1 in 33 is very high- indicating that the potential for it to spread in the mainstream population is very high, no matter who you are. Why has the emphasis been on IV drug users?

How did they get it?  Looking around, it sounds like many via drug use.  There probably should be more emphasis on those who have recieved blood products too.

 

As a future (legal) IV drug user, I'm getting screened 1/year.

It's a far more potent virus (7x more) than HIV and it can be potentially carried in saliva. Sharing toothbrushes, razors, nailclippers, with traces of blood on them (accidentally using the wrong razor or toothbrush- it's possible but much less likely to transmit HIV that way. Whereas Hep C is easier to contract). Someone could come into contact with it casually, non-sexually, non drug related, and never suspect it or think twice about it.

Hi Kimmio:

 

Thanks for the tip.

 

I contracted Hep C decades ago, probably through a blood transfusion, but was diagnosed with it only a few years ago, when symptoms of liver damage were showing. But the liver damage, so far, is only Level Three (out of a total of six levels) so my liver is still half good.

 

I'll surely investigate this "breakthrough cure."

 

 

You're welcome. I wish you all the best.

Sure, it can be transmitted that way, but from what I understand the risk is still fairly low.  I think the emphasis is still in the right place.

1 in 33 baby boomers? Hmm...I don't know.

Arminius, hopefully the treatments can help you out!

Canadian Liver Foundation recommended in 2012 that all Canadians born between 1945-75 be screened. (according to the globe and mail article in the OP).

I'm pretty shocked that the rate is so high.

I'm not arguing about screening.  I do disagree with the term all though, I think many doctors are a good judge of when testing might do more harm than good in an individual's situation.  I don't know if testing immediately for Hep C, or doing another type of test is best for people who don't have major risk factors - I'll leave that up to the medical organizations.

 

I don't think the general emphasis is in the wrong place.

Although there are certain well-defined risk factors for hepatitis C transmission such as a history of intravenous drug abuse, former transfusions of blood or blood products, or sex with an infected partner, in around 10% of patients with chronic hepatitis C no obvious risk factor for the disease can be found.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/543531

 

 

So in 90% of cases, they did have the current high risk factors.  Sounds like the correct emphasis is there to me.  Especially when you factor in the percent of people with a high risk factor vs. those who could have contacted it another way.  Ie. I bet there's more people who have used someone's toothbrush than IV drug users in Canada.

What would be the harm in doing that test as well as others? Why would it do more harm to the patient? Is it a matter of cost? I guess it's up to doctors to decide if the Liver Association's recommendations are worthwhile too.

Where did you get the info that it was easy to spread, Kimmio? My long term partner has Hep C, acquired from the IV drug use rampant in the '60s. I get tested periodically, but his specialist advises me that it's practically 0% transmittable through 'casual' contact, while very highly transmittable via intravenous routes. We practice normal adult hygiene, in that we each have our own toothbrushes...

 

The biggest problem with the new therapy is the same as that of the older therapies - drug-based therapies are unaffordable for an increasingly large portion of the population. Canada desperately needs to move towards incorporating pharma care and dental care in its Health Care Act plans.

 

There are cons to doing testing.  Some people really freak out over getting bloodwork done.  If that's a trigger for something else medically, that's a concern.  False positives can also occur, also resulting in stress.  If someone is prone to having a heart attack from one of those types of stressors, but is low risk in other ways, is it worthwhile testing them?

 

A minority, but generally I cringe at the word 'all' when it comes to most medical procedures/recommendations.

Here's another article about why baby boomers are thought to be at risk:

 

There are two reasons the baby boomer demographic is being hard hit by HCV: 1) They are paying for the excesses of their youth; 2) They are the forgotten victims of the tainted blood tragedy. Urging high-risk groups such as IV drug users and transfusion recipients to be tested has not worked. Injection drug use is a lot more common than we like to admit, and individuals are reluctant to admit to these youthful indiscretions, especially once they have families and established careers. Second, a lot of people have received blood transfusions, and many of them don’t necessarily know it, or remember.

Let’s not forget that the hepatitis C virus was not discovered until 1989. (Prior to that time, it was known as non-A-non-B hepatitis.) Effective screening of blood and blood products did not begin until 1991, so anyone who received a transfusion prior to that date is at risk of having contracted HCV. Most infected people live symptom-free for 20 years or more, so those cases are just coming to light now.

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/baby-boomers-bewa...

I did the math and it might be off, but by my calculations that means 3 out of 1000 baby boomers have it and wouldn't know how they might have gotten it. That may not seem high, but think of how many people we congregate in close proximity with per year. You're probably right, it just seems like a high rate in the largest age group in the world.

'Easier' (by 7x) to spread than HIV as a comparison- HIV gets more press. I'm not judging anyone.

Makes sense.

Will the cost of the new drugs be cheaper, in that they are administered for a much shorter period of time (and reportedly fewer side effects, which I'm thinking might require fewer other drugs to manage side effects)?