Table 1. Model parameter estimates obtained for different drug treatments of chronic HCV.

Treatment								Trial Dur.	Source
Telaprevir	13.4	0.58	2.86	0.974	0.999	0.10	n/a	2.5 days	[6]
Mericitabine, qd 750 mg	6*	0.023	1.06 (flat)	0.38	0.86	0.37	n/a	2 weeks	[16]
			0.23 (non-flat)
Mericitabine, qd 1500 mg	6*	0.023	1.06 (flat)	0.38	0.94	0.37	n/a	2 weeks	[16]
			0.23 (non-flat)
Mericitabine, bid 750 mg	6*	0.023	2.03 (flat)	0.38	0.98	0.37	n/a	2 weeks	[16]
			0.43 (non-flat)
Mericitabine, bid 1500 mg	6*	0.023	2.03 (flat)	0.38	0.998	0.37	n/a	2 weeks	[16]
			0.43 (non-flat)
Silibinin	6*	0.62	2.12	n/a	0.861	n/a	6**	7 days	[19]
Danoprevir, bid 100 mg	7.25	0.184	29.1	n/a	0.973	n/a	n/a	13 days	***
Danoprevir, bid 200 mg	7.25	0.184	29.1	n/a	0.985	n/a	n/a	13 days	***
Danoprevir, bid 300 mg	7.25	0.184	29.1	n/a	0.99	n/a	n/a	13 days	***
Sofosbuvir	5.76	0.53	8.12	n/a	0.998	n/a	n/a	7 days	***

Model parameter gives the viral clearance rate, the infected hepatocyte death rate, gives the exponential scale at which the drug reaches its maximum value from its minimum value , gives the delay in the drug activity, and gives the efficacy of treatment in blocking new cell infection.

*Clearance rate fixed at days⁻¹ from [3], not estimated.

**Efficacy of treatment in blocking new cell infection fixed at from [16], not estimated.

***Unpublished.

Notes: (i) In fitting viral load data, authors investigating telaprevir and mericitabine used the more general VE model (12), while those investigating silibinin, danoprevir, and sofosbuvir used the simple VE model (3) with Efficacy of treatment in blocking new cell infection was only used in the silibinin model (effectively 0 in other models). (ii) qd  =  daily dosing, bid =  bi-daily dosing. (iii) Parameter estimates derive from HCV treatment studies on patients who were treatment naïve, except in the case of mericitabine, where all patients were interferon non-responders.