Comments

  1. Report this comment

    James Dwyer said:

    “Proponents of routine testing for US baby boomers have argued that the cheap, non-invasive screening could identify more than 800,000 new cases of hepatitis C — which could then be treated using new drugs that are highly effective at eliminating the infection.”

    Non-invasive screening is a significant benefit, but more important would be the reportedly much reduced impact of treatments using more effective new drugs. Previous treatments, based mostly on about 9 months of weekly Interferon injections and large daily doses of Rebetol capsules, have in many cases produced sometimes intolerable side effects, including severe anemia and unprecedented depression. This has been a real case of the treatment being worse than the disease (at least for the duration of treatment) – forcing many who have attempted treatment to abandon it. As a result, the severity of treatment has at least been an inhibiting factor in the ability to effectively treat the large infected population.

    1. Report this comment

      James Dwyer said:

      (continued)

      Hopefully the new drugs will provide much more tolerable and effective treatment – please see http://www.nature.com/news/targeted-drugs-to-tackle-hepatitisc-1.12904

      P.S. the use of alphabetic rating code for recommendations to treat an illness identified by alphabetic codes produce the unfortunate potential for headlines such as:

      ‘USPSTF upgrades recommendation to treat Hepatitis C to a B’

      <%)

Comments are closed.