Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Hepatitis / September 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

At week 48, sudden consideration of going 60 weeks !!!  [long, technical]

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Russian - 18 Sep 2007 15:41 GMT
Opinions requested:

So I had my last shot last Friday - #48, and the Riba winds up this
coming Friday.

I saw the ENT Monday.  After I mention how happy I am to be done, he
brings up the subject of going 60 weeks!  For the first time.

I said, we had always said 48 weeks.  So he looked closer at the file,
and said based on my lab results to date, 48 would be fine.

First I was glad to not get a a surprise 12-week extension.

But then after I left, I was concerned because I'd rather do 60 weeks
than do finish 48, not get SVR, and have to do 48 again!

I looked up some peer-reviewed papers published in medical journals, and
it seemed to say that RVR (Rapid Viral Response) (2-log drop in 4 weeks)
got no benefit from more than 48 weeks, and same deal for those with EVR
(Early Viral Response) who had under 50 iU/ml after 12 weeks, but those
with EVR > 50 iU/ml after 12 weeks benefited by going 72 weeks (78% for
that group at 48 weeks and 84% at 72 weeks).

I think I'm in the RVR group.  My pre-treatment PCR was 1 year earlier,
so the virus count was probably a bit higher by the time I started
treatment, and my 4 week PCR was done at 3 1/2 weeks.  My log drop was
1.98 which I consider as 2 under the circumstances.

At 12 weeks I was at 52 iU/ml, pretty close to their <50 standard for 48
weeks.

My alts have been normal since 24 weeks.

Here's the treatment summary:

TREATMENT SUMMARY

Weeks
Done    Date        PCR iU/ml     Log10   Log Drop
---------------------------------------------------
-393    09-22-2005  1,300,000     6.11    n/a
-268    01-25-2006  LIVER BIOPSY (see below)

START OF TREATMENT
  0     10-20-2006  FIRST INJECTION & RIBA DOSE

  3.5   11-14-2006  13,400        4.13    2.00
  12.5  01-16-2007  52            1.72    4.39
  27    04-27-2007  NOT DETECTED  0       6.11

  47    09-14-2007  LAST INJECTION
  48    09-21-2007  LAST RIBA DOSE - END OF TREATMENT

+  2    10-05-2007  SCHEDULED PCR - POST END OF TREATMENT
+ 13    12-21-2007  SCHEDULED PCR - 3 MONTH
+ 26    03-21-2008  SCHEDULED PCR - 6 MONTH

Notes

The 9-22-2005 test was: NGI Super Quant,
sensitivity:  "1 copy to 10ul reaction"

All other PCR's were COBAS TaqMan HCV,
sensitivity:  25 to 25,000,000

BIOPSY DETAILS FROM 01-25-2006
"Sections show a mildly active chronic hepatitis
consistent with hepatitis C. There is at least
bridging fibrosis with degenerative nodule
formation, although the possibility of early
cirrhoeis cannot be excluded. There is no apparent
dysplasia, nor any evidence for malignancy.

"No abnormal iron deposition

"LIVER, CORE NEEDLE BIOPSY,
- CHRONlC ACTIVE HEPATITIS,
  MlLDLY ACTIVE (GRADE 2 0f 4).
- CONSISTENT WlTH HEPATITIS C.
- BRIDGING FIBROSIS (STAGE 3 OF 4); CANNOT
  EXCLUDE EARLY CIRRHOSIS.
- NEGATIVE FOR DYSPLASIA AND MALIGNANCY.

"The findings appear comparable to the previous biopsy of 2001."
greyhackles - 18 Sep 2007 17:25 GMT
>Opinions requested:
>
[quoted text clipped - 80 lines]
>
>"The findings appear comparable to the previous biopsy of 2001."

Remembering that the virus, when threatened, will mutate to avoid recognition
by the host immune system. Then, when the virus regains the upper hand, it
(apparently) always returns to its wild type coding (and if that wasn't true,
there's little likelihood *anyone* would *ever* achieve SVR).

From what I've read over the years, once an HCV patient has gone chronic,
there's little if any correlation between time and viral load - other than to
say that an off-treatment patient's VL can vary by even an order of magnitude
- up and down - at any given time. Over that time, any VL single result simply
describes a point in time in the battle between virus and immune system.

To be honest, I'm surprised your numbers would equate to "RVR" - which I
thought meant more like "clear by week 4". Your VL progression seems more like
a "classic good responder" - which should also mean being clear for 24 weeks
on therapy will have a happy ending.

You are in a place that I easily recall being in myself. As the end of the
scheduled 48 weeks closed in, I felt more and more like it might be a good
idea to keep going.

I think it's the natural result of getting used to being thoroughly beaten up
to "get well".  Probably something related to "Stockholm Syndrome" ;-)
And you don't want to stop because that's when the *real* rubber finally hits
the road - and it's scary to consider.

You'll get over it once you get that 3-month-post-therapy "undetectable" :-)

Cheers

/greyhackles
greyhackles - 18 Sep 2007 17:40 GMT
A couple of things I forgot to write down:

Congrats on making it through therapy (last handful of Riba notwithstanding)!
<mega golf claps!> :-)

Your doc's 60 week comment might have been simple misassociation. I lost count
of how many times either my bcld, or my blood doc, or my pcp, confused my case
with that of their other patients. It got as bad as my blood doc saying he
came to a rather important conclusion based on a blood test he never ordered.
It pays to keep meticulous records on your own - which is why I insisted I got
a copy of every test done over nearly two years.

Try to get your first post-therapy VL test done as soon as possible. In my
humble opinion, the value of that test - to verify that there was no
on-treatment viral breakthrough - is highest if done within a week of the last
Peg shot. It really should be called "End Of Therapy" test, not "Post-Therapy
Test".

Cheers

/greyhackles
Russian - 19 Sep 2007 08:02 GMT
> A couple of things I forgot to write down:
>
> Congrats on making it through therapy (last handful of Riba notwithstanding)!
> <mega golf claps!> :-)
>
> Your doc's 60 week comment might have been simple misassociation.

That's what it seemed like to me at the time, too.

> Try to get your first post-therapy VL test done as soon as possible. In my
> humble opinion, the value of that test - to verify that there was no
> on-treatment viral breakthrough - is highest if done within a week of the last
> Peg shot. It really should be called "End Of Therapy" test, not "Post-Therapy
> Test".

Thanks for the advice.. I'll slide in early for that one...

Hey, I can always state that:

"I went a week early because the riba made me impulsive, and
furthermore, the peg made me forgetful, and if you don't believe me then
 let me tell you: You're an idiot!!!... and you can just go, um, how
does that insult go again?"
h00hbt - 18 Sep 2007 17:42 GMT
> Opinions requested:
>
[quoted text clipped - 80 lines]
>
> "The findings appear comparable to the previous biopsy of 2001."

Hi russian

Congrats for you making 48 weeks, good job done!

I had that thaught too, you know about prolonged tx, but came to the
conclusion that 48 weeks was topps, I allso agree with gray about the
stockholm-syndrome.

Hey! stay well and take care.

Rgds

/H
Russian - 19 Sep 2007 08:02 GMT
Kozure Ookami - 19 Sep 2007 04:21 GMT
>Opinions requested:

I think considering going for a while longer if you feel you can might
be a good idea.  Your biopsy showed bridging fibrosis to early
cirrhosis and studies have indicated cirrhosis lowers the odds of SVR
and for genotype 1s they're not so good to start out with.  Also,
considering your somewhat advanced liver disease, best to make this
shot (sorry) your best one.  Very long trip if you need to start over
again.  This virus is a heart breaker no doubt about it.  Also, at 12
weeks you were still detectable although barely.  Your starting VL
wasn't too bad.  My opinion is, if you feel up to it, you should
consider extending.  Just my opinion.  I believe advanced liver
disease is associated with higher chance to fail, plus your a male,
and your start wasn't as good as it could have been.  Send a note to
the Dr. Cecil at www.hepatitisdoctor.com who is a big proponent of
extended treatment when advanced liver disease is present.  

Just my opinion and a very difficult one to express because it's your
risk and I know how much you want this to be over.   But's its not
over if you relapse.  

Don
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.