discount or rebate that it and Amgen agreed upon, but described it as “substantial.”

“The key factor was the decision that the medications are therapeutically equivalent. Once we made that decision then we were like anybody else that’s in a bargaining situation where you have two competitors interested in maximizing revenues,” Brennan said.

The decision contrasts with that of Express Scripts Holdings Corp, the largest U.S. drug benefit manager, which signed deals to provide coverage for both drugs.

Brennan said that while CVS would add Repatha to its coverage list starting Dec. 1, the company would continue to limit its use.

The PCSK9 inhibitors are stronger than traditional cholesterol-lowering statin drugs, such as Pfizer Inc’s Lipitor. But it is not known whether their cholesterol-lowering power will translate into a reduced number of heart attacks.
CVS Makes Exclusive Deal to Cover Amgen’s Cholesterol Drug

CVS Health Corp.’s drug-benefits unit will cover Amgen Inc.’s new cholesterol-cutting injections while excluding a competing treatment from Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., pushing for savings from medications that list for more than $14,000 a year.

The decision, which applies to workers whose employers use CVS Health for drug coverage, shows that benefit managers are continuing to be aggressive about setting exclusive deals with drugmakers to get better prices for expensive new therapies.

CVS said that its independent pharmacy and therapeutics committee had reviewed data for Amgen’s Repatha, as well as Praluent from Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and concluded that the drugs were clinically equivalent.

“That puts us in a situation where we can bargain with the drug manufacturers” and get a significant discount in return for an exclusive deal, said Troyen Brennan, CVS’s chief medical officer, said in a phone interview. “You have to use every tool that you have to try to keep costs down today.”

While the discount CVS obtained from Amgen was “substantial,” Brennan said he would not reveal the amount or the length of the contract with Amgen. CVS will continue to require that prescriptions for Amgen’s drug be approved in advance, a practice known as prior authorization that can limit use of the medicine.

Amgen shares rose 1.8 percent to $162.74 at 9:59 a.m. in New York. Regeneron was up less than 1 percent to $582, and Sanofi fell less than 1 percent to 82.75 euros.

Hepatitis Competition
CVS’s decision is just the latest example of pharmacy benefit managers excluding some expensive drugs from coverage in a category in order to gain better prices for the competing drugs they do decide to cover.

Last December, Gilead Sciences Inc.’s hepatitis C treatment Harvoni was excluded from Express Scripts Holding Co.’s main list of 2015 covered drugs in favor of a competing treatment from AbbVie Inc. That move set off a price war over hepatitis C drugs, with several other insurers and payers, including CVS, deciding to cover only the Gilead medicine.

Winning an exclusive deal with a benefits manager is a mixed blessing for drugmakers, who ensure a market for their drugs but may sacrifice a lot in discounts. AbbVie’s hepatitis C treatment generated $469 million in sales last quarter, while Gilead’s drugs, which require patients to take fewer daily pills, brought in $4.8 billion.

Bad Cholesterol
PCSK9 inhibitors are designed to help people with high levels of bad cholesterol who can’t get their condition under control with statins such as Pfizer Inc.’s Lipitor. Payers of insurance benefits have worried they could become one of the costliest drug classes ever, with the potential for $100 billion in annual sales if widely used. For now, their scope is more limited to people who have genetic conditions or particularly stubborn cholesterol levels.

Brennan said CVS was thinking about how to control costs of the PCSK9 drugs over the long term.
While usage now is modest, large clinical trials examining whether the therapies can lower rates of heart attacks and other cardiovascular events could have results next fall, he said, leading to wider use.

“It is going to be a long game here,” Brennan said. “So far we have been very pleased with what we have seen in terms of ability to control the utilization.”

CVS said its decision is effective on Dec. 1. Overall, CVS manages drug coverage for 70 million Americans, but the company doesn’t break out how many are on the company’s commercial coverage lists, spokeswoman Christine Cramer said in an e-mail.

Amgen said it was “delighted” with the choice. “We will continue to engage constructively with other payers to enable patients to have access to Repatha,” Anthony Hooper, Amgen’s head of commercial operations, said in a statement Monday.

“Sanofi and Regeneron are disappointed about the decision CVS made in limiting access to Praluent,” the two companies said in a joint statement. “Patients and physicians should have a choice regarding their treatment and access to the right therapy to meet individual patient needs.” Sanofi and Regeneron are in ongoing discussions with other insurers over Praluent coverage, according to the statement.

‘Small Percentage’
In October, Express Scripts, the largest manager of prescription drug benefits for employers and insurers in the U.S., said it would cover both Praluent and Repatha. It was the first major coverage decision for the drugs on a national basis in the U.S.

Sanofi and Regeneron’s drug Praluent won approval from U.S. regulators on July 24, while Amgen’s PCSK9 drug Repatha was approved on Aug. 27. Since then, doctors, patients and investors have been speculating on how insurers would cover the drugs and what restrictions would be imposed on their use.

In its statement, CVS said that for most patients with high cholesterol, statin drugs will remain the standard of care. The PCSK9 drugs are necessary for “a small percentage of patients” who can’t achieve their treatment goals with other therapies, it said.

The Insurance Companies’ Latest Target: Specialty Drugs



Read the headlines these days and you’d think the health insurance companies are going broke. It’s true most insurers offering Obamacare are losing money on it. UnitedHealth Group, the nation’s largest insurer, announced it will all but exit Obamacare next year because of those loses. But insurance companies have not fallen on hard times. Anything but.

Obamacare may be a bust, but the overall portfolios for most insurers, all those products offered outside the Obamacare exchanges, have earned staggering profits under Obamacare. Look at insurers’ stock prices. On March 23, 2010, the day President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act, UnitedHealth traded at $30.40 a share. Today, it’s $133. UnitedHealth is not alone. In January, the Center for Public Integrity noted: “Health Net’s share price has increased 224 percent [under Obamacare].... Anthem’s is up 238 percent.... Aetna’s 290 percent. Cigna’s 305 percent. And Humana’s 309 percent.” How have insurers done it? By increasing deductibles, hiking premiums, and slashing coverage for medical services and drugs, especially specialty drugs.

In this rapidly changing business, one area of concern among some industry observers is drug reimbursement. To fathom the reimbursement system you have to understand how fees are determined. First, a drug must be placed on a formulary, a list of prescription medicines covered by insurance companies. Formularies may vary from one health plan to another, but if a drug is not on a formulary the consumer must pay for it out-of-pocket, often at 100 percent of the cost. Being profit driven, insurers want to maximize the number of drugs excluded from formularies. For those drugs that do make it, the formulary establishes the amount that is paid in reimbursement.

The creation of these formularies is a mysterious process, so much so Harvard Business Review put it this way: “The drug formulary is a giant black box.” In recent years, insurers have begun using so-called third-party watchdog groups to evaluate individual drugs to determine their inclusion. One of the more visible groups is the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), a Boston-based not-for-profit that describes itself as “a trustworthy, independent source to help assess how valuable a new drug really is.”

But some critics question just how independent the organization really is. Its seed money was a $430,000 grant from the Blue Shield of California Foundation, which is funded by Blue Shield of California, a member of the Blue Cross Blue Shield federation of insurance companies. The BS funding continued; indeed, in 2013, the BS foundation accounted for two thirds of ICER’s budget. In addition, one of ICER’s affiliated organizations, California Technology Assessment Forum, was a part of the BS foundation before it merged with ICER, and a seat on ICER’s corporate board is held by an officer from Blue Cross Blue Shield.

ICER also receives funding from other insurers, including Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Kaiser Permanente, Partners Healthcare, Aetna, Anthem, and UnitedHealth. ICER president Steven Pearson has his own connection to the insurance industry, having once served as a research fellow at America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the trade association representing insurance companies.

Another major supporter of ICER is John Arnold, a former Enron trader who became a billionaire as a hedge fund manager. Called a “right-wing ideologue” in The Wall Street Journal, Arnold wants to “significantly change patient care.” He made a recent grant to Peter Bach at Memorial Sloan Kettering in New York to support a drug-pricing project. In an op-ed piece in The New York Times attacking a cancer drug, Bach admitted he was paid by the drug manufacturer’s competitor, and in the contributors note for another article he disclosed he has been paid by AHIP and insurers like Anthem.

ICER may get support from other interests, but with so many ties to insurance companies, it should not be surprising that it often appears to favor insurers. As one think tank study pointed out: “[O]f the pharmaceuticals it has examined thus far, ICER has determined that most are too expensive” — a boon for insurers. On Entresto, a treatment for chronic heart failure, ICER president Pearson said: “Just because it’s a good long-term value doesn’t mean you could afford it today without jacking up healthcare premiums a whole lot or doing other things to make money available.” On Repatha and Praluent, treatments for high cholesterol: “Even if these drugs were used in just over 25 percent of eligible patients, then employers, insurers, and patients would need to spend on average more than $20 billion a year.”

Indeed, a main focus of ICER is specialty drugs. As defined by Wellmark, specialty drugs are prescription medications “[requiring] special handing, administration or monitoring [that] are used to treat complex, chronic and often costly conditions, such as multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, hepatitis C, and hemophilia.” The drugs are expensive, but they are also highly effective in treating — and curing — complicated diseases. They represent a rapidly growing sector in the pharmaceutical industry — the reason ICER has targeted them. Consider Sovaldi and Olysio, treatments for hepatitis C. With a high price tag — $84,000 for a course of treatment of Sovaldi, $66,000 for Olysio — they have an equally high cure rate — 80 to 90 percent. Even so, Pearson announced this about Sovaldi: “It could be the right thing to do clinically, but at this price, can we afford it?”

In the broader picture, ICER embraces a value-assessment approach to evaluating drugs, not unlike the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in the United Kingdom, which limits a drug’s use based on cost. An arbitrary price is determined for a drug beyond which it is considered too expensive to be used. At present, Obamacare forbids price setting “as a threshold to establish what type of health care is most effective or recommended,” but ICER advances the use of it anyway.

In short, the final goal of organizations like ICER is price controls. While that can cap prices in the short term, in the long term price controls produce drug shortages and decreased incentive for pharmaceutical companies to invest in future research. It will also lead to even larger profits for insurance companies, although they seem to be doing quite well already, despite the losses they are suffering from Obamacare.

Coalition seeks prescription to cure rising drug prices

A coalition of health care providers, employers, health insurers and consumer groups on Monday proposed several policy changes aimed at tackling the rising cost of prescription drugs.
The proposed reforms to the “broken prescription drug market” focus on increasing transparency, encouraging competition in the marketplace, and driving greater value for patients and payers, the Campaign for Sustainable Rx Pricing said in a statement.
The Washington-based coalition is a project of the nonprofit National Coalition on Health Care Action Fund.
The proposals come as U.S. spending on health care hit $3.0 trillion in 2014, driven in part by exorbitant prescription drug costs, according to the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Prescription drug spending grew 12.2% in 2014 to $297.7 billion due to costly specialty drugs, like those used to treat hepatitis C, and brand-name drug price increases, according to CMS.
The coalition proposed requiring drugmakers to disclose a drug's unit price, the cost of a full course of treatment and a projection of federal spending on the drug. The coalition also suggested requiring drugmakers to release the true cost of research and development for a drug, as well as annually report increases in the drug's price.
In recent months, drugmakers' pricing practices have gone under the microscope, touched off by last year's news that drugmaker Turing Pharmaceuticals raised a decades-old generic drug's price overnight to $750 a pill from $13.50. Since then, a national debate has surged over whether the expensive prices set by pharmaceutical companies are arbitrary or necessary for innovation.
One way to bring down drug prices is to increase competition in the market, the campaign said. The coalition called for speeding up generic drug approvals by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, noting that the FDA has a backlog of nearly 4,000 generic drug applications while securing approval can take three years.
Incentives should also be used to drive competition for expensive drugs that have no alternatives, the coalition said.
The Campaign for Sustainable Rx Pricing also urged that exclusivity protections should only be used for new and innovative drugs.
Finally, the coalition said policymakers should increase funding for research on drug pricing and value, expand value-based pricing in public programs like Medicare and Medicaid, and require drugmakers to provide comparisons of costs and outcomes with other similar drugs so doctors and patients can choose their treatments wisely.
“The drug companies must recognize that they are part of this larger health system and that their pricing decisions affect individuals, families, governments and purchasers. The specific policy proposals put forward by the Campaign for Sustainable Rx Pricing are important first steps towards lowering prescription drug prices in the United States,” Bernard J. Tyson, chairman and CEO of Kaiser Permanente, said in the coalition's statement.
“Everyone in the industry needs to work toward solutions that help people get the medicine they need at a price that is affordable and sustainable,” Jim DuCharme, president and CEO of Prime Therapeutics, said in the statement. “As the only pharmacy benefit manager that's a member of (the Campaign for Sustainable Rx Pricing), Prime is working with coalition members to drive more competition, transparency, and value as those strategies can close the big gaps in today's health care system that are fueling out-of-control drug prices.”

New York Insurers to Change Coverage of Hepatitis C Drugs

Seven health-insurance companies in New York will change their criteria for covering costly drugs that cure chronic hepatitis C under the terms of agreements with the office of State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.
The agreements, expected to be announced Tuesday, require the insurers to cover hepatitis C medications for nearly all patients who have commercial insurance plans in the state.
Last year, Mr. Schneiderman’s office began an investigation into coverage of drugs for chronic hepatitis C, issuing subpoenas for documents and claims data to all commercial health insurers in the state. The investigation showed a wide discrepancy in how companies cover these drugs and found some insurers largely covered only patients with advanced stages of the disease, the attorney general’s office said.
Five of the insurers denied from 30% to 70% of claims, the office said.
Advertisement
Common hepatitis C drugs include Harvoni, manufactured by pharmaceutical company Gilead Sciences Inc., which has a list price of $94,500 for a typical course of treatment.
The insurers that reached deals with the attorney general’s office are Affinity Health Plan, Anthem Inc. subsidiary Empire BlueCross BlueShield, Excellus BlueCross BlueShield, HealthNow New York Inc., Independent Health Association Inc., UnitedHealth Group Inc. subsidiary Oxford Health Plans, and MVP Health Care, the attorney general’s office said.
Under the terms of the agreements, the attorney general’s office said it would end its investigation into these plans.
New York Health Plan Association, which represents state health insurers, said coverage guidelines continue to evolve.
“HPA believes New York should focus on affordability by taking a more aggressive position on the excessive pricing of these Hepatitis C drugs,” President and Chief Executive Paul Macielak said in a statement.
MVP Health Care said the agreement is consistent with principles and practices it already has in place. The other six insurers declined to comment or didn’t respond to requests for comment.
Mr. Schneiderman’s office said EmblemHealth Inc. and Aetna Inc. were among the insurers it found consistently provided coverage to patients at earlier stages of the disease.
Doctors and patient advocates nationwide have accused health insurers of regularly denying coverage until patients’ livers are damaged. Health insurers say the medications are prohibitively expensive, and covering such drugs can inhibit their ability to keep other costs low.
A Gilead spokeswoman said it gives insurers steep discounts. The drug is cost-effective because it saves long-term treatment costs, the spokeswoman said.
As part of their agreements, these seven insurers must cover medication for patients who don’t have advanced disease and can’t deny treatment for patients based on alcohol or drug use.
From 3.5 million to seven million people nationwide are estimated to have chronic hepatitis C, said Brian Edlin, a professor at Weill Cornell Medical College.
Hepatitis C is typically spread through blood contact, such as from needle use when injecting drugs.
Dr. Edlin said the agreements were a big step in the right direction, but noted they focused on commercial insurers.
“Medicaid insurers are continuing to impose these severe restrictions and onerous prior authorization processes,” he said. “Consequently, this disease will become increasingly a disease of the poor, and health inequities that already exist will sharpen.”
The state’s Department of Health said Medicaid insurers are updating their plans in consultation with the department’s recommendations to reduce restrictions consistent with changes being made by commercial plans.

Hepatitis-C drugs prices out of poor patients’ reach: SC

Islamabad - The Supreme Court on Monday observed that Hepatitis-C poor patients, who hardly manage two times meal, mortgage their family for purchasing costly medicines.
A two-member bench of the apex court headed by Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan heard a suo moto case.
The chief justice had taken notice on the media reports of children’s deaths due to pneumonia and diarrhoea due to lack of attention by the high-ups.
Justice Ejaz observed that hepatitis patients did not get proper treatment as its medicines are not available in the market at low prices.
He said: “The poor patients of Hepatitis C who hardly manage two-time meal, mortgaged their family for purchasing the costly medicines as these medicines on lesser prize are not available in the market.
The court sought a concise statement from the federation over a plea filed by Pakistan Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association (PPMA) through its counsel Munir A Malik, stating that its petition is pending before the Sindh High Court wherein it was requested for increasing the price of Tablet Sofosbuvire (400 mg) upto Rs 26,600.
The court directed Deputy Attorney General Sajid Ilyas Bhatti to file a concise statement on the PPMA plea within two weeks.
The court recalled that a pharmaceutical company had filed an application for the registration of a drug of Hepatitis C on low price.
Muhammad Usman, Chief Executive Officer of Everest Pharmaceuticals, appeared before the bench.
The court asked him as to why he was not manufacturing the said medicine on low prices.
Usman informed that since October 5, 2015 the authorities were not registering drug Sofosbuvir and Sofosbuvir Lidepasvir (400 mg).
He said the Drug Regulatory Authority in its statement before the Lahore High Court submitted that it had registered the said drug of Everest Pharmaceuticals.
He said different tactics were being used by the Authority, putting condition of clinical trial of the drug.
The court then asked as to why the company was reluctant to conduct the clinical trial of the said drug.
Usman replied that not only the clinical trial of the said medicine was conducted by two medical centres in Pakistan but also in India, adding, according to the reports of these centres, their medicine was proved better than the medicine manufactured by USA.
The court seeking the reports from the federation adjourned the hearing for two weeks.

Can Arrowhead Do For Hep B What Gilead Sciences Did For Hep C?

Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ:ARWR) recently offered up insight into potential efficacy for its clinical-stage hepatitis B drug ARC-520 that suggest it may offer the best chance yet at a functional cure for hepatitis B, a common liver disease affecting hundreds of millions of people worldwide.
If Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals confirms its mid stage findings in larger and later-stage studies, then it could change hepatitis B treatment in a way that is reminiscent of how Gilead Sciences' (NASDAQ:GILD) transformed hepatitis C treatment.
Revolutionizing treatmentBoth hepatitis B and hepatitis C are chronic, tough-to-treat liver diseases that are incredibly common. An estimated 350 million people are infected with hepatitis B globally, including between 1 million and 2 million Americans. Roughly 170 million people are infected with hepatitis C in the world, including as many as 3 million people in the United States.
Both of these diseases can lead to liver failure and liver cancer, two conditions that are life threatening and costly to treat. In fact, hepatitis B is thought to be responsible of up to 80% of liver cancer cases and between 25% and 40% of hepatitis B patients who acquire this disease early in life are likely to develop serious complications.
A cure for hepatitis B has been elusive, but hepatitis C patients are being cured by Gilead Sciences' Sovaldi and Harvoni by the hundreds of thousands of patients annually. Sovaldi won FDA approval at the end of 2013 after showing that it can cure 90% or more of hepatitis C patients by inhibiting an enzyme necessary for hepatitis C replication. Not long after Sovaldi's approval, the FDA also approved Gilead Sciences Harvoni, a combination of Sovaldi and ledipasvir, another enzyme inhibitor.
Because Sovaldi and Harvoni are both effective and safe, they've become the go-to treatments in hepatitis C, generating over $19 billion in combined sales last year alone.
Delivering dataAlthough there's a lot more work to do before investors can say that this drug can cure hepatitis B, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals ARC-520 is putting up very intriguing data in mid stage trials.
ARC-520 delivers small interfering RNA that interferes with messenger RNA to reduce the production of hepatitis B viral proteins. According to the company, dosing ARC-520 alongside Bristol-Myers Squibb's commonly used hepatitis B drug Baraclude delivered up to a 5.5 log, or 99.99%, knockdown in serum hepatitis B DNA, a measure of disease activity.
Additionally, ARC-520 appears to effectively treat patients who are diagnosed with the tough-to-treat HBeAg negative variant of hepatitis B. All patients in this study with HBeAg disease achieved serum reductions that put them at levels consistent with a functional cure.
Importantly, the most commonly reported adverse events reported by patients in ARC-520 trials are upper respiratory infection and headache.
Work remainsThese data results reflect information that has been previously reported in abstracts, so there's not a lot that's new for investors to digest. However, more information should be reported this year by the company because a number of mid stage trials are progressing that have estimated primary completion dates in 2016.
For example, a phase 2 combination study of ARC-520 and Baraclude is expected to reach its final date for data collection this August. Another placebo controlled study of ARC-520 as monotherapy should also be available this year.
Assuming mid stage results remain positive, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals will meet with the FDA to design final, confirmatory phase 3 studies. Those large, late-stage studies could serve as the basis for a FDA approval and commercial launch, however, phase 3 trials take some time and that means that we're still pretty far away from knowing for sure if ARC-520 is as good at controlling hepatitis B as Gilead Sciences' drugs are at controlling hepatitis C.
Looking forwardA functional cure in hepatitis B is the Holy Grail of HBV research and while ARC-520 is intriguing, there's no guarantee that this drug will pass muster in future studies. Investors should also remember that large, late-stage studies like those ahead for ARC-520 are pricey. Arrowhead is already spending $18.5 million per quarter and it has just $76.5 million in cash. Therefore, as we get closer to phase 3, it wouldn't be too surprising if there was a dilutive stock offering to raise more cash on the horizon.
Overall, Arrowhead is a high risk and high reward stock that in my view, tilts toward the risky side of this equation. For that reason, investors might want to wait until complete phase 2 data is in hand before adding this company's shares to portfolios. 
10 stocks we like better than Gilead Sciences
When investing geniuses David and Tom Gardner have a stock tip, it can pay to listen. After all, the newsletter they have run for over a decade, Motley Fool Stock Advisor, has tripled the market.*
David and Tom just revealed what they believe are the ten best stocks for investors to buy right now… and Gilead Sciences wasn't one of them! That's right -- they think these 10 stocks are even better buys.

Can Arrowhead Do For Hep B What Gilead Sciences Did For Hep C?

Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ:ARWR) recently offered up insight into potential efficacy for its clinical-stage hepatitis B drug ARC-520 that suggest it may offer the best chance yet at a functional cure for hepatitis B, a common liver disease affecting hundreds of millions of people worldwide.
If Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals confirms its mid stage findings in larger and later-stage studies, then it could change hepatitis B treatment in a way that is reminiscent of how Gilead Sciences' (NASDAQ:GILD) transformed hepatitis C treatment.
Revolutionizing treatmentBoth hepatitis B and hepatitis C are chronic, tough-to-treat liver diseases that are incredibly common. An estimated 350 million people are infected with hepatitis B globally, including between 1 million and 2 million Americans. Roughly 170 million people are infected with hepatitis C in the world, including as many as 3 million people in the United States.
Both of these diseases can lead to liver failure and liver cancer, two conditions that are life threatening and costly to treat. In fact, hepatitis B is thought to be responsible of up to 80% of liver cancer cases and between 25% and 40% of hepatitis B patients who acquire this disease early in life are likely to develop serious complications.
A cure for hepatitis B has been elusive, but hepatitis C patients are being cured by Gilead Sciences' Sovaldi and Harvoni by the hundreds of thousands of patients annually. Sovaldi won FDA approval at the end of 2013 after showing that it can cure 90% or more of hepatitis C patients by inhibiting an enzyme necessary for hepatitis C replication. Not long after Sovaldi's approval, the FDA also approved Gilead Sciences Harvoni, a combination of Sovaldi and ledipasvir, another enzyme inhibitor.
Because Sovaldi and Harvoni are both effective and safe, they've become the go-to treatments in hepatitis C, generating over $19 billion in combined sales last year alone.
Delivering dataAlthough there's a lot more work to do before investors can say that this drug can cure hepatitis B, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals ARC-520 is putting up very intriguing data in mid stage trials.
ARC-520 delivers small interfering RNA that interferes with messenger RNA to reduce the production of hepatitis B viral proteins. According to the company, dosing ARC-520 alongside Bristol-Myers Squibb's commonly used hepatitis B drug Baraclude delivered up to a 5.5 log, or 99.99%, knockdown in serum hepatitis B DNA, a measure of disease activity.
Additionally, ARC-520 appears to effectively treat patients who are diagnosed with the tough-to-treat HBeAg negative variant of hepatitis B. All patients in this study with HBeAg disease achieved serum reductions that put them at levels consistent with a functional cure.
Importantly, the most commonly reported adverse events reported by patients in ARC-520 trials are upper respiratory infection and headache.
Work remainsThese data results reflect information that has been previously reported in abstracts, so there's not a lot that's new for investors to digest. However, more information should be reported this year by the company because a number of mid stage trials are progressing that have estimated primary completion dates in 2016.
For example, a phase 2 combination study of ARC-520 and Baraclude is expected to reach its final date for data collection this August. Another placebo controlled study of ARC-520 as monotherapy should also be available this year.
Assuming mid stage results remain positive, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals will meet with the FDA to design final, confirmatory phase 3 studies. Those large, late-stage studies could serve as the basis for a FDA approval and commercial launch, however, phase 3 trials take some time and that means that we're still pretty far away from knowing for sure if ARC-520 is as good at controlling hepatitis B as Gilead Sciences' drugs are at controlling hepatitis C.
Looking forwardA functional cure in hepatitis B is the Holy Grail of HBV research and while ARC-520 is intriguing, there's no guarantee that this drug will pass muster in future studies. Investors should also remember that large, late-stage studies like those ahead for ARC-520 are pricey. Arrowhead is already spending $18.5 million per quarter and it has just $76.5 million in cash. Therefore, as we get closer to phase 3, it wouldn't be too surprising if there was a dilutive stock offering to raise more cash on the horizon.
Overall, Arrowhead is a high risk and high reward stock that in my view, tilts toward the risky side of this equation. For that reason, investors might want to wait until complete phase 2 data is in hand before adding this company's shares to portfolios. 
10 stocks we like better than Gilead Sciences
When investing geniuses David and Tom Gardner have a stock tip, it can pay to listen. After all, the newsletter they have run for over a decade, Motley Fool Stock Advisor, has tripled the market.*
David and Tom just revealed what they believe are the ten best stocks for investors to buy right now… and Gilead Sciences wasn't one of them! That's right -- they think these 10 stocks are even better buys.

Healthcare Pre-session Mover in Hot Glance: AbbVie Inc. (NYSE:ABBV), CytRx Corporation (NASDAQ:CYTR)

A global biopharmaceutical firm, AbbVie Inc. (NYSE:ABBV) [Trend Analysis] considering as most desiring stocks in active trading lead, shares fell after opening to traded at $61.08 with volume of 252783 shares.  AbbVie (NYSE:ABBV) announced that U.S. Fda has decided a supplemental New Drug Application (sNDA) for use of VIEKIRA PAK (ombitasvir, paritaprevir, and ritonavir tablets; dasabuvir tablets) without ribavirin (RBV) in patients with genotype 1b (GT1b) chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and compensated cirrhosis (Child-Pugh A).

The application was before granted previousity review by the FDA, a designation given to examinational therapies that treat a serious condition and provide a important improvement in safety or effectiveness. VIEKIRA PAK reported that is a prescription medicine used with or without RBV to treat adults with genotype 1 (GT1) chronic (lasting a long time) HCV infection, and can be used in people who have a certain type of cirrhosis (compensated). VIEKIRA PAK is not for people with advanced cirrhosis (decompensated). Patients with cirrhosis should talk to a doctor before taking VIEKIRA PAK.

The executive vice president, research and development and chief scientific officer, AbbVie, Michael Severino stated that they are constantly striving to advance clinical care for patients living with chronic hepatitis C. This authorization is particularly important for the reason that patients with chronic HCV with compensated cirrhosis are amid tough to treat, and in their study VIEKIRA PAK demonstrated 100% cure rates in GT1b patients without the use of ribavirin.

ABBV is ahead its 52-week low with 37.22%and going down from its 52-week high price with -12.09%. The company’s shares performance for the last one month was 10.03% and 3.21% in the previous week.

As the revenues measures, firm has operation margin of 33.00% in the following twelve months with net profit margin of positive 22.50%. The Company showed a positive 22.50% in the net profit margin. Company’s annual sales growth for the past five year was 7.90%.

CytRx Corporation (NASDAQ:CYTR) [Trend Analysis] swings ardently in active trading session, it climbs of 3.29% to trade at $3.45. CytRx Corporation (NASDAQ:CYTR) revealed on Monday that two members of its clinical development team, Scott Wieland, Ph.D., Senior VP, Drug Development, as well as Nancy Wu, Senior Director of Clinical Operations, attain the prestigious gold award at the PharmaTimes Clinical Researcher of the Year The Americas competition held in Atlanta, Georgia. The award in the Strategic Alliance Team category is shared with CytRx’s partners at PRA Health Sciences, (PRA) (Nasdaq: PRAH), which was also recognized at the competition as the Best Clinical Research Firm of the Year for the second consecutive year.

The CytRx’s Executive Vice President and Chief Medical Officer, Daniel Levitt stated that on behalf of CytRx, he is proud to recognize Scott, Nancy and their partners at PRA for this achievement. This highly experienced team is responsible for managing their pivotal Phase 3 trial with aldoxorubicin in second-line soft tissue sarcomas, comprising completing enrollment a quarter ahead of schedule.

The stock price of firm is moving up from its 20 days moving average with 15.35% and remote isolated positively from 50 days moving average with 27.01%. (Full [FREE Analysis] of NASDAQ:CYTR And Be Sure To Notice The Intermediate Period)

Moving toward the volatility measures, the price volatility of stock was 6.27% for a week and 7.90% for a month as well as price volatility’s Average True Range for 14 days was 0.22. The beta, which indicates risk in relegation to the market, remained 1.72. The firm past twelve months price to sales ratio was 2160.98 and price to cash ratio remained 3.77. As far as the returns are concern, the return on equity was recorded as -116.20% and return on investment was -143.50% while its return on asset stayed at -83.60%.