Is there such a thing as a Slow Responder?

[pcds]

I was on the phone, getting set up with a new doc at Mayo, the one that did the telaprevir trials here in Phoenix.  I got put through to his PA, I think she thought I was interested in a trial, which I am not.  I told her about having a VL of 348 at 12 weeks, and called myself a slow responder.  She said there is no such thing.  That in fact I am a non responder.  Even with a 3 log drop at 12 weeks. Has anyone else heard this?

[Bill1954]

This might be an issue of semantics, Judy. From a research perspective, they might only concern themselves with ‘partial response’ and ‘null/non-response’. Partial response could refer to someone that has cleared, then relapsed; vs. null response where the patient is fully refractory, such as when viral clearance never occurs; even while on therapy.

The first time I treated, I didn’t achieve a two log reduction at 12 weeks; and didn’t clear the virus until sometime between weeks 16 and 20. Sooo, from my perspective the term slow response was certainly appropriate :o).

--Bill

[vik97]

Yes, I was a slow responder during my first treatment.  I became PCR undetectable at 20 weeks but not TMA undetectable.

Vik

[Trinity4]

Yes, you are considered a slow responder if not UND by 12 weeks.  I figure I cleared around wk 14 or 15 and you would probably have done the same had you continued.  We respond, just not favorably.   Non-responder is another term used to for those who fail to clear the hepatitis C virus with the current standard of care.

Of all the failure scenarios, those who relapse have the best chance of SVR with the new drugs.

Current accepted definitions of null response to peginterferon and ribavirin include: <1 log HCV RNA decline at Week 4 or <2 log HCV RNA decline at Week 12.

Trinity

[Marcia2202]

I have seen the term used in research papers, so it IS a valid term. So she was incorrect.

As far as I remember a slow responder is someone who becomes UND between 12 and 24 weeks.