 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Hepatitis / May 2008Anyone not treating?
What are the argument for putting off treatment for better meds in year? How may in the group took treatment without doing a biopsy? > What are the argument for putting off treatment for better meds in > year? > > How may in the group took treatment without doing a biopsy? Delaying tx is a calculated risk based on the extent of liver damage, which brings us to the biopsy question. In most, if not all cases, tx will not be prescribed without a biopsy because biopsy is the only way to get an accurate picture of the extent of liver damage. Liver function tests (labs) are not reliable indications of liver damage. "Better meds" in a year will not happen. Given the time involved in clinical trials necessary to bring a drug to the public, you're looking at a minimum of three to five years *IF* something new and wonderful is discovered today. All current drugs under development and in the clinical trial stages would be added to current peg-ifn & riba treatment. > "metspitzer" <kilow...@charter.net> wrote in message > In most, if not all cases, tx will not be prescribed without a biopsy I did not have a biopsy. I did, fwiw, have an ultrasound. Blue Cross PPO, btw... > > "metspitzer" <kilow...@charter.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Blue Cross PPO, btw... I never had a biopsy but have had several (normal) ultrasounds, took 48 weeks of tx and have enjoyed 2 1/2 years of SVR. Prior to starting tx my Doc wanted me to get a biopsy but when I questioned him as to how the biopsy results could effect my treatment the only concrete answer he gave me was that if I was only partially responding to tx, the condition of my liver could determind whether treatment was contiued or stopped. That was never an issue as I was undetectable at 6 weeks into tx. At my last visit my Doc stated that given my current health status he doesn't recommend a biopsy. > What are the argument for putting off treatment for better meds in > year? > > How may in the group took treatment without doing a biopsy? Not doing tx isn't necessarily a wise decision. I'm not currently going through a round of tx, but have already done 2 rounds with one lasting 60 weeks. I have never cleared or even come close. From my last biopsy and blood work I'm supposed to somewhere around where I was when I first found out around '92. I have cirrhosis, but it doesn't seem to be advancing at this point. I usually keep a close eye on it, but find myself giving up on ever being cleared of the dragon, but I haven't given up as of yet. Dwight >What are the argument for putting off treatment for better meds in >year? Mainly that there won't be better meds in a year. At the rate the contenders are progressing, I suspect it'll be a full two years, and maybe three, before anything "new" gets approved - and the first one will probably be Vertex VX-950, which will still be combined with Peg-IFN and Ribavirin. Otherwise, the longer one waits, the less likely they'll be blessed with success. >How may in the group took treatment without doing a biopsy? I can't answer that one - my insurance company required a biopsy before they'd approve the treatment. Not that I was on the fence at that point, but finding out I was progressing to Stage 3 fibrosis sure convinced everyone else involved that it was definitely time to take a ride on the treatment train... Cheers /greyhackles
|
Reply to this Message |
 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
|
©2008 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.