- This topic has 52 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Gaj wrote:
Hi Ariel,
I was aware that after seeking medical advice you had retested with a LLOQ 15 test, my fault for sloppy use of grammatical tense
. I have edited my post to correct that.You are right about a good doctor being able to explain all this information. Finding one that you trust and making sure you understand their advice (in whichever country you live) should be a far more important area of focus than looking for various tests and test labs by ourselves.
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 xmgalbrai wrote:It seems with my lab, its:
1. Qualitative-Is HCV RNA present? If its not-end of test. “Negative”
If “Positive”, go to step 2:
2. Quantitative- If the v/l is below the concentration level needed to measure, in my case, <15, then thats it. the notice from my PCP's nurse said my first test result was "unmeasurable" in her email. That was the same as "undetected" to her, but not to me. Unmeasureable is a great result, but the word I was waiting to see was "Negative".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!
hmy: 
illy:' /> 
Same lab when EOT. UND!
hmy: illy:' /> Feeling great and grateful for these two UND!
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!)
G3a since ’78 – Dx ’12 – F4 (2xHCC)
24wk Tx – PEG/Riba/Dac 2013 relapsed
24wk Tx – Generic Sof/Dac/Riba 2015/16 relapsed
16wk Tx – 12/01/17 -> 03/05/17 NS3/NS5a + Generic Sof
SVR7 – 22/06/17 UND
SRV12 – 27/07/17 UND
SVR24 – 26/10/17 UND
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.