Comparative Antiviral Efficacy of Generic Sofosbuvir versus Brand Name Sofosbuvir with Ribavirin for the Treatment of Hepatitis C

Effectiveness and safety of generic and brand direct acting antivirals for treatment of chronic hepatitis C

BACKGROUND

Direct acting antivirals (DAAs) are a very effective treatment for hepatitis C virus (HCV). However, brand DAAs are expensive. The licensing of cheaper generic DAAs may address this issue, but there is a lack of clinical studies comparing the efficacy of generic vs brand DAA formulations.

AIM

To compare the efficacy and safety of generic against brand DAAs for chronic hepatitis C treatment in Bahrain.

METHODS

This was a retrospective observational study involving 289 patients with chronic HCV infection during 2016 to 2018. There were 149 patients who were treated with brand DAAs, while 140 patients were treated with generic DAAs. Commonly used DAAs were Ombitasvir/Paritaprevir/Ritonavir ± Dasabuvir ± Ribavirin, and Sofosbuvir/Daclatasvir ± Ribavirin. SVR at 12 wk post treatment was the main outcome variable.

RESULTS

Overall, 87 patients (30.1%) had cirrhosis and 68.2% had genotype 1 HCV infection. At 12 wk post treatment, SVR was achieved by 271 (93.8%) of the patients. In patients who were treated with generic medications, 134 (95.7%) achieved SVR at 12 wk post treatment, compared to 137 (91.9%) among those treated with brand medications (P = 0.19). Having cirrhosis [odds ratio (OR): 9.41, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.47–35.84] and having HCV genotype 3 (OR: 3.56, 95%CI: 1.03–12.38) were significant independent predictors of not achieving SVR. Alanine transaminase, gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase, and total bilirubin levels decreased significantly following therapy with both generic and brand DAAs.

CONCLUSION

Generic and brand DAAs demonstrate comparable effectiveness in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C patients. Both are safe and equally effective in improving biochemical markers of hepatic inflammation.

Access to unauthorized hepatitis C generics: Perception and knowledge of physicians, pharmacists, patients and non-healthcare professionals

OBJECTIVES

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) causes both acute and chronic infection, which can potentially develop into cirrhosis and liver cancer. Healthcare systems are struggling to finance costly direct-acting antiviral agents through public funding for uninsured patients, despite the unprecedented high cure rates of these agents. Vulnerable populations are at higher risk of HCV infection. The personal importation scheme is based on the legal right to import any unauthorized generics for personal use. This study was designed to assess the knowledge and perceptions of stakeholders on unauthorized generics.

METHODS

We conducted an anonymous online survey based on the fictitious situation of a patient diagnosed with HCV who lacked mandatory health insurance and personal financial resources.

RESULTS

We obtained a sample of 781 respondents: 445 physicians, 77 pharmacists, 51 patients and 207 non-healthcare professionals. We found that only 36% and 58% of respondents believe that the quality and efficacy, respectively, of unauthorized generics are equivalent to their corresponding brand. An overwhelming majority (98%) favoured quality control upon arrival, and 31% felt they could recognize fraudulent websites. A total of 79% expressed support for financial assistance for vulnerable patients, and support among physicians was 83%.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the limited knowledge of the efficacy and quality of unauthorized generics, despite evidence in peer-reviewed literature, contrasts with the overwhelmingly positive attitudes toward financial assistance for personal import. This finding emphasizes the need for clearer information on imported generics and the potential safety provided by buyers' club schemes to complete the WHO agenda of eradicating viral hepatitis by 2030 within otherwise excluded vulnerable populations.