GUIDELINES FOR THE SCREENING, CARE AND TREATMENT OF PERSONS WITH HEPATITIS C INFECTION
Tig said
Aug 15, 2014
Thanks for the upbeat little tune Isis! I found myself boppin along with the vocals, but trying to follow those high notes for long could get painful, lol!
Tig
Isiscat2011 said
Aug 15, 2014
Hey Tig,
You and I just agreed on something. Woo Hoo! Gimmee Five! lol
In celebration of this momentous occasion I shall dedicate my favorite song to you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdoXBZnBHK4
Tig said
Aug 15, 2014
True! I continue to scratch my head every time I see the mention of anyone trusting (or using) Fibrosure. As you suggest, it's used because it's cheap. I certainly wouldn't rely on any diagnosis based on those findings. It's quite sad that someone's future and of course Tx protocol, is based on that test anywhere in the world. I was researching lab test costs yesterday and it's amazing the price increases placed on top of some of these tests, all in the name of profit! If a fair price structure was applied to the best of tests, the need for these useless examples (read: Fibrosure) would be unnecessary. Let's hope intelligent (and fair) minds will prevail...
Tig
Isiscat2011 said
Aug 15, 2014
Thanks, Tig. I was just reading the section on determining liver fibrosis and they recommend Fibroscan, but if that is too expensive the Fibrosure (a/k/a Fibrotest) will suffice. Just plain crazy.
Based on Fibrosure's lack of reliability there will be countless misdiagnosis. That means people who are cirrhotic won't know it and people who are not will think they are!! This simple error in judgment undermines the entire prioritizing system and ultimately will increase costs. Unbelievable.
These are not the guidelines used in the US but it is certainly within the realm of possibility that the US would adopt a similar "cost saving" measure.
Tig said
Aug 15, 2014
If you haven't seen the April 2014 WHO (World Health Organization) HCV care and treatment guidelines, I thought you may be interested in reading their recommendations. There is a lot of interesting information. I looked for it's previous inclusion here on the forum and didn't see it. I apologize if it's a repeat post.
Thanks for the upbeat little tune Isis! I found myself boppin along with the vocals, but trying to follow those high notes for long could get painful, lol!
Tig
Hey Tig,
You and I just agreed on something. Woo Hoo! Gimmee Five! lol
In celebration of this momentous occasion I shall dedicate my favorite song to you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdoXBZnBHK4
True! I continue to scratch my head every time I see the mention of anyone trusting (or using) Fibrosure. As you suggest, it's used because it's cheap. I certainly wouldn't rely on any diagnosis based on those findings. It's quite sad that someone's future and of course Tx protocol, is based on that test anywhere in the world. I was researching lab test costs yesterday and it's amazing the price increases placed on top of some of these tests, all in the name of profit! If a fair price structure was applied to the best of tests, the need for these useless examples (read: Fibrosure) would be unnecessary. Let's hope intelligent (and fair) minds will prevail...
Tig
Thanks, Tig. I was just reading the section on determining liver fibrosis and they recommend Fibroscan, but if that is too expensive the Fibrosure (a/k/a Fibrotest) will suffice. Just plain crazy.
Based on Fibrosure's lack of reliability there will be countless misdiagnosis. That means people who are cirrhotic won't know it and people who are not will think they are!! This simple error in judgment undermines the entire prioritizing system and ultimately will increase costs. Unbelievable.
These are not the guidelines used in the US but it is certainly within the realm of possibility that the US would adopt a similar "cost saving" measure.
If you haven't seen the April 2014 WHO (World Health Organization) HCV care and treatment guidelines, I thought you may be interested in reading their recommendations. There is a lot of interesting information. I looked for it's previous inclusion here on the forum and didn't see it. I apologize if it's a repeat post.
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/111747/1/9789241548755_eng.pdf?ua=1
Tig