Hep C Discussion Forum

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Chatbox
Please log in to join the chat!
Hep C Discussion Forum -> General Discussion -> More on Viral Load test results
Post Info TOPIC: More on Viral Load test results
Huey


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 678
Date:
RE: More on Viral Load test results
Permalink  
 

patiently_waiting wrote:

Thanks for the update Malcolm.  I read your previous post as well.  So does this mean the TMA tests should not still be considered the most sensitive?  I was thinking if my next VL came back as UND I would ask (ask his thoughts, not request) my doc about getting what I thought was the more sensitive TMA to be sure.  Now I'm wondering if I should.  If they're not popular there must be some reason - is it just the cost or efficacy?

 You don't have the object of the game down just right, It is not about getting rid of the virus completely It is about getting it so low you can fight it, A healthy person will clear it -self without the aid of the drugs and that is what we are trying to cause, the question is ware do you draw the line, 43, 5, ??  all those are vary low, I don' t know how low it has to be till yorself can clear it. but I bet is is a low number like 5, or 43,.



__________________

  HCV Genotype 3a , now Psot-Tx was on S/riba. First VL was 5.8 mil on 7-5-13 then "und" at 3.8 weeks. 06/13/14 still und. off meds 3 days back on 7/29 Last pill 08/10/14 SVR+4

 
mallani


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 3398
Date:
Permalink  
 

Hi pw,

TMA tests have never been done is Australia. When I asked my Lab. about them, I was told they are very expensive and time-consuming, and there's a question mark about accuracy. They had surveyed the Hepatology doctors, and they were happy with the PCR test down to <15 LLOQ.

A couple of years ago, many Forum members used Heptimax (Quest- LLOD down to 5). We don't see many posts using TMA anymore. I'm not sure of the cost in the USA, and I wonder whether the accuracy has been questioned. Ask your doctor- he will probably be happy with a PCR test. Cheers.



__________________

Geno 1b, IL28B CT,  x3 prior relapser,  ex-cirrhotic, 75 yo, did 48 weeks with Victrelis/Peg./Riba.  VL 1.28m at start, UNDET. at 8 ,12 ,16 ,24 ,30  and 48 weeks.  EOT 15 Feb 2013 , UNDET. at EOT + 28 weeks. SVR!  Still Undet. at EOT +5 years

Malcolm
patiently_waiting


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 170
Date:
Permalink  
 

Thanks for the update Malcolm.  I read your previous post as well.  So does this mean the TMA tests should not still be considered the most sensitive?  I was thinking if my next VL came back as UND I would ask (ask his thoughts, not request) my doc about getting what I thought was the more sensitive TMA to be sure.  Now I'm wondering if I should.  If they're not popular there must be some reason - is it just the cost or efficacy?



__________________

42 yrs old: geno 1b, 23mil VL, ALT/AST 269/94 as of Apr '14.  Got HCV when I was 16.  Relapsed from Peg/Riba twice, last time in '08.  Completed Sol/Oly on 9/2/14, UND as of 10/7/14
Josh Haynie


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 169
Date:
Permalink  
 

 Thanks Malcolm :) have a good monday 



__________________

genotype 1  HCV 4,958,318 iu/ml    HCV Log updated soon  iu/ml------5'10 135lbs 9-15-83  genotype 1 since 2002----Pendleton,Oregon
mallani


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 3398
Date:
Permalink  
 

Hi all,

With the increased availability of on-line portals for test results and Tazkat's recent post, it's worth revisiting what your report means. There's a 'Sticky' on this, but some things change.

Most Labs now use a PCR Test from Roche or Abbott. The TMA tests from Quest and Labcorp do not seem to be as popular. The LLOQ (Lowest Limit of Quantification) is usually 15 i.u./ml, and this should be stated on the result form. In Australia, the LLOD has been dropped.

The test uses a 'target' which is a highly conserved section of the virus from the UTR (Un-Translated Region), and the result measures the number of 'targets' in a ml of blood. This 'target' is present in the wild-type virus , all polymorphisms and in all Genotypes.  Each 'target' represents a viral particle, but for some unexplained reason, the result is reported in i.u./ml.  Depending on the Lab. or assay, one i.u. could equal between 1-5 viral particles. Crazy. Results using Log. values have mostly disappeared, but are often still given as well.

By convention, an Undetected result will read <15 i.u./ml Undetected or Target Not Detected (TND). Any other result is assumed to be Detectable but not quantifiable.

My Lab. has recently changed this to read <15 Positive or Negative. When I asked why, I was told this was a directive from the Australasian College of Pathologists.

The definition of a 'high' VL is now >1 million i.u./ml.

So, in summary, read your result carefully, and get a copy of the report. Cheers.

 



__________________

Geno 1b, IL28B CT,  x3 prior relapser,  ex-cirrhotic, 75 yo, did 48 weeks with Victrelis/Peg./Riba.  VL 1.28m at start, UNDET. at 8 ,12 ,16 ,24 ,30  and 48 weeks.  EOT 15 Feb 2013 , UNDET. at EOT + 28 weeks. SVR!  Still Undet. at EOT +5 years

Malcolm
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.
Hep C Discussion Forum -> General Discussion -> More on Viral Load test results
Legal Disclaimer:

THIS FORUM, IT'S OWNERS, ADMINISTRATORS, MODERATORS AND MEMBERS DO NOT AT ANY TIME GIVE MEDICAL ADVICE AND IN ALL CASES REFER ANYONE HERE TO SEEK APPROPRIATE MEDICAL ADVICE FROM THEIR DOCTOR.