CHAMGAP
APPROVEDReviewed and approved by the Chamgap Editorial Team (2026-07-23). The draft was written by AI, the existence of all 2 cited sources was verified at the original page, and the verdict passed blind grading and adversarial audit. Methodology v0.6.
Verdict No. 1423 · Search date 2026-07-23 · Methodology v0.6

Sofosbuvir/velpatasvir/voxilaprevir,
does it really help with SVR12 virologic cure on retreatment of chronic hepatitis C after failure of an NS5A-containing DAA regimen?

30-Second Summary
B
Evidence Grade B · 79 · Safety caution
Twelve-week cure rates after DAA failure are very high, but the evidence should not be generalized to routine initial treatment
What the
research shows
The three-drug DAA Vosevi is rated B because it produced 96% SVR12 in retreatment of chronic hepatitis C after failure of an NS5A inhibitor-containing DAA regimen. In POLARIS-1, SVR12 was 96% among 263 participants receiving 12 weeks of the triple regimen, while the deferred-treatment placebo group had 0% during placebo. In POLARIS-4, non-NS5A DAA failures achieved 98% with the triple regimen versus 90% with the two-drug regimen. Cure rates are very high, but evidence is limited to retreatment and the POLARIS-1 placebo was not an active effective comparator, imposing a B ceiling.
What the
ads claim
Calling it the strongest first treatment for every hepatitis C patient exceeds the evidence. The central evidence and indication concern 12-week retreatment after prior DAA failure, especially failure involving an NS5A inhibitor.
*

Useful facts when choosing a product

  • Vosevi combines sofosbuvir 400 mg, velpatasvir 100 mg, and voxilaprevir 100 mg in one prescription tablet generally taken once daily for 12 weeks as retreatment.
  • Because it contains the protease inhibitor voxilaprevir, it should not be used in decompensated cirrhosis or a history of hepatic decompensation, and specialist liver assessment is required.
  • Common adverse effects include headache, fatigue, diarrhea, and nausea; as with all DAAs, hepatitis B testing and monitoring for reactivation are required.
  • This three-drug retreatment is distinct from the two-drug sofosbuvir/velpatasvir regimen commonly used for initial therapy.
Gap Measurement · Verdict 1423 · B 79
What advertising claims
What independent, higher-quality research supports
△ GAP
01

What the research actually shows

One report by Bourlière and colleagues presented POLARIS-1 and POLARIS-4. POLARIS-1 assigned 415 previous NS5A-regimen failures to triple therapy or placebo, with 96% SVR12 among all 263 triple-therapy recipients. POLARIS-4 assigned non-NS5A DAA failures to triple therapy in 182 participants or sofosbuvir/velpatasvir in 151, producing 98% and 90% SVR12.

02

Why this is classified as B (79)

POLARIS-1 showed 96% SVR12 after NS5A failure and POLARIS-4 reproduced 98%. The evidence nevertheless concerns a selected retreatment population, uses deferred-treatment placebo, and concentrates active-comparator data in one trial, supporting B with 79 points. Safety is managed separately.

Counterpoint. After DAA failure, the failed drug classes, cirrhosis status, and interactions should be reviewed rather than repeating a regimen without specialist guidance.

Rejudgment record. New verdict — Accepted SVR12 in POLARIS-1 and POLARIS-4 as direct virologic cure evidence, while applying the ceiling for a DAA-failure retreatment population and limited placebo and active comparisons

Sub-claim grades by effect

This ingredient is marketed for several effects. A single overall grade blends strong and weak claims together, so each effect is graded separately here. The overall grade reflects the strongest disconfirming or core claim.

Effect (sub-claim)GradeBasis
SVR12 after failure of an NS5A-containing DAA regimenBPOLARIS-1 found 96% SVR12 with 12 weeks of triple therapy.
Successful retreatment after non-NS5A DAA failureBPOLARIS-4 found 98% with triple therapy versus 90% with dual therapy.
SVR12 in patients with compensated cirrhosisBHigh SVR12 included compensated cirrhosis but does not apply to decompensated cirrhosis.

Cross-check — Codex and Claude

This verdict was drafted by Codex through literature review and source-existence checks, cross-checked through blind grading and adversarial audit, and settled by reapplying the methodology boundary rules. Cases with split grades were resolved through rejudgment.
03

Evidence Table

StudyDesignSampleFundingEndpointResultWeight
Bourlière M et al. 2017 POLARIS-1Phase 3 randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial152Gilead SciencesSVR 12 weeks after treatmentTriple-therapy SVR12 was 96%; placebo-period SVR was 0%.Key NS5A-failure evidence
Bourlière M et al. 2017 POLARIS-4Phase 3 randomized active-controlled trial151Gilead SciencesSVR12Triple therapy achieved 98% (178/182) versus 90% (136/151) with sofosbuvir/velpatasvir.Active retreatment comparison
§

Receipt — 2 References

All 2 cited sources were verified for existence at the original page (as of 2026-07-23).

Bourlière M, Gordon SC, Flamm SL, et al. Sofosbuvir, velpatasvir, and voxilaprevir for previously treated HCV infection. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(22):2134-2146. PMID: 28564569. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1613512.
checked
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. VOSEVI prescribing information. 2017. PMID: none. DOI: none.
checked
Draft and rewrite: Codex (AI) · Verification: Codex blind grading and adversarial audit · Final adjudication: Claude
Reviewed and approved: Chamgap Editorial Team · Approval date: 2026-07-23 · Corrections: none

Cite this verdict

Sofosbuvir/velpatasvir/voxilaprevir x HCV retreatment after DAA failure Evidence Grade B card
[Chamgap] Sofosbuvir/velpatasvir/voxilaprevir x HCV retreatment after DAA failure — Evidence Grade B·79. 2 cited sources checked. Source: https://chamgap.com/en/verdicts/liver/sofosbuvir-velpatasvir-voxilaprevir-daa-failure-hcv-retreatment-svr12/ · CC BY 4.0

CC BY 4.0 — free to use with attribution; do not distort grades, numbers, or verdict meaning.

!

What this document does and does not do

Chamgap is an information source. It reports what research has and has not confirmed; it does not tell readers what to take or buy. That decision belongs to readers and, when needed, medical or legal professionals. This verdict reflects literature available up to the search date and may change as new research appears. Nothing here is medical advice.