DefinitelyDressage.com

I am a baby-boomer and at a recent physical that doc asked if I wanted to be tested for it. I declined until doing more research. I have been vaccinated against Hep B. Anybody have/had Hepatitis C? Discuss please?

I have seen commercials...sponsored by the makers of the Hep C drug Harvoni which costs about $100,000...recommending testing for baby boomers. It is a serious disease for sure. Transferred by via blood contact. IV drug users, blood transfusions (now tested for).

I have never had a blood transfusion and I don't use IV drugs so I am not concerned. I think a blanket statement to test everyone is overkill and the drug company fishing for $$$$. If you have had a blood transfusion or behaviors that increase your risk, by all means get tested.

Those are my thoughts on the subject.

Susan

I agree with Susan. My brother had hep C, but at one point he was an IV drug user. Eventually he did interferon treatment which put it into remission, but lapsed back into alcoholism which brought about cirrhosis. I would not get tested for it unless you are high-risk--blood transfusion, IV drugs.

OTOH, testing IMO is harmless (blood test for which blood could be drawn at the same time as other blood work). If you are negative, no harm, no foul. If not, you are informed and can make more informed health care decisions going forward.

That's kind of my thinking so far. I had a transfusion while hospitalized back in 1982 - pre HIV issues - and was subsequently tested for that, but not for Hep C.

I would say get tested since you had a transfusion in the days before screening for it.

My Dad, a baby boomer, was diagnosed with Hep c about 15 years ago. At the time of his diagnosis, he was told that many Vietnam veterans have it ( he is a Vietnam vet).

Going solely by that, I'm guessing the reason why baby boomers are being told to get tested/ are targeted in the vaccine ads is because they are the generation that went to Nam.

Hep C is also sexually transmitted. You can also get it from a manicure/pedicure or piercings or tattoos. There's no harm in being tested.

Knowledge is power. A simple test does not seem like an overreaction. Its easier than a mammogram or colon check. Which are common early prevention tests.

I think it's wise. It's sexually transmitted as well as being transmitted via blood products or contaminated instruments. Whereas in the past Hep C gave a person a lifelong infection, it now has cure rates in the 95-99% range with the newer medications available (not just Harvoni). There's no harm in testing, and if you are among the small group of baby boomers who are positive then treatment would be a good thing to get rid of it.

When my patients ask for STI screening, I always include Hep C along with the usual suspects. It's also something we automatically screen pregnant women for (with their consent).

Knowledge is power

I have an older friend who I guess would be considered a baby boomer, not sure. She contracted Hep C after having foot surgery, as in, she had surgery on one foot and her bloodwork was clear, but months later when she went to have the other foot done, she had Hep C. This was many years ago. Anyway, due to her story, I think I am on the get tested band wagon as well.

Yep, think I'll get on it. Thanks for the input!

I had several blood transfusions in the mid-80's but I have never had any indication that I may have contracted Hep C. I routinely get a full physical with blood workups (thanks free health Care!) and I'm pretty sure that if I had been harbouring Hep C for decades I would have shown elevated liver enzymes by now or other symptoms. So yea sounds like a typical big pharm market grab scare technique.

Which might be the case if I though the pharmaceutical industry was getting paid by the lab companies (which I don't).

Still not seeing the issue in checking specifically for Hep C rather than the assumption that if you got it it was a long time ago and would have shown up by now. As noted, exposure to Hep C can come from many places and being sure seems to me to be a good idea. Next time (assuming I remember) I see my PCP I plan on asking about this as I have have transfusions in the last 5 years).

I used to see all the med ads as yes, big pharm market grab (as it was put). I no longer do. Yes, the pharmaceuticals are looking to recoup costs on drug development as well as flat out making a profit (talking new drugs now). However, these ads can open the door for discussion between Dr and patient. I know this from personal experience and yes, a fancy new drug has made a definite different to my quality of life.

Pretty sure they wouldn't do it here (Canada) unless as I said, you were showing some specific symptoms. You don't get everything under the sun or on the req form just because it's there.. Waste of resources.

I remember the days when the pharmaceutical companies couldn't advertise. Wish it were so again.

Waste of resources to check everyone and perhaps identify someone who is asymptomatic but caught in time for a less costly treatment and potentially before any long term damage was incurred?

Yes, it depends on the test but sometimes...

Does Canada not do colonoscopies until someone is symptomatic for colon cancer?

You can ask to have it done and it's covered. The Twinrix vaccine (hep A and B) is not unless you have a drug plan at work (they'll administer it for free but you have to buy the vaccine).

Colonoscopies are done beginning at age 50 every 10 years unless you have a family history in which case they begin at age 40 every 5 years. If they find anything it drops to every 3 years.

Tabby wrote:You can ask to have it done and it's covered. The Twinrix vaccine (hep A and B) is not unless you have a drug plan at work (they'll administer it for free but you have to buy the vaccine).

Just want to clarify that a vaccine (a preventative measure) and a therapeutic, Harvoni, etc. (too late for prevention) treatment are not the same - to avoid confusion among any that are not knowledgeable about the topic.

How does testing ( doctor and lab company) benefit " big pharma" ?

Yes i get that vaccines and treatments do, but not testing.

Because the people that come back positive get treated (theoretically). And there are a population of people that don't know they have it. But it's not a one-sided benefit. . . . it's a cure for the most part. And that in itself is a dilemma for pharma. . . . at least in the long term.

Koolkat wrote:Because the people that come back positive get treated (theoretically). And there are a population of people that don't know they have it. But it's not a one-sided benefit. . . . it's a cure for the most part. And that in itself is a dilemma for pharma. . . . at least in the long term.

like i said above, i get that vaccinating and treatment benefit pharma, so your answer only repeats what i already said.

Chisamba wrote:How does testing ( doctor and lab company) benefit " big pharma" ?

Yes i get that vaccines and treatments do, but not testing.

I'm not sure if this is the answer you are looking for, but testing for Hep C in particular could benefit big pharma in the sense that many people have Hep C but few actually show symptoms. Most live their whole lives without ever knowing about it - unless they get tested. When someone tests positive, they usually get treated. So if more people get tested, big pharma gets to sell more of their treatment.

And testing costs money. SOMEBODY pays.

Chisamba wrote:

Koolkat wrote:Because the people that come back positive get treated (theoretically). And there are a population of people that don't know they have it. But it's not a one-sided benefit. . . . it's a cure for the most part. And that in itself is a dilemma for pharma. . . . at least in the long term.

like i said above, i get that vaccinating and treatment benefit pharma, so your answer only repeats what i already said.

Well, you did ask HOW screening/testing benefits pharma.