Hepatitisresearcher Question / All

[geterdone]

What could be the possible causes of a 550K increase in viral load with in a three year time frame if all else remained the same. Meaning that the diet has not changed much during that time and with minimal alcohol intake 3/6 drinks per month and no other medications other than Advil for minor pain. I had replied to a post on the community side (Significance of stage 2 diagnosis) and got to thinking about my own viral increase. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

I had a liver biopsy in 01/04 grade 2, stage2, with a viral load of 4,150,000 copies, now three years later 01/07, Lab Corp. HVC Quanta Sure Plus (serial) as with the first test, showed that there was an increase of 550K or over the past three years and am wondering what may cause this increase.

Thanks!
jasper

[geterdone]

LOL Mary, I see your point and is well taken, but can’t get much more glue out of this old carcass other than what has been spread across these threads over the months. The 3/6 drinks was before I started treatment and the reason 3/6 was used was because; just because, the difference between Summer and Winter. But! I will say that after the 8 week PCR came back UND I did have a glass and a half of red wine, Why? just because I could.

A more interesting Topic would be what roll dose “stress” play in the overall advancement of HCV over time we carry the virus in our systems.

Cheers!
jasper

[geterdone]

Thanks! but I’m going to go off on the deep end here for a few seconds because maybe it Tis the Season or just because it is Thursday morning… Hahaha BUT!!! LOL what "“more stress”" can the body be put under during a 24/48/72 weeks of HCV Treatment… hehehe and having to inject Interferon 24 or more times, not counting the rescue drugs…lol… (side hurting), in your thighs and stomach, (tears rolling) and eating over 2000 Ribavirin let alone, a wide array of other drugs to keep the mind stable as well as all the other systems up and some what running, while floating around in lala land half of the time… ROTFLMAO… schew! Omg humor and a good belly laugh does wonders to start the day.  

Please… no insult intended here it just hit a funny bone after re-reading the thread. One does have to have a strong will, an enduring spirit, a positive outlook, a little humor, and the courage of ten gladiators to walk in this here park, I’m here to tell ya! LOL!

Again, Thank! For your time and input

jasper

[merryBe]

Boy I dunno here Jim. My clinic was adamant that ANY alcolhol consumption was detrimental.
You have to take into account the machinations the liver must go through to eliminate the paint thinner byproducts of alcohol which take a toll that weakens the entire cellular system and immune responsiveness.

One could also take a baby aspirin for heart benefits, or take a walk etc, neither of which would produce highly toxic byproducts.

Of course the heavier the consumption the more the damage, but damage and compromise occurs with dietary impropieties, and especially with certain  drugs and/or alcohol.

All I know is, alcohol is the fast tract to further disease and much more rapid progression through the stages of liver disease ending in we all know what.

At stage 2 he may not yet be in pain....but come one day soon he may be, and pain is a great motivator to help one eliminate every possible avenue of increasing ones sufferings.

I'd rather advise him to be more judicious and hopefully avoid latter stage disease, especially if he is hoping to be around in a few years for the hopeful new treaments; then, avoidance now seems the only logical progression in my opinion.
Mary.

[jmjm530]

I'm unaware of any studies that suggest such minimal alcohol intake (while not on treatment)  would would be harmful to  one's liver, especially given that he's a stage 2. I was a light, social drinker before treatment -- and after SVR, my liver specialist actually told me to have wine with meals for its cardio benefit. I have a feeling that the studies you are referring to are in regards to heavy alcohol consumption which is espeically dangerous to the HCV liver.

-- Jim

[merryBe]

Jasper, you seem like a pretty together guy, do you mind me asking why you would want to add 6 days a month to your livers inability to fight this virus successfully by adding alcohol to the mix?

I was told the alcohol consumption alone can cause a ten year progression in stage of illness in only one year.
So even if you are only drinking 1/4 th of the month, that could equate to as much damage in one year as would normally take 2 or 3 years to develop.
Since alcohol is a heavy poison to the liver, how would you expect a good fighting chance if the poisons you could eliminated are still being chosen?  All due respect, just trying to be helpful here, and answer your query with one possible factor worthy of discussion.
mary

[Hepatitis Researcher]

geterdone
Would it be safe to say that the body’s immune system may be fighting other illnesses or (stresses) placed on the body’s other systems to where the immune system may not be at full strength in fighting the virus in which the runaway phase would gain the upper hand and establish a new higher level of viral load, then when the illness or stress is relieved the immune system returns to full strength to put all its emphasis on the fighting the virus but not be able to suppress it (in some cases) below its present established new level but only to maintain it at that level and in the process of these ebbs and tides is where the liver damage is done.

Yes, other, non HCV related immune streses will always be influencing some of the HCV specific antiviral immune activity that causes these ups and downs, but never gains full control until all that enormous amount of external IFN is added to the equation.

[geterdone]

Thank you both for your replies, and understand it is the cumulative effect over time that does the damage to the liver because it is where the battle is being fought between the body’s immune system and the virus which leads me to the next (layman) question or thought.

Let’s say after the initial infection and sickness, the body’s immune system fights the virus at its acute early stage and manages to suppress it (in most cases) to a tolerable level (over a long period of time) but it is still damaging the liver and as given by the replies above the virus has its ebbs and tides; or containing the virus when the immune systems is at its top performance but when it is at its lowest performance the runaway replication of the virus is at its peak at various times through out its own evolution. If so, at these various times during the runaway replication phase, there are a higher viral load that would or might be detected. Would it be safe to say that the body’s immune system may be fighting other illnesses or (stresses) placed on the body’s other systems to where the immune system may not be at full strength in fighting the virus in which the runaway phase would gain the upper hand and establish a new higher level of viral load, then when the illness or stress is relieved the immune system returns to full strength to put all its emphasis on the fighting the virus but not be able to suppress it (in some cases) below its present established new level but only to maintain it at that level and in the process of these ebbs and tides is where the liver damage is done.

Thanks!
jasper

[Hepatitis Researcher]

Jim is correct, this is not a significant variation and might be nothing but testing inaccuracy. Beyond that there are fluctuations in Vl caused by the constant slight or major variations in antiviral activity of the immune system , and also in the overall fitness of the HCV quasispecies, that is typically in a constant state of evolution against the forces trying to contain it.

[jmjm530]

There is no significance at all, therefore no cause.

First, viral load fluctuates wildly over time, and does not correlate with liver damage. For example, I had a vl 30 million plus and three years later my vl was 150,000. Three months later it was 1.5 million.

And second, even if it mattered, the difference between 4.1 million and 4.6 million is insignificant and could be accounted for by testing variance alone.

-- Jim