In a word....yes

AG

So you've actually read the study now or are you just relying on that
summary/translation of a press release?  I don't see any statement in
the abstract indicating that HCV "shortens one's lifetime". Is there
such a statement in the study itself?  I don't know because I haven't
seen it. Again, here's the conclusion from that abstract:

------------------
Conclusion:

Within 27 years after infection advanced liver disease (cirrhosis or
hepatocellular carcinoma) developed in 29.7% of plasma donors infected
at plasmapheresis, with an overall mortality of 2.1%. These data
underline the progressive nature of chronic hepatitis C infection and
the need to identify and to treat infected subjects as soon as
possible.

------------------

It doesn't sayt say that "untreated hep c shortens one's lifespan". It
doesn't specify whether or not any of the 9 dead had done treatment.
Maybe some of donors were treated when liver damage was further along
but ended up dying anyway? So wasn't it cirrhosis/liver cancer that
caused the deaths, treated or not?  There isn't enough info posted in
this thread to tell exactly how many of the selected 435 actually did
treatment. The abstract does state that 110 noncirrhotic patients were
treated and yet were nonresponders to antiviral therapy. Since those
patients did treat their HCV, would one assume that their life spans
won't be shortened if the key was getting treatment?

LOL Where have I heard that before? I used to drive my boss nuts
splitting a few too many hairs in a job that required hair splitting,
until she began reciting "ours not to question why..." whenever I came
in to have a word. At least I haven't encouraged others with HCV to
lie to their doctors about their drug abuse/medical history. Do you
suppose a retrospective study like this one which looked back at
medical records, could wind up being seriously flawed if those chosen
medical records contained such lies?  

Based on what's posted in this thread so far, I don't see any evidence
other than a summary in English of a foreign language press release to
support that "untreated HCV shortens life span" was actually a
conclusion of the study. IMO there's a strong possibility that you and
I won't know the exact nature of the authors' conclusions until we
actually read the STUDY (not abstracts, not other people's summaries,
not press releases) to see how participants were selected and what
medical records they were able to dig up 27 years later, and to look
at the data presented and see how it was interpreted.

Perhaps I'm not feeling as desperate as others with mild liver damage
to do the latest "New and Improved" version of interferon because I
realize that one way or another, regardless of any statisics,
averages, interpretations, predictions from clairvoyants or other
assorted experts, regardless of peer reviewed retrospective studies
and treatment exit polls, I'll likely be dead within the next 30 years
anyway, so why settle for a crap treatment now when they can do better
than that?  Why not the best?  But then I'm one who voted for Nader,
too, choosing to follow my hopes and not my fears. I've seen those w/o
HCV in their twilight years, warehoused and wasting away in nursing
homes popping their long lists of pills--some demented, all frail.
Living to be that old just isn't one of my goals. I'm enjoying today.

<tapping my toes, singin' along, "..Oh for heaven's sake, we fell in a
lake and I think we're all gonna drown. We are fallin' down, down to
the bottom of a hole in the ground..">

Robin

Re: Untreated HCV shortens Life-span (Thomas: a long one)  

Group: alt.support.hepatitis-c Date: Wed, Jan 12, 2005, 7:19pm (CST+6)
From: robinmst@lycos.com (RSt)
On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 18:55:50 -0500, Thomas Wagner <tomw@capecod.com>
wrote:
Conclusion:
Within 27 years after infection advanced liver disease (cirrhosis or
hepatocellular carcinoma) developed in 29.7% of plasma donors infected
at plasmapheresis, with an overall mortality of 2.1%. These data
underline the progressive nature of chronic hepatitis C infection and
the need to identify and to treat infected subjects as soon as possible.
Ah, thanks for digging that up - a bit different from the press release.
Sheesh... I tried to find sources, but I looked in the wrong places. So
the overall mortality was just 2.1%.
Yup, at least that's what the abstract says.
Here's your opening post again for easier reference:
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 19:32:33 -0500, Thomas Wagner <tomw@capecod.com>
wrote:
An Austrian long-term study has shown that untreated HCV reduces life
expectancy by an average of 15 years for men, 18 years for women. In
contrast to earlier studies based on up to 20 years, the new study has
examined 442 patients over a span of 27 years. All patients were
infected in their early 20s while donating blood-plasma.
The results of the study show severe complications for a much larger
part of the patient population than previously assumed:
Over 30% had severe cirrhosis or liver cancer before age 60, almost none
lived past age 60.
According to the researcher (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Peter Ferenci, Klinik für
Innere Medizin IV, Abt. Gastroenterologie und Hepatologie, AKH Wien),
this emphasizes the importance of early detection and treatment for HCV,
even if no symptoms are present. While earlier shorter term studies
showed a cirrhosis prevalence of just 2-15%, the long term outlook
appears a lot bleaker.
Source (in German):
http://www.ots.at/presseaussendung.php?schluessel=OTS_20041117_OTS0010&ch=produkte
Was that first sentence you translated a direct quote from the press
release or were you just summarizing what was written in the press
release? Are there any direct quotes from the actual study in the press
release or is any of what you wrote a word-for-word translation of the
press release? I don't know German.
If only 39 women were included in the study as the abstract indicates,
that's a pretty small sample to be drawing conclusions about life
expectancy for women with HCV. Can't tell from your summary or the
abstract how many of the 9 who died were women or how many women had
serious liver damage.
The sentence I cited can be
interpreted differently...
Okay, which sentence are you talking about? When you say "cited", does
that mean that you used a direct quote from the press release or do you
mean that's where you came up with the idea that untreated HCV shortens
life-span? IMO summarizing a press release is a summary of someone
else's summary, even less reliable than an abstract. Factor in
translation and it's even further removed from the original.
  in context, it's: "Life expectancy decreased significantly, even
though 6% of the patients received a liver transplant. Almost all died
before their 60th year on the consequences of their HCV infection."
Looks like "almost all" refers to those who received a transplant, not
all of the infected. Not just English is hard... The overall reduction
of life expectancy clearly does refer to the whole patient population,
though.
Your sentences in quotations (above) weren't in your original post. I
don't see how "Life expectancy decreased significantly" is clearly a
reference to the whole patient population rather than to those with
significant liver disease within the little context of what you've
provided. What came before that sentence that begins, "Life expectancy
decreased..."?   Are the two sentences you quoted a direct quote from
the study itself or are you simply quoting (in English) the writer (in
German) of the press release?
Over 30% had severe cirrhosis or liver cancer before age 60, almost none
lived past age 60.
Isn't that a bit misleading because the "almost none" refers back to
those who died, the 9 (2.1%) out of 435, not the 30% with severe liver
damage?
The abstract shows the transplant rate was 5.1%, while your translated
version there shows 6%. Your first post shows 442 were in the study
while that abstract shows there were 435. Which is correct? Your press
release or the abstract? IMO discrepancies such as these beg to be
questioned.
There's no doubt that lifestyle does play a role in HCV progression, but
those 442 people knew they were infected for a long time.
Where did it say that they knew they had been infected for a long time?
I know someone who was told she had some type of non-A, non-B hepatitis
20+ years ago, but was also told just to watch her diet and not to worry
about it cuz it was nothing serious.
I guess that press release said nothing about how long they'd known they
were infected?
Hard to believe, but there still are ignorant docs even today. I was
told I had non-A non-B over 30 years ago, and they clearly pointed out
that it was serious and I should avoid alcohol and drugs.
Weren't you over in Germany back then? Was it pretty common wherever you
were living then for 15/16 yr olds like yourself to be doing IV drugs?
That was pretty much unheard of among that age group where I grew up,
but it wouldn't be surprising to me if a doctor used a paternal approach
with a minor child to try to scare him straight. It seemed to work in
your case.
So it wasn't
the medical profession that was clueless, probably just some country
bumpkin doctor.
You mean like a Georgia cracker? Well, back then she did go to
clinics/health dept staffed mostly with Medical College of Georgia
residents. Someone living down there would know more about the quality
of doctors that go through its doors than I do. During that period, she
also spent some time living just outside of that small country town
known as Chicago. I'll ask her where she was living when she saw that
doc next time I speak to her.
I don't know how things were in Austria then, but IIRC where I used to
live back in the 70s, junkies and alcoholics used to line up early in
the morning outside of plasma centers where they'd be paid to donate
plasma and then go get their morning fix.
An interesting point, but it ignores that the major HCV epidemic that
raged undetected during that time mainly involved injecting drug users
anyway, so even if this population were among those (a bit doubtful, but
possible), it wouldn't be any different from the average.
The undetected epidemic that raged mainly involved IV drug users then?
What do you base that statement upon? Perhaps they were among the first
ones to be diagnosed because hepatitis was known to be transmitted that
way, but what of those who may have received contaminated blood products
or got it from their doctor's offices, during medical procedures before
universal precaution days, and from those injection guns used by the
military? There are so many ways people may have gotten HCV that can
never be traced and IMO blaming its spread on drug usage is convenient
for health care system and gov't.
I guess that old debate about whether or not using blood from volunteers
is safer than using blood from paid donors will continue on unanswered.
Again, I find it mindboggling that the study is being attacked with this
kind of vehemence
<sigh> Attacked with vehemence? I'm trying to discuss what you posted
(which was *not* the study, so how could I have attacked the study?) and
added some more info originally written in English to try to get a
little better idea of what the study was saying since neither of us has
the benefit of having the study itself in front of us. I'm questioning
what you originally posted because there are discrepancies between it
and what the abstract says. Is it really so mindboggling to question a
translated summay of a foreign language press release that reported on a
study?
without anyone actually having seen it.
So do you expect others to accept that a study concluded that life
expectancy will be shortened on the basis a sketchy German press release
when the abstract of the study made no mention of shortened life
expectancy? I haven't dismissed the study, I've dismissed your assertion
that the study determined that life expectancy will be significantly
shortened when all you read was a press release about the study.
You snipped it, but I began my first post in the thread with:
Yeah, you can't really tell much without at least seeing the study....
All I could come up with was one of those abstracts that don't provide
much info, but at least it gives a bit more than what you summarized.
See, I'm well aware that you and I can only speculate about what's in
the study when all that we've come up with is bits of incomplete
information.
HCV maims and
kills, and it seems to do so quite a bit more than some dismissive early
reports have indicated. Other long term studies have shown similar
trends. What's so unbelievable about that?
The abstract does call this a "unique cohort". Nothing unbelievable or
startling about a 2.1% mortality rate before age 60. Off-hand I can
quickly come up with the names of at least 6 who used to post here who
have since died from their severe liver damage, all in their 50s IIRC. I
don't know for a fact, but some of them may have been consistently heavy
drinkers at some point in their lives; some may have had iron overload
problems, steatosis, or substance abuse problems, too, I don't know,
which may have also had an impact on their disease progression. I
already knew that it's possible that HCV damage can become progressively
worse over time, so the conclusion in the abstract about its
"progressive nature" comes as no surprise to me. I'm well aware, too,
that various host factors can also affect disease progression.
Dismissive reports? Possibly past studies were only able to look back 20
years or so because the people in those studies had only been infected
for that length of time. Why would researchers have presumed that 10 yrs
further down the road, HCV damage would suddenly become much worse in
those people without having something concrete to back up such a claim?
Or did they make claims beyond the scope of their studies? Perhaps some
of those people in those studies (like the Irish women who received
blood products) found out about it sooner and had an opportunity to make
some changes in their lives to their benefit? The abstract does show
that this study was done after lawsuits began in the '90s. Or perhaps
women with HCV do fare better than men long-term? Is a 2.1% mortality
rate that much worse than what's been found in other retrospective
look-backs?
Robin
///////////
Damn!!!!!!  You must have worked on this retort for days, Robin.  Would
you do me a favor and let me know how it all works out, once you and
Thomas get done sorting thru this mess?  Thanks!
Elmo

http://community.webtv.net/elmoemerson/DocElmosHepFile

http://community.webtv.net/elmoemerson/TheFamilyAlbum

As I said before, it's a summary of a summary, not a word-for-word
translation. The original sentence reads "calculated over the whole
collective [patient population], the median life expectancy of infected
men was reduced by 15 years, that of women even by 18 years."

Agreed.

No, the life-span is a direct quote. The cite referred to the "almost
none lived past age 60", which is an almost direct translation as well.
However, I misinterpreted this to refer to the whole patient population,
but it apparently only referred to the transplant recipients. The
original is rather fuzzy there, I tried to show he context in my first
reply to you.

Well, yes - but since the press release was the only thing I had. and it
was cited extensively in the German-language media, I thought it
relevant. Looks like it was - it certainly got people talking.

Yes. Those are word-for-word translations of the release to provide the
context of my shortened quote, and to show where I erred.

See above - life expectancy reduction is overall, not just transplant
recipients. Don't ask me how they arrived at that number when the
overall mortality was just 2%, though. They're probably extrapolating
from the fact that 30% have severe liver damage and/or HCC before age
60, so they are not likely to get that much older. I'm just the
messenger...

Well, that's what I pointed out - I misinterpreted the original.

I lived in Berlin at the time, and IV drug use in my age group was not
at all uncommon. It was certainly known at the time (and long before)
that alcohol was a major factor in liver disease, and that drug abuse
did not contribute to better liver health. Since my liver enzymes were
constantly elevated, a recommendation of abstinence had a lot to do with
sensible medical advice, and relatively little with a paternalistic
approach. I did buy a reference book about hepatitis back then, and the
medical knowledge about it was quite extensive. They just didn't have a
name for it, they weren't ignorant. Which is why I assumed that the doc
your friend talked to must have been rather removed from the mainstream.

It's also more convenient for patients to blame HCV on external factors
rather than admitting to IV drug use...

"Injection drug users (IDUs) constitute the largest group of persons
infected with the hepatitis C virus (HCV) in the United States, and most
new infections occur in IDUs."
http://www.medadvocates.org/resources/conferences/NIHHCVConsensusConference/NIHI
DUsHCV.htm

Sorry, this is (again?) a misunderstanding - I was referring to the
previous comments by various people about the study being invalid, not
your post.

I have not asserted anything about the study, I translated a press
release about the study that was issued in collaboration with the
researchers. It is not my assertion that the study determined a reduced
life expectancy, it's the assertion of those who issued the release.

Again an indirect cite from the press release. The original is lengthy:
"Comparable long-term studies are only available over much shorter
periods of up to 20 years, such as those done in Ireland, where only 2%
of the patients suffered from cirrhosis. Based on such data, Hepatitis-C
infections were often minimized ('bagatellisiert')."

Not according to the press release. Again, I do not have access to the
study, so this is all I can go by.

Thomas

Kinda hard to cash in on oil when your pipelines are continually being
bombed. Attacking Iraq was a folly that will eventually bring the Bush
Dynasty down, along with the USA's superpower status. The only superpower
status the USA will have is being a war machine headed up by good old boys.

No, the war is unwinable. Eventually, the US will have to withdraw due to
lack of young Americans willing to die for oil and no money to finance the
killing.

Not only that, he says he speaks to Him directly.

Sad state of affairs, I agree.

You thought wrong. I have no plans to renouce my citizenship.

well put.  I wonder if Powell has his druthers?  like leave yesterday?  I
don't think Halliburton has been calling at his door.

Cactus Jammies
///////////
Yeah, George is sending his brother Jeb over there to help rig the
voting machines while Powell wanders thru the rubble shaking his head.
Elmo