Aa
Not clear on svr percentages?????
Am I getting this right? What I think I am finding is that around 35% of geno 1 attain svr and 33% of those relaspe after treatment is complete. If this is so, in the spirit of Borat I say "WHAT, thats not good for me!"
From surfing around I am finding around 30% svr when all is said and done. Anyone have any hard numbers on fibrosis improvement with treatment? trials? studies? That info would surely come to play when trying to make an informed decision. I am also getting wind that there are some alternative treatments that can really help with fibrosis. HR eluded as much, the problem is seperating fact from fiction. Is'nt liver damage the real issue. Our guts are full of creepy crawlies, who cares if they are not causing seriuos injury. If my liver was healthy I could give a rats butt about how many villians were floating around in me. Alas, that is not the case.
Of course the odds have validity. If the odds of success weren't good enough these drugs wouldn't even be allowed on the market.
For discussions sake, if a stage 3 had only one chance out of ten thousand for success with the current drugs, would any doctor risk their patient's exposure to those drugs?
So somewhere between one chance out of ten thousand and one chance out of _____, different people will make the treat or not to treat decision. But the odds still are there and any responsible doctor will take them into consideration when advising a patient to treat, not to treat, to extend, not to extend.
-- Jim
For discussions sake, if a stage 3 had only one chance out of ten thousand for success with the current drugs, would any doctor risk their patient's exposure to those drugs?
So somewhere between one chance out of ten thousand and one chance out of _____, different people will make the treat or not to treat decision. But the odds still are there and any responsible doctor will take them into consideration when advising a patient to treat, not to treat, to extend, not to extend.
-- Jim
I'm trying to figure out what is it you are trying to say? That people shouldn't treat because the odds aren't great? Or that they should? Thanks for the great chart, by the way.
There are those of us who have no problem worrying about the odds at all "deciding" to treat. There is no option if your damage has progressed. If you don't try to treat it and at least suppress the virus even if you can't SVR then you will just progressively get sicker. It seems many lose sight of the fact that there is more than ONE goal of treatment, SVR is just one goal. Suppression of the virus and improving liver histology are a few more positive reasons to treat. MKAndrew is a perfect example. He has not been successful in achieving SVR yet he has reversed his liver damage from a stage 3/early cirrhosis diagnosis prior to several times treating to his current stage 1. That shows the dramatic positive effect treatment can have even if you can't manage to eliminate the virus, so his treatment(s) ARE successful in spite of not reaching the ultimate goal of treatment he has resurrected his liver in a MAJOR way. e also used a lot of "outside the box" additions to his treatment so who's to say what was responsible for his dramatic improvement. All the positive aspects of treating should be considered as well as the negatives that happen to a small percentage of treaters. The focus seems to be on the negatives of treatment here, but there are a host of positives for those of us with substantial liver damage. Sometimes you can "win" even if you don't reach your ultimate goal.
The luxury of worrying about the odds seems to me to be for those who haven't had the virus cause major damage to their livers already or those that are already ill from the virus.
The "watch and wait" people will NOT avoid taking IFN and Riba should some of the "pipeline" drugs actually come to fruition, they will just be adding yet another drug to the regimen.
It won't be cheaper or easier if they wait. If anything it will be more difficult and more expensive to wait and we do not know if the odds will improve. Maybe they will, maybe not.
I wish more was being done to add Alinia to the current med regimen. It is FDA approved already, has little to no negative side effects and is readily available. It also has shown very dramatic ability to kill the Hep C virus in research. That would add another med to the antiviral "cocktail" for current treaters and is very likely to improve the odds of success. I am adding it for the last 3 months of tx, but in order to do that I have to acquire it from another country, even though it is available here because it is considered "off label" to use it for Hep C patients. Hopefully the Romark trials will help to have Alinia added to the current SOC and insurance companies will cover it.
I agree with the poster who said not enough is done on the part of the doctors to "think outside the box" when it comes to difficult to treat patients. It seems they try tx, then when it fails they just throw up their hands and give up on the patient rather than examining the various options and treatment tweaks that could help the patient kick the virus. Then the patient is left to try to find a doctor who will work with the patient and manipulate the protocols for possible success.
Insurance companies who refuse to allow their patients to retreat obviously aren't cognizant of the fact that that patient is likely to continue to be sicker and sicker therefore costing even more than the cost of retreating. It makes no sense to me.
There are those of us who have no problem worrying about the odds at all "deciding" to treat. There is no option if your damage has progressed. If you don't try to treat it and at least suppress the virus even if you can't SVR then you will just progressively get sicker. It seems many lose sight of the fact that there is more than ONE goal of treatment, SVR is just one goal. Suppression of the virus and improving liver histology are a few more positive reasons to treat. MKAndrew is a perfect example. He has not been successful in achieving SVR yet he has reversed his liver damage from a stage 3/early cirrhosis diagnosis prior to several times treating to his current stage 1. That shows the dramatic positive effect treatment can have even if you can't manage to eliminate the virus, so his treatment(s) ARE successful in spite of not reaching the ultimate goal of treatment he has resurrected his liver in a MAJOR way. e also used a lot of "outside the box" additions to his treatment so who's to say what was responsible for his dramatic improvement. All the positive aspects of treating should be considered as well as the negatives that happen to a small percentage of treaters. The focus seems to be on the negatives of treatment here, but there are a host of positives for those of us with substantial liver damage. Sometimes you can "win" even if you don't reach your ultimate goal.
The luxury of worrying about the odds seems to me to be for those who haven't had the virus cause major damage to their livers already or those that are already ill from the virus.
The "watch and wait" people will NOT avoid taking IFN and Riba should some of the "pipeline" drugs actually come to fruition, they will just be adding yet another drug to the regimen.
It won't be cheaper or easier if they wait. If anything it will be more difficult and more expensive to wait and we do not know if the odds will improve. Maybe they will, maybe not.
I wish more was being done to add Alinia to the current med regimen. It is FDA approved already, has little to no negative side effects and is readily available. It also has shown very dramatic ability to kill the Hep C virus in research. That would add another med to the antiviral "cocktail" for current treaters and is very likely to improve the odds of success. I am adding it for the last 3 months of tx, but in order to do that I have to acquire it from another country, even though it is available here because it is considered "off label" to use it for Hep C patients. Hopefully the Romark trials will help to have Alinia added to the current SOC and insurance companies will cover it.
I agree with the poster who said not enough is done on the part of the doctors to "think outside the box" when it comes to difficult to treat patients. It seems they try tx, then when it fails they just throw up their hands and give up on the patient rather than examining the various options and treatment tweaks that could help the patient kick the virus. Then the patient is left to try to find a doctor who will work with the patient and manipulate the protocols for possible success.
Insurance companies who refuse to allow their patients to retreat obviously aren't cognizant of the fact that that patient is likely to continue to be sicker and sicker therefore costing even more than the cost of retreating. It makes no sense to me.
the numbers at the bottom of the graph, 21/46 is that the number of subjects or the percentage? I can't read the fine print and if it is numbers it does not add up.
the numbers don't make sense. starting number was 188 subjects, they were only able to follow 143, so how is it that the total in fig 3 is 187? It says that one person did not take the meds so that would be 187. What criteria did they use to place the other 44 people that were not followed?
cuteus, 58% of EoTR achieve SVR rate. But EoTR (End-of-Tx-Response) is around 50% for this group. So real SVR is 29%.
Keep in mind, that relapse ratio is usually defined as SVR to EoTR, not SVR to Baseline Group. That's why I gave 42% relapse ratio, meaning that 42% of those who are UND at end of Tx will eventually relapse. And that only 29% of those who started 48 weeks earlier will achieve ultimately SVR.
And, Jim, yes, you are right, SVR rate is around 30%.
Keep in mind, that relapse ratio is usually defined as SVR to EoTR, not SVR to Baseline Group. That's why I gave 42% relapse ratio, meaning that 42% of those who are UND at end of Tx will eventually relapse. And that only 29% of those who started 48 weeks earlier will achieve ultimately SVR.
And, Jim, yes, you are right, SVR rate is around 30%.
Have an Answer?
You are reading content posted in the Hepatitis C Community
Learn about this treatable virus.
Getting tested for this viral infection.
3 key steps to getting on treatment.
4 steps to getting on therapy.
What you need to know about Hep C drugs.
How the drugs might affect you.
These tips may up your chances of a cure.
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
