@inproceedings{quteprints62608,
       booktitle = {Emerging Health Policy Research Conference},
         address = {Darlington Centre, University of Sydney, Australia},
            year = {2013},
       publisher = {Menzies Centre for Health Policy},
           title = {Interferon-free therapy for hepatitis C, how prepared is Australia for biosimilars?},
           month = {October},
          author = {David Lim and Julie Hepworth and Evan Siegel and Mieke van Driel and Lisa Nissen},
        keywords = {Health policy, Pharmaceutical policy, Pharmaceuticals, Intellectual property, Patent},
        abstract = {The Hepatitis C virus (HCV) affects some 150 million people worldwide. However, unlike hepatitis A and B there is no vaccination for HCV and approximately 75\% of people exposed to HCV develop chronic hepatitis. In Australia, around 226,700 people live with chronic HCV infection costing the government approximately \$252 million per year. Historically, the standard approved/licenced treatment for HCV is pegylated interferon with ribavirin. There are major drawbacks with interferon-based therapy including side effects, long duration of therapy, limited access and affordability. Our previous survey of an at-risk population reported HCV treatment coverage of only 5\%. Since April 2013, a new class of interferon-free treatments for chronic HCV is subsidised under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme: boceprevir and telaprevir - estimated to cost the Australian Government in excess of \$220 million over five years. Other biologic interferon-free therapeutic agents are scheduled to enter the Australian market. Use of small molecule generic pharmaceuticals has been advocated as a means of public cost savings. However, with the new biologic agents, generics (biosimilars) may not be feasible or straightforward, due to long patent life; marketing exclusivity; and regulatory complexity for these newer products.},
             url = {https://eprints.qut.edu.au/62608/}
}