What do you think about the lab's explanation that "<25" means the same thing as "undetected
From what I'm told the test is finding bits of the virus or dead virus. If I were you I would have another PCR done from where ever possible just to rule out relapse.
I agree , have another test ordered by your primary care. This would really put me over the top if I were in your shoes!! I completely understand where you are coming from! Way too much work on your behalf to be this close and get this very weak expiation. As we all learn it in our best interest to be our own advocate. Good luck.
I haven't gone over the top yet, but I'm teetering. :) There are a couple of phone numbers/contacts on my study disclosure if one has questions about the study and subjects' rights, etc. I'll have to start on that tomorrow. We shall see. There is no doubt I will be pursuing an independent PCR, but it's not right that they are saying <25 is the same as "target not detected" without a valid explanation and I'm going to pursue that as well. Thanks
Of course Gilead would like to see you maintain SVR. However, the purpose of the study is not to cure you -- it's to see whether you can be cured or not using their experimental drugs. You're a data point, no more no less. They most likely will test you at the next scheduled post TX week (if there is one). They have their protocol and will stick to it.
Wait a couple of weeks and retest on your own through your GP. That should tell you if you have relapsed or if this is a false alarm. Unfortunately, if it is a relapse, your options may be limited. Nobody wants to use interferon. You may have to wait for another trial.
I wish you good luck,
Hepcat
I did not use experimental drugs. As I said in my post, I had the FDA approved SOC (interferon/riba). I did not say anything about expecting them to care about a cure so I'm not sure how that is relevant to my post.
Yes, I am a data point and the relevance of that is if they are going to record me as a SVR I'd like to know why the term "target not detected" was used on the 32 previous results and the final post 24th week is written as "<25" and not "target not detected" (obviously creating questions....even for the tx team). Why the two different results? Does it imply that <25 = UND? Does SVR mean sustaining one's initial response of a 4 log drop, but not exactly undetected? I thought SVR meant a sustained UND. All I am expecting is to know the study's protocols for declaring UND and SVR, and not their concern for me achieving a cure. Early on in treatment when I still had a viral load and it was reported as <25, it was not considered UND by the team and all of a sudden it is? Or SVR does not require "target not detected"?
They may not care about cure or SVR rates in terms of the subjects, but they certainly do (or should) care about documenting and maintaining accurate cure or SVR rates in terms of the validity of the study's conclusions. Or at least we and the FDA should care about the accuracy of records and what those terms mean.
As previously said, "There is no doubt I will be pursuing an independent PCR..."
Sorry I thought you were in a study with the new meds. Duh, I reread your post and it specifically states you were on SOC.
With that, retesting is exactly what you should do. You need to know if your VL is going up.
Best
HC