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 / January 2008

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Newbie Introduction

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
sojo - 19 Jan 2008 00:19 GMT
Hi all.

First off thanks to this Newsgroup, I feel somewhat prepared to start
treatment next Friday - one week to go. Anyway here is a little bit
about me.

I'm G3, but I don't know what my viral load is. I'm certain I became
infected in the 70's, although I did not find out until last June after
a trip to the hospital due to abdominal pain which after a series of
blood tests and ultrasound was determined to be caused by a fatty liver.
About a week after that I learned I was Hep C+ and then later on that
the virus was active. Since then I have learned quite a bit about Hep C
and now realize the joint pain, fatigue and frequent headaches among
other things I have experienced might be related. I have requested a
liver biopsy from my specialist, but the clinic has told me since it is
G3 they don't normally arrange a biopsy. A recent C Scan indicated that
I have a degree of liver disease, but I realize the biopsy is necessary
to determine the extent of the disease. I would really appreciate
hearing from someone who has dealt with an enlarged liver as it does
tend to be painful at times.

Again, my thanks to all of you.
Thip - 19 Jan 2008 00:47 GMT
> Hi all.
I would really appreciate
> hearing from someone who has dealt with an enlarged liver as it does tend
> to be painful at times.
>
> Again, my thanks to all of you.

I'm sorry you have a reason to be here but glad you found this group.  I was
dx'd in 2002 and it's been a wild ride ever since.  Like you, I've had it
since the '70s and a lot of things made sense once the diagnosis was made.
I dove headfirst into this ng and it was a life saver.  I was SO scared!

My liver's huge, and you're right, it can be painful.  First of all, make
sure your blood pressure is under control.  If mine goes up, it sometimes
causes sharp pains in my liver area.  As a matter of fact, I was dx'd with
high BP *because* of sharp pains in my side.  My BP was 180/120 then, but
since HCV wasn't much of an issue in 2000, the GP shrugged and said he
couldn't explain the pain in my side that had sent me to him.

Try to keep your diet as "liver friendly" as possible.  Lots of water, lots
of healthy stuff like veggies and rabbit food.  I keep the fat trimmed from
my diet and try to maintain 25 gm or less per day.  It really helps.
Everything that goes in your mouth goes through your liver, so it pays to be
careful.  Keep your weight at a reasonable level, and exercise.  If nothing
else, walk.

Good luck with your tx, and please keep everyone here informed.
greyhackles - 19 Jan 2008 01:36 GMT
>Hi all.
>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
>Again, my thanks to all of you.

Hello, Sojo. Welcome to our little dysfunctional group :-)

If there is anything up-beat to relate, you are fortunate to be G3. In the
vast majority of cases, this is "easier to treat" than G1 and G4, with the
standard-of-care treatment duration of "only" 24 weeks (compared to 48 weeks
for G1/G4) resulting in success rates in the high 80% range (compared to
success rates no better than 50% for G1/G4).

Because the success rate is so high, some clinicians skip the biopsy. I don't
necessarily agree with this approach, but I can understand it, particularly if
the patient demonstrates the willingness to take on the anti-viral treatment
regimen (conversely, if the patient needs some "prodding", a biopsy can be
very convincing, indeed ;-)

To maximize the odds, once you start treatment, be ever diligent in sticking
to your meds schedule. Don't skip shots, don't skip Riba. Also - and this is
important - take your Ribavirin with some kind of fatty food - it *greatly*
enhances uptake of this vital medicine. "Fatty food" can be anything from a
banana, peanut butter on a muffin or toast, eggs and bacon, etc. If you take
the time to read the Information Sheet provided with the Peg-IFN and Ribavirin
you'll find this note included somewhere in the fine print.

And avoid iron! It has become clear that dietary iron is rocket fuel for HCV.
If you take daily vitamins, check the label, and if they include iron, throw
them out and get vitamins that don't add iron. And if it hasn't already been
performed, you should ask for an iron load test the next time you see your
treating physician.

I'm a big believer in the "hands on" approach - I wanted to know as much as
possible wrt to how I was responding to treatment. If you want to follow that
lead, you should find out what your pre-therapy viral load is/was. Further,
you should try to get as frequent viral load testing as your clinician will
agree to. Ideally, testing at 4 weeks, 12 weeks, 24 weeks (End of Treatment
for you) with follow-up testing at 3 months post-EoTx).

You should also ask what the clinician uses for on-treatment blood-work
scheduling (CBC, LFTs, etc). At the beginning of treatment, at the minimum,
they should be testing two weeks into treatment, and again at four weeks, to
determine if anything is out of sorts (which could include incipient anemia -
the reduction of Red Blood Cells - or neutropenia - the reduction in the most
important of the White Blood Cells). If they test more frequently than that,
so much the better.

If you are prone to depression, you should at least discuss whether
anti-depressants are in order with the treating physician. For whatever
reason, Interferon can mess around with the ol' brain-pan, particularly in
folks that have been battling depression prior to initiating therapy. That
said, some folks sail through therapy without any psyche issues, so if you
don't have a prior history, there's a good chance you won't have any problems
of that nature. Just be aware of the potential as you go along - and don't
assume any problem that pops up is just in your head, it could be the drugs
doing the talking.

Finally, if you ever have a question, or just need someone to bounce a
question off of - or just need to rant a bit - drop us a line here. There are
plenty of good folks that will lend an ear, and there's a heck of a lot of
experience in the group. I'd be surprised if you could come up with anything
new ;-) and that's a good thing!

Cheers, and best of luck on your journey.

/greyhackles
sojo - 19 Jan 2008 22:41 GMT
>> Hi all.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 81 lines]
>
> /greyhackles

Thanks Grey.

I appreciate the fact you are able to summarize so much info in a few
paragraphs. I now understand the importance of establishing and
monitoring VL's. I will discuss with my doc and also the liver specialist.
CkSparrow - 19 Jan 2008 02:59 GMT
Sojo
I am a G3a 2 time non responder and I agree with every thing Thip and
Greyhackles said except this bit. “If there is anything up-beat to relate,
you are fortunate to be G3. In the vast majority of cases, resulting in
success rates in the high 80%”. This is not quite true.

I tend to see G3s as the interesting Geno. At one and the same time we are
both easy to treat and yet can be quite difficult.

Below are the G3 SVR stats from the Accelerate trial which is the largest G2-
3 trial ever done.
G3 24 week arm had 369 patients.
Intent to Treat.....66%
Per Protocol ......71%

LVL <400000.….81%
LVL 400-<800K. 70%
HVL >800K........59%

F3-F4................49%
Steatosis...........55%

RVR..................85%
Non RVR...........39%

As can be seen LVL and RVR produce excellent results. Mediocre results of 49-
59% are obtained with the other negative predicts except non RVR which has
lousy results of 39%.
Now for the good news 60%-65% of G3s RVR.

Regardless of any other negative predict RVR produces excellent results,
although HVL and F3-F4 have higher relapse rates.

So us G3s are a bit of a mixed bag.
Make sure you get a 4 week PCR test done.
If you are not UND at 4 weeks, 48 weeks needs to be seriously considered.

All the Best with Tx
CS
greyhackles - 19 Jan 2008 03:30 GMT
>Sojo
>I am a G3a 2 time non responder and I agree with every thing Thip and
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
>All the Best with Tx
>CS

SVR rates are certainly arguable. I'd be cautious about using the Accelerate
study numbers, however, as this trial used exclusively Pegasys (Peg-IFN-2a) &
Riba, and exclusively fixed-dosing. Additionally, I'm not sure those Metavir
scores are representative of the general population - they seem very high
compared to most studies I've reviewed.

For one example, in this study, the G3 SVR rates were in line with my message,
with the Peg-Intron (Peg-IFN-2b) arm hitting 88%...
http://www.hivandhepatitis.com/2005icr/aasld/docs/111605_u.html

Cheers

/greyhackles
CkSparrow - 19 Jan 2008 12:32 GMT
Ah Grey study wars, this could get interesting. Accelerate had almost double
the number of patients than the study you posted and it didn’t give RVR
breakdowns. Nor any of the other negative predicts. G3s who RVR have at least
an 85% change of SVR. Now when comparing studies you need to now what
percentages RVR. This study abstract doesn’t give that information, and so
cant be readily compared to Accelerate.

Accelerate provides realistic info on your chances with SOC. G3s have a 65-70%
chance of SVR as a starting point. Win-R also only had a 65% apx SVR rate for
G3s. I believe that you can tweak this and get up to 85% or better, by Weight
basing Riba and a few other tricks, but the 4 week PCR test gives you the
most information on what your chances are.

I just don’t like the idea of people believing they have greater than an 80%
chance of SVR to begin with, as if they don’t RVR this percentage drops
dramatically.

All the Best
CS
greyhackles - 20 Jan 2008 04:32 GMT
>Ah Grey study wars, this could get interesting. Accelerate had almost double
>the number of patients than the study you posted and it didn’t give RVR
>breakdowns.

Apologies in advance, but I thought the discussion regarded the per-genotype
rate of treatment success.

>Nor any of the other negative predicts. G3s who RVR have at least
>an 85% change of SVR. Now when comparing studies you need to now what
>percentages RVR. This study abstract doesn’t give that information, and so
>cant be readily compared to Accelerate.

While the rate of early, on-treatment response is certainly interesting in its
own right, it is not the critical measurement in the discussion of treatment
success. The universally accepted measurement of that point is SVR, with the
highest grade results based on Intention To Treat criteria (as opposed to Per
Protocol - which is where "fudge factors" usually arise).

>Accelerate provides realistic info on your chances with SOC. G3s have a 65-70%
>chance of SVR as a starting point.

Accelerate was based on fixed dose Peg-IFN(2a) + fixed dose Ribavirin only,
for 16 and 24 weeks, and without regard to EVR (ie: slower responders in the
16 week arm were not extended into the 24 week arm). Because of that, the
scope of the results is limited to Pegasys, across two points: longer duration
is better; higher dose per weight is better (the latter point, as all patients
received the same dosage, is obviously inferred). The treatment methodology
obviously does not encompass all treatment options. And as other regimens have
shown better results, it didn't define the bounds of success.

>Win-R also only had a 65% apx SVR rate for G3s.

The Win-R trial was a large (nearly 5000 patient) community-based study, as
opposed to a registration trial. It suffered from a fairly high percentage
(14%) of cohort lost to follow-up - which, because the results were strictly
based on ITT, all lost follow-ups were counted against the net results.

>I believe that you can tweak this and get up to 85% or better, by Weight
>basing Riba and a few other tricks, but the 4 week PCR test gives you the
>most information on what your chances are.

If the discussion is about *success* rates shown in studies, EVR (good or bad)
is intrinsically irrelevant, as it is only a mid-treatment indicator that does
not change the total outcome. SVR as a function of treatment regimen is the
only metric that can be rationally considered.

Also, I think you'd get heat from folks by referring to the selected results
using Weight-Based Dosing vs Fixed Dosing, and/or using Peg-IFN(2b) vs
Peg-IFN(2a), as "tricks". These are all valid treatment options going in, with
significantly different study outcomes, and each should be considered when
selecting a treatment regimen.

>I just don’t like the idea of people believing they have greater than an 80%
>chance of SVR to begin with, as if they don’t RVR this percentage drops
>dramatically.

That's a fair enough position, when including all of the results of the
multitude of studies into one overall prospectus, and I wouldn't argue with
that :-)

And, fwiw, I always advise early and frequent testing to determine the rate of
response - which for G2 and G3 patients, at least provides the option of
*wisely* extending treatment duration. While this has yet to be accepted as
part of the Standard Of Care, it's only a matter of time...

Cheers - and thanks for the discussion :-)

/greyhackles
CkSparrow - 20 Jan 2008 13:33 GMT
>While the rate of early, on-treatment response is certainly interesting in its
>own right, it is not the critical measurement in the discussion of treatment
>success. The universally accepted measurement of that point is SVR, with the
>highest grade results based on Intention To Treat criteria (as opposed to Per
>Protocol - which is where "fudge factors" usually arise).

I must of missed something here but how can SRV be a predictor of SVR ITT or
otherwise.
To clear any confusion, here is what I mean by RVR and EVR.
RVR = UND at 4 weeks
EVR = 2 log drop ate 12 weeks
cEVR = UND at 12 weeks
Irrespective of Genotype your biggest predictor of response is your on
treatment response.
In this regard RVR is the single biggest predictor.
All Genos have around an 85% ITT SVR rate if you are clear at 4 weeks.
So what I meant is that no matter what your chance of SVR is before your
start treatment, you have a much better picture based on whether you RVR and
failing that complete EVR (UND at week 12). Not being UND at either of these
time points means your SVR chances go south in a hurry.

>Accelerate was based on fixed dose Peg-IFN(2a) + fixed dose Ribavirin only,
>for 16 and 24 weeks, and without regard to EVR (ie: slower responders in the
>16 week arm were not extended into the 24 week arm).

That’s why I quoted only the 24 week arm. IT is SOC pure and simple. It had a
large number of patients and provides excellent info. When Accelerate
published its results NV15942 and NV15801 Studies 4 & 5 in the Pegasys insert
were re-evaluated for SVR rates based on non RVR the relapse rates were less
in the 48 week WB Riba arms. Considering that there are very few G3 studies
done Accelerate is definitely one of the better ones, at least the equivalent
of the registration trials. Considering that NV15492 only had 96 patients in
the 24 week Fix Dose Riba arm and is the study that gave us SOC. This is
still the only international study ever done on Tx length for G2/3s although
there was another done in Canada. There has never been a 48 week/WBR study
done with Pegintron for G2/3s. The Zeuzem German study only Tx-ed for 24
weeks and used a mathematical model obtained from the Manns study, to
calculate the 48 week SVR rate. Win-R was supposed to solve this little
problem but as you pointed out had an incredibly high drop out rate. So we
didn’t get as much out of it as we should have.

Accelerate is up there with the best of the studies as far as treating using
the SOC protocol. The 16 v 24 week thing is a non issue as 369 patients in
the 24 week arm is large enough to be a study in it own right.
While I don’t agree with the way Accelerate was run it nevertheless provides
a lot of useful information. Especially as it doesn’t lump G2s and 3s
together.

>Also, I think you'd get heat from folks by referring to the selected results
>using Weight-Based Dosing vs Fixed Dosing, and/or using Peg-IFN(2b) vs
>Peg-IFN(2a), as "tricks". These are all valid treatment options going in, with
>significantly different study outcomes, and each should be considered when
>selecting a treatment regimen.

Maybe so, but it is still experimental. As far as I am aware it is not
standard treatment anywhere in the world, even though many Docs up with
current treatments Rx it. Wish I had Weight Based the Riba though.
There is hardly any difference between Pegasys and PegIintron as far as G3
SVR rates are concerned although I do think that some would be better off
with one over the other. The problem is that there is no way of telling pre
Tx which one would be better for a particular individual.

>And, fwiw, I always advise early and frequent testing to determine the rate of
>response - which for G2 and G3 patients, at least provides the option of
>*wisely* extending treatment duration. While this has yet to be accepted as
>part of the Standard Of Care, it's only a matter of time.

Cant come quick enough.

I don’t think we are actually disagreeing over much.
CS
greyhackles - 20 Jan 2008 16:59 GMT
>>While the rate of early, on-treatment response is certainly interesting in its
>>own right, it is not the critical measurement in the discussion of treatment
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>otherwise.
>To clear any confusion, here is what I mean by RVR and EVR.
[...]
>I don’t think we are actually disagreeing over much.
>CS

Thanks for the follow-up. I agree were not disagreeing over much - but just to
close the discussion: if someone pre-tx comes up to you and asks what the
average rate of success is for treatment of a given genotype, the metric that
answers that question is the SVR rate.

Relating EVR (whether rapid, super-responder, whatever) rate or any other
on-treatment metric - while interesting, of course - doesn't actually answer
that question.

That's all I was trying to say :-)

Cheers

/greyhackles
anonymousone - 19 Jan 2008 20:26 GMT
> Hi all.
>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> Again, my thanks to all of you.

I dont know where your going for treatment but sometimes cost is an
issue.
I was G1 and Kaiser would not have given me a  liver biopsy unless I
pushed for it, which
I did.

Also there is a fibrosure blood test that rates liver damage which you
might look into.
sojo - 19 Jan 2008 22:57 GMT
>> Hi all.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> Also there is a fibrosure blood test that rates liver damage which you
> might look into.

I live in BC, Canada, so cost is not so much a factor as I also have
extended coverage thru work. The challenge here is to have testing and
monitoring covered which is not normally covered provided based on geno
type, etc.

The liver specialist has suggested he may extend my treatment past the
24 weeks normally provided on provincial health care for G3's. He has
suggested an extended treatment based on the fact my liver is enlarged.
I'm not sure if this means 48 weeks, or if that will be decided as the
treatment proceeds based on how well I respond to the treatment.

Obviously, I have a lot to learn here and I am slowly getting the
picture. Self-advocating in our medical system here is important. I
appreciate what I have learned from this Newsgroup as it has provided me
with the knowledge to ask intelligent questions and also what to push
for or insist on.

I will look into the Fibrosure blood test.

Thanks!
 
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.