The early trials were all 12 weeks PI + SOC followed by 12 weeks SOC, as you say.
All I'm saying is that the results from those trials suggested that the RVR occured during the first 12 weeks, and the second 12 weeks didn't make a material difference to the results. Vertex We heard this presented at AASLD when the results were announced. Here's the kind of thing that was presented:
"In the treatment arms that included telaprevir, pegylated interferon and ribavirin, a high percentage of patients who had undetectable virus at week 4 and 12 developed a sustained viral response," said Dr. Geoffrey M. Dusheiko, Investigator for PROVE 2 and Professor of Medicine at Royal Free Hospital and University College London Institute of Hepatology. "If these results are validated in Phase 3 studies, shorter courses of treatment for a larger percentage of treatment-naive hepatitis C genotype 1 infected patients may be possible."
I'm not making a case that the SOC will magically become 12 weeks when the PIs are released. All I'm saying is that there are trial results that support a shorter tx than 24 weeks, and we are now seeing PI trials announced that are 12 week protocols.
I've got a sweet spot on my tennis racket but it doesn't mean I hit the ball or get it over the net every time. :)
Trinity
I haven't seen any clinical trials that have produced SVR after a 12 week treatment. Yes, after 12 wks PI *and* 12 weeks SOC, but that's a 24 week trial. I don't understand how that could be considered a 12 week protocol.
Ooops I should have said what was your biopsy result? You really do need a new one after 8 years. Just because it took say 30 years to get to stage 2 does NOT mean it will take another 30 to get to cirrhosis. It could happen in just a few years - it is not linear in progression and the older we get and the more damage we have the harder the chance of success can be.
The details of this particular trial are here:
http://investors.vrtx.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=447807
FWIW, I treated in the first Telaprevir trial back in 2006. When the results were published, it was clear that 12 weeks was the sweet spot. Vertex talked about that quite a bit at AASLD etc.
Nothing is certain, so all I'm saying is that the chances are good enough to wait and see if you have the time.
What did your biopsy result say? I don't see that in here and that is the one piece of information that can tell you whether you do have time to wait and see IF the drugs come out in a short time or not. Nobody knows for certain when they will be available but all can agree that they are marvelous.
I would hate to tell you to wait if you are later stage of the liver disease damage progression. While we are praying that these drugs do come out shortly - there is no guarantee that something won't happen to prevent it from happening and I would not just start telling everyone to wait for them with a blanket approach.
With the new drugs are shorter times with better odds but remember you are also adding another drug on top with it's own set of side effects too.
I had both geno 1A and also 1B and have been cured for over 3 years. I was a SLOW responder (meaning I did not get cleared until after week 12 but before week 24) so I opted to do 72 weeks to try to boost up my odds. It worked.
EVERYTHING about treatment is a gamble. Nobody can guarantee you anything unfortunately. Even with the new drugs on board the shorter time might not work where the 48 weeks of standard interferon and ribavirin do.
And please get rid of the feeling selfish - certainly you wouldn't feel selfish if you had cancer right? You are ill with a deadly disease - that doesn't put you in anyway in a selfish position........no way. (We do understand how you feel though believe me).
Good luck.