TOPIC: QUANTITATIVE PCRs with LLOQ missing - UK

hey jaz,
yeah, the deal is, at least in the US, is they see if you have the virus present-period. not antibodies, but the HCV RNA itself-qualitative.
if thats undetected or negative, thats it.
if its positve-detected-then a quantitative is done. this seems to be the "failure to communicate" area, as i have referred to earlier. if they can't find enough virus to measure, its usually shown as below their testing capability threshold, like <15 or <12. my PCP's nurse kept telling me it was "unmeasurable" by email. when I saw the actual test, she was right. there wasn't enough virus to measure. the 8 week test was negative. undetected. she still told me the same thing when she informed me by email: "good news, your virus is unmeasurable".
trying times.....
m

Gaj wrote:
Totally
Its a doctor job
And find a good one who defers to those few who have experience in DAA therapy yup
No brainer. Cheers Gaj
Mike ty for explaining the US protocol
Still makes sense to me neg and UND sounds good to go x

mgalbrai wrote: It is also the way are working the two labs where my VL was tested.
Thanks M for explaining so well!

Yes, unfortunatelly I know the concern with LLOQ. Yes, a good doctor that explains what's going on is priceless!

My first lab has LLOQ 15.
But on week 8 when the result came <15, my GI advised me to retest on another lab, also with LLOQ 15!
Phew! week 8.5. UND!

Same lab when EOT. UND!

Feeling great and grateful for these two UND!

SAME THING HERE NURSE AND DOC TOLD ME <25 UNMEASURABLE so.................................

I still am fuzzy about the difference between unmeasurable and unquantifiable and how the quantification numbers relate to UND, but then again I am fuzzy about a lot of things!

Hi Ken,

You aren't the only one and I suspect a lot of it is semantics and/or poor choice of wording by Labs.

The quantitisation test basically has three levels:

1. "We can't see any virus at all". This is Undetected or Negative and is thought to be anything around 5 iu/ml or less for most of the modern tests.

2. "We can see some virus, but there is too little for our test to measure accurately". This is Detected and is when you get a result back that is <12 or <15 or even the older <30. It is below the range that the test can measure accurately but still high enough to be detected.

3. "We can see the virus and there is enough for it to be in the range that we can measure accurately". Again it is Detected but the result will be a whole number, maybe 19 iu/ml or 504 iu/ml or something. So it is within the accurate range of the test and they can tell you an actual figure with confidence.

The problem is in the way these results are then interpreted and reported by each lab as there appears to be no standard for this and they each do their own thing. Undetected or Negative are quite clear in that the virus can't be seen. But if it is reported as Unmeasurable does that mean that they can see it but can't measure it accurately or they can't find any to measure in the first place? And most of the time the people that you and I can get to speak to in the lab have no better idea than us and far less invested in getting the right answer or the skills to explain it clearly to us.**

This is why you need to try to find a good doctor who can negotiate the correct answer from the right people at the lab and then explain to you in terms you can understand.


**(Don't get me started on the lack of customer service provided by most businesses these days or their need to give us a "unique user experience" instead of a bloody standard that we can all understand!)

Great answer. Love ya Gaj!

I still like the "Shit's Gone" stamp.
Something so......definite about it.