Mornington Peninsula, Melbourne.

The coastal creek we back on to:

And “my” beach:

Already have, several times. Keeping in mind that it will likely change a bit over our lifetimes here’s my latest.. (Not a lot but I am less introverted and judging than I use to be)

INTP

Introvert(31%) iNtuitive(12%) Thinking(6%) Perceiving(9%)
You have moderate preference of Introversion over Extraversion (31%)
You have slight preference of Intuition over Sensing (12%)
You have slight preference of Thinking over Feeling (6%)
You have slight preference of Perceiving over Judging (9%)

I like to think that I’m a little more balanced than you, but you’d probably describe me as less exiting.

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!)

Hi splitdog,

I’m not a doctor but in my opinion:

The database on trials for G2 is limited and based on that both Sof/dac and Sof/Riba have fairly similar outcomes for Tx experienced patients. I’d like to think with more data we will see Sof/Daclatasvir pull ahead but that may just be me.
On the other hand, even as someone who handles Riba really well, I personally would still far prefer to not have it in my treatment if possible. It does have quite strong side effects particularly if you are one of the people who get serious anaemia from it. It also has a much longer half life and takes many months to clear from your system at EOT.

Hi TC,

In many health systems Sofosbuvir/riba is considered a reasonably effective treatment for G2 and is the only approved DAA treatment. It is also a lot cheaper to prescribe so allows more people to be treated. So a difficult decision for health authorities.

I think if I was a G2 being offered that prescription and I had the opportunity to replace the Riba at reasonable cost to myself then I would investigate getting medical advice and a prescription for the Dac. This would apply even more so if I had failed peg/Riba previously.

Terrific! Clear and concise explanation of the processes required and the merits of seeking treatment.
I’ve already shared with a number of people, both those with HCV and those who I think may be able to spread the word to a larger audience.

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.

I’m not trying to argue here but I suspect we are asking the wrong question in a way that the Lab cannot understand which is why their answers appear unhelpful to us. They aren’t being difficult or secretive or anything like that, just talking a different language and not experienced in answering proactive patients who want as much information as possible.

I suspect the point Mike is making is similar to mine in that he has shown us examples of two tests both of which are Quantitative Reflex. If you look at the test titles it is the same test type but in one sample the result is Undetected and in the other case the result is <15.

Those are the results of the test. They do not mean the range of the test. That is not stated as it also wasn’t for DTs test result. I think the confusion is caused by comparing them to something like an ALT test which shows your result against a normal range for most people. There is no normal range for viral load, ‘normal’ is zero!

What DT is asking for is the accuracy of the VL test but note that the ALT test also doesn’t state how accurate it is. That is never quoted in the test results.