Hi greyhackles,

 first of all, the study demonstrates that the SVR rate is (almost)
the same betweeen the two groups, showing that the presence of a
shorter treatment duration subset of people *does not* influence the
SVR rate.

"... Fifty-three patients (76 percent) in the standard-duration group
and 164 patients (77 percent) in the variable-duration group had a
sustained virologic response (difference, -1 percent; 95 percent
confidence interval, -13 to 10 percent).
..."

This leads to the conclusion that, as far as SVR rate is concerned
(this is the only criteria they've been basing their study conclusions
upon), 12 weeks of treatment are as effective as 24 for genotypes 2 & 3
(with differences between genotypes, though), treated as said.

That said, of course, this is what _this_ study demonstrates, these are
_this_ study conclusions and not statitical or medical assumptions.

Statistical or medical assumptions usually take place in steps and need
time to become guidelines or rules.
It is not so easy as doing simple maths like the one you've being doing
;-)

 3.6 : 8.9 = 100 : x => x = (8.9*100)/3.6 => x = 248 (~)

showing a big number that _still_ represents what scientists consider a
trascurable difference in this case (tip, look at the "P" variable in
the following sentence):

"...
The rate of relapse (defined as HCV not detectable at the end of
treatment but detectable at the end of follow-up) was 3.6 percent in
the standard-duration group and 8.9 percent in the variable-duration
group (P=0.16).
..."

Anyhow, this study conclusions won't be used as guidelines.

Probably current treatment standard guidelines will be changed in the
future (as they've been in the recent past) as new drugs will come
along and as more studies will help better understand how to use them,
for how long etc., to help obtaining always better rates of SVRs.

IMO.

Cheers,
jeeb.