Hep C by the numbers ...
The one thing I wish labs would do when it comes to quantitative viral load testing is standardize the way they report the numbers; in fact, it's not just viral load numbers that have different reports. They all seem to delight in having different reference ranges and other variables.
I once asked Dr. Scott why it was that my primary physician used a difference reference range on ALT/AST reports and he answered in this manner: "You know, for you and me, driving 100 miles per hour is pretty dang fast. But to Dale Earnhardt, that ain't crap."
I love how plain he puts things; I wish all medical offices would do the same.
I received my Week 12 report today and I think it's good news on response, but I will have to wait until a Tuesday appointment for Dr. Scott to let me know what the numbers really mean. The reason: This particular lab may be using a lower (or higher) denominator when reporting the actual number. For some reports, this has been an ongoing problem for me.
For instance, my very first quantitative viral load (Nov. 20, 2000) was reported this way:
2,679.6 x 103 copies per ml
As far as I can tell, the Log wasn't reported at all.
On the same report, there was a bar graph that extended to about 2,700 with a legend that said "hepatitis C viral load x 1,000. The problem is this: When it was explained by the nurse practicioner, she said my load was about 270,000. However, when I did the math today (for the first time, I might add), it calculates to 2.7 million. Big difference ... if I'm calculating correctly.
The May 2001 report showed it this way:
738,900 copies, with a Log of 5.9
Now, that's a bit more understandable; however ...
The March 2003 report showed it this way:
>500,000 copies per ml
5.7 Log
OK, that's half understandable with a huge problem in actually determining the viral load.
The March 2004 report returned a report that was quite understandable ... and high:
Copies per ml: 1,437,000
Log: 6.16
So, Dr. Scott and I figured the best thing to do was use the same lab twice and see what number we got ... you know, comparing apples to apples. Here it was in October 2004 ... but much higher than March:
Copies per ml: 3,751,610
Log: 6.57
The kicker with Week 12's report is that it shows the number this way:
Copies: 1,170
Log: 3.07
OK, that looks like good news. The question is this: Is that actually 1,170 copies per ml, or is it some mathematical variable, such as was reported in 2000 (Number x 103 copies per ml)?
Tune in Tuesday, race fans ...
Grace and peace,
I once asked Dr. Scott why it was that my primary physician used a difference reference range on ALT/AST reports and he answered in this manner: "You know, for you and me, driving 100 miles per hour is pretty dang fast. But to Dale Earnhardt, that ain't crap."
I love how plain he puts things; I wish all medical offices would do the same.
I received my Week 12 report today and I think it's good news on response, but I will have to wait until a Tuesday appointment for Dr. Scott to let me know what the numbers really mean. The reason: This particular lab may be using a lower (or higher) denominator when reporting the actual number. For some reports, this has been an ongoing problem for me.
For instance, my very first quantitative viral load (Nov. 20, 2000) was reported this way:
2,679.6 x 103 copies per ml
As far as I can tell, the Log wasn't reported at all.
On the same report, there was a bar graph that extended to about 2,700 with a legend that said "hepatitis C viral load x 1,000. The problem is this: When it was explained by the nurse practicioner, she said my load was about 270,000. However, when I did the math today (for the first time, I might add), it calculates to 2.7 million. Big difference ... if I'm calculating correctly.
The May 2001 report showed it this way:
738,900 copies, with a Log of 5.9
Now, that's a bit more understandable; however ...
The March 2003 report showed it this way:
>500,000 copies per ml
5.7 Log
OK, that's half understandable with a huge problem in actually determining the viral load.
The March 2004 report returned a report that was quite understandable ... and high:
Copies per ml: 1,437,000
Log: 6.16
So, Dr. Scott and I figured the best thing to do was use the same lab twice and see what number we got ... you know, comparing apples to apples. Here it was in October 2004 ... but much higher than March:
Copies per ml: 3,751,610
Log: 6.57
The kicker with Week 12's report is that it shows the number this way:
Copies: 1,170
Log: 3.07
OK, that looks like good news. The question is this: Is that actually 1,170 copies per ml, or is it some mathematical variable, such as was reported in 2000 (Number x 103 copies per ml)?
Tune in Tuesday, race fans ...
Grace and peace,
2 Comments:
Hello Buzz,
First off congratulations on the good news, having read you viral load numbers you have acheived the all important 2 log drop. In fact compared to your October 2004 level you have acheived a 3.5 log drop.
The figure you quoted for November 2000 looks as though it is 2,679,600 i.e. 2,679.6 multiplied by 10 to the power of 3. (It helps to have a maths degree when dealing with hep c.
Your week 12 report is telling you that you have 1,170 copies of the virus per ml.
Great News. I haven't read your whole blog do you have to do 48 weeks of treamtent or do you get the shorter 24 weeks. I did shot 15 of 24 last night.
All the best
Jonathan
Jonathan:
Thanks for the uplifting information! I had no idea about the benchmarks for a successful outcome.
Sadly, I am Genotype 1, which is the most common Genotype in North America. So, I get the 48-week treatment.
Grace and peace ...
Buzz
Post a Comment
<< Home