I agree with spectda. Once more time goes by they will revise the numbers.
I think this new test is remarkable. I am hoping that the government will make it a protocol in preventative medicine. Even 4 in 100 is actually a very large number. The testing would be used in conjuction with liver enzymes and ther tools. Sure, a lot more biopsies would be done, but a lot of transplants would be prevented.
frijole
Still a dr making a statement like that does not help the cause and personally I find it irresponsible. Look how many of us have advancing liver disease on the forum. Of course we are not necessarily a true representation of the infected as a whole.
I have read the stats that were mentioned above about how many people develop serious disease. They have been using those same figures for 15 years now, and I don't know if I trust those numbers.
When this data came out, they had limited experience with people who have had the disease for 20-40 years. My guess is that many with long term disease ages 40 years plus will start to show an increase in the percentages of serious damage. Also there are many that die from liver failure or cancer who were never diagnosed.
"2009 HCV Advanced Practice: Fibrosis and Disease Progression"
Dr. Raymond T. Chung
Director of Hepatology Liver Transplant Program Boston General
Associate Professor of Medicine Harvard Medical School
NOTE: These figures are gleaned from cohorts of posttransfusional patients. These posttransfusional cohorts have been most informative because they are able to pinpoint the exact time of infection and are, therefore, able to estimate fairly precisely the duration of disease.
"Approximately 85% of patients progress to chronic infection, whereas only an elite 15% to perhaps 25% experience spontaneous resolution.
Among those with chronic HCV infection, a stable course is seen in approximately 80% of patients, whereas 20% will develop cirrhosis.
Once cirrhosis has supervened, a variable course is still observed; most patients will progress slowly, but about one quarter will experience liver failure, and approximately 1% will develop HCC annually.
In other words, among 100 patients with acute infection, approximately 4 will develop a highly undesirable clinical outcome.
However, it is possible that investigators may find that this is only a minimum estimate of the number of patients who will experience these outcomes as the cohort now matures."
As one with advanced cirrhosis, you don't want to be in the unluckily 20 + percent.
Hectorsf
Speaking from someone in that 20%.........It *****.
To Diane
congrads.. Going in Tuesday to find out the extend of cirrhosis.. wish me luck.
DJ
Yes, Deb translated me correctly. They are also basing that on current numbers. Since so many people are still undiagnosed... if routine testing were implemented, I bet those numbers would change drastically. And think about the number of baby boomers there are.... if half of us are HCV positive... which is possible in my mind... no, I haven't read anything stating that... but just think of how many people that "Only 5 to 20 percent of people with chronic infection develop cirrhosis" represents. It just really ticks me off that they make it sound like it isn't anything to get concerned about.
I think she meant that if you have had the disease for 30 years already it might be important to at least check out IF you are almost cirrhotic or not. I mean how else could someone know if they are stage 3/4 if they just ignore that they have the disease. 20% sounds like a little unless you are in or almost in that 20% (I don't buy 5% at all personally).
“I can't believe that Doctor says that "Only 5 to 20 percent of people with chronic infection develop cirrhosis in about 20 to 30 years". That's like saying, "Don't bother to get checked" Doesn't the man know that the baby boomers who don't know they have it HAVE been infected for 20 to 30 years?”
Diane, I can’t find anything wrong with the above statement; what am I missing? I think the figure of roughly 20% cirrhotic progression is true; this has been an established fact now for a while.
--Bill
PS I dont see what a difference a 20 minute test versus a couple hours test really makes. It's like a point that doesn't matter if you are tested and you have it they will let you know and you aren't going to do anything about it THAT day like get a shot to cure or some antibiotics or something. Sheesh. Ignorance astounds.
It's so ludicrous it's pathetic. Seriously everyone over 50 should be screened as a part of life like a colonoscopy or something else is. if you got it when you are 20 that is indeed already 30 years and if you expect to live another 30 years to 80...........hell that other half a liver you have left might just be pretty darn crucial don't ya think?
But of course we always have the attitude oh it's not going to happen to me (well not necessarily us because we treated but in general as human beings is what i mean)