i don't understand i words of what you write sorryyyyy lol
LabCorp: NGI QuantaSure < 2 IU ask for test# 140639
https://www.labcorp.com/pdf/HCV_QuantaSure_LabFacets_1259.pdf
thanks for checking. There's some confusion on this subject - see the long "PCR Sensitivity Range" thread started by Bali. As best I can make out (and maybe the confusion is all in my head) Roche manufactures a test (CAP/CTM) with the characteristics given by FLGuy above - a quant result if over 43 and a positive qual if vl is between 15 and 43. However, both Quest and Labcorp (two of the biggest testing labs in the US) seem to omit the low-end qual result when reporting the result though both use the Roche kits. Thus anything under 43 is just reported as "lt 43" with no indication whether vl was detected in the 15-43 range. Anyway, since you obviously were given all the information available from the Roche kit I was curious as to which lab you used.
whew, heww, congradulations bruno hope it keeps going well for you. yeah
onestly i dont know, ho i m italian , so my english......over here is lab accession# cer_m_t1650442982 perform by arup laboratory. so if everybodi use 50 , and my doc 43 that means 43 is lower the 50 right?
I'm guessing Cobas® TaqMan HCV Test Roche Molecular Systems which has a 15 IU/ml Lower limit of detection (qualitative assay) and 43-69,000,000 IU/ml quant.
First congrats on the great result. The question of how promising your odds are at this point based on the rapid drop by w4 depends on what studies you're comparing your results to. Many use a limit of 50 and relative to those you qualify as a bona-fide UND. In any event the future looks good.
I'm curious about which testing lab you used. Two of the big labs (quest,labcorp) use the Roche Cobas/Ampliprep Cobas/Taqman kits manufactured by Roche but apparently don't distinguish "lt 43 undetectable" from "lt 43 detectable" in their report - though the lower limit of detection on CAP/CTM is around 15. It sounds as if you didn't use either of those labs - which one ran the test?
Flguy,
Brain fog.....
You should have known Bruno67's Doc would be a WOMAN! Just teasing : ~ ]
Hugs,
DoxieMom04
Yes, molto bene and congrats on such an impressive drop.
Much happiness here - magnifico news!
The test you took is as good as any other available, even those that go down to 5 - maybe better. Yes, 1.6 is just another way to say 43 iu/ml. It's a math thing.
Early in treatment, like you are, it's important to know how quickly the viral load drops. It's also very important to know when you get to real zero. By doing the two-part test, the doctor found out that you responded rapidly - but not to zero. If she gave you only the test that goes down to 5 or 10 it may appear that you are undetectable - but really aren't. What if you had only 3? This is why your doctor (SHE) is very smart. It's a good thing. Molto bene.
bealive me im doing every day that ,the only thing i dont understang is , .while ago i read somebody where,he wrote the 43 or below was und,. now my doct say there are good news but not und yet, plus there is a more sensitive test than this? if yes , why she dont do it to me? plus 1.6 is the same of 43? ? 43 means the count of the virus?
Oops on the gender thing. In that case, pantyhose with a garter belt.
Enzymes don't matter while you are on treatment. Ignore them. The only important things are the viral load and making sure you take the meds on schedule.
i agree with you , and is a she not i guy , is a woman my doc. and sorry was not my intention to be rude , i m happy today. ho one more thing
before i start the tx my alt , and etc etc was 90 or more , you know the enzime in the liver i guess now there are perfectly normal
43 is equal to 1.6 log.
You have a pretty sharp doctor. Apparently, he ordered a quantative test with reflex to qualitative. Which means "'try to count virus down to the limit of the test. If you can't find any at or above the limit (43), then seee if there are any even if you can't count them"
This tells me three things about your doctor 1) he treats a lot of HCV patients 2) he's a smart guy 3) he probably wears a belt AND suspenders at the same time.
Quest has a VL test called Heptimax which measures to <5, or <0.70 log.
(43 = 1.6 log)
there is a test more sensitive of this 43? and then what means 1.6 log?
"VIRUS DETECTED AT A LEVEL BELOW 1.6 LOG IU/ML CAN NOT BE ACCURATELY QUANTIFIED BY THIS ASSAY."
According to the results by the lab, the virus was detected but they could not quantify because it was below the <43 sensitivity of the test. More than likely Bruno had few stragglers left which are probably gone by now but he was not UND. However, his 4 wk response to SOC is outstanding.
Trinity
Read closer. "VIRUS DETECTED AT A LEVEL BELOW 1.6 LOG IU/ML CAN NOT BE ACCURATELY QUANTIFIED "
Congrats!
Based on the test assay he took with sensitivity lower llimit 43, he is undetected. Result came back as <43.
FLG is right I missed the lower part but it means you are very very close. Sorry about that I should have read the whole thing.
Bruno you can put all of your posts in this one thread so you can keep track of the responses in one place just hit the post comment on the bottom left side underneath this box.
a good reduction? are you read what i write? from 590,000 now is a level below log1,6 .
That's a good reduction in 4 weeks. But, based on what you wrote you are not quite undetected yet.
AWESOME news this means your odds of achieving SVR are just GREAT!
GREAT JOB KEEP IT UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!