Hi all

Before diagnosis I was incredibly fatigued and forgetful. Also very anxious and teary. I am now in week 7 and the first thing I noticed was my thinking was clearer……..as time has gone on I feel calmer and much more energised. Only downer is that I am still getting the occasional headache (and they are rippers) but I was suffering with these before I started treatment so not sure if it is connected or not. Sleeping a little longer too so not waking as early as I was (insomnia the only side effect I have).

All in all I feel 80% better than I did prior to starting my treatment.

Happy New Year to you all. May 2016 be extra kind to you.

I have been scrumming through my results over the last 10 months and came across my Fibroscan result. I don’t think the result has ever been explained to me clearly (only that it was “okay” so thought I would run it past those of you that may know what the numbers mean.

Findings: The appearance of the liver is within normal. No focal lesions visible.
AFRI results:

ARFI – Median Velocity 1.16 IQR 0.18 The first radiologist
1.15 IQR 0.11 The second radiologist

Both ARFI measurement sets are concordant in the less than F2 range. I was always of the opinion that the Fibroscan was F0 but am starting to wonder now if it was read wrong …….. my GP had not had any past experience in these sorts of scans. I did fax it through to Dr Freeman when I sent all my test results to him but forgot to ask him what it meant.(was too excited about staring my treatment at the time).

Thanks in advance.

Hi Sonic I live in Bendigo and can relate to the hot weather Phewww

I am in week seven on Sof/Led and also have the insomnia and still do but sleeping a bit longer than when I first started. I take my meds at around 8.30pm and find now that I am not tired in the mornings when I get up (work full time) and energy levels improving also. I turned 60 this year and have no idea when, where or how long I have had the virus but I am forever grateful for Dr Freeman and the Buyers Club for the opportunity to be able to take my meds now rather than waiting for an appt at the Liver Clinic at the Base Hospital here (10 months and counting so far)! My four week blood tests came back HCV undetectable

Have a great New Year and I look forward to hearing your results.

Cheers Lynne

The evidence favouring Ribavirin is fading. For GT3 it has faded. With GT1a you would need to be cirrhotic to need Ribavirin and even then 24 weeks Sof/Dac would be my personal choice due to the Riba sides.

Thanks LondonGirl. No I haven’t had any treatment before and bad LFT was what led me to being diagnosed, but all okay now at the moment. Of course I am not questioning Dr Freeman’s advice but I just get a bit uncomfortable when I read about some members who are extending their treatment and/or speaking about different combinations. Just me being a worrier I guess…….not so long to go now so fingers crossed.

This assay has a result range of 15 to 100,000,000 IU/mL (1.18 log to 8.00 log IU/mL) for quantification of hepatitis C virus (HCV) RNA in serum.

An “Undetected” result indicates that the HCV is absent in the patient’s serum specimen.

A result of “<15 IU/mL (<1.18 log IU/mL)" indicates that HCV RNA is detected, but the HCV RNA level present cannot be quantified accurately below this lower limit of quantification of this assay. When clinically indicated, follow-up testing with this assay is recommended in 1 to 2 months. To assess response-guided therapy eligibility, an "Undetected" result is required, and a result of "<15 IU/mL mL (<1.18 log IU/mL)" should not be considered equivalent to an "Undetected" result.

A quantitative result expressed in IU/mL and log IU/mL indicates the degree of active HCV viral replication in the patient. Monitoring HCV RNA levels over time is important to assess disease progression and/or monitoring a patient's response to anti-HCV therapy.

A result of ">100,000,000 IU/mL (>8.00 log IU/mL)” indicates the presence of active HCV viral replication, and the HCV RNA level present cannot be quantified accurately above this upper limit of quantification of this assay.

Here is more than you could ever want to know: http://jcm.asm.org/content/51/2/571.full

The second test is using a different assay (not specified) and once again does not make note of Detected/Undetected status.