6 ms·
I’m working on direct-to-consumer STD testing in JasonHealth.com . Some thoughts on Hep C testing: Hep C Antibody is a very inexpensive test. We charge $25 for
by oleg_k 7y ago
I’m working on direct-to-consumer STD testing in JasonHealth.com . Some thoughts on Hep C testing:
Hep C Antibody is a very inexpensive test. We charge $25 for it.
It takes a long time for the body to produce the antibodies after infection. This test is only 90% sensitive after 12 weeks ( https://www.hepatitisc.uw.edu/go/screening-diagnosis/acute-diagnosis/core-concept/all https://www.hepatitisc.uw.edu/go/screening-diagnosis/acute-d... ). Testing shortly after possible infection with this test is not effective.
The best early detection test is Hepatitis C Viral RNA, Quantitative, Real-Time PCR. It’s able to detect infection 2 weeks after.
The absolute best testing protocol after suspected infection is what doctors use for needle-stick. Test the person who may be spreading the infection immediately using the RNA test. If RNA is detectable start the short course of Hep C drugs on the person who might be infected. This will avoid acute Hep C infection altogether.
Hep C testing is very popular direct-to-consumer. For us, patients usually get it as part of full STD screening ( https://www.jasonhealth.com/l/std-testing https://www.jasonhealth.com/l/std-testing ). About 80% of Hep C tests are ordered as part of that.
Anecdotally, it’s not usually ordered by MDs as part of STD screening. Hopefully, these new guidelines will change that.
- samstave 7y agoNice. It would be really great if you guys were to partner with other helping infrastructure, such as recovery centers, salvation army, homeless shelters etc... Getting more people tested for treatments on all levels is a good thing, IMO
- blacksmith_tb 7y agoAbsolutely - but inexpensive testing may not help much when the cost of treatment is in the tens of thousands of dollars[1]. 1: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/323767.php#drug-types-and-costs https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/323767.php#drug-ty...
- chimeracoder 7y ago> the cost of treatment is in the tens of thousands of dollars[1]. It really isn't. That's like walking in to a car dealership, asking how much the car is, and then accepting the salesman's first offer at face value. In reality, insurance will typically cover HCV treatment in the US. Because there's so much competition between HCV drugs, the insurers are able to negotiate deals that are less than a tenth of what the sticker price is.
- PierceJoy 7y agoThe parent comment was replying to a suggestion they partner with organizations who typically help low income and homeless people. I doubt most of them have insurance.
- samstave 7y agomost dont - but you'd be surprised at how many actually do. For example, there are a TON of Vets with PTSD and have coverage through the VA, and MANY are addicts and homeless and low income - but still covered through the VA. Edit: Source, experience in this area and my brother is director of the VA health system for the state of Alaska.
- chimeracoder 7y ago> It takes a long time for the body to produce the antibodies after infection. This test is only 90% sensitive after 12 weeks That's not much of a problem except for people worried about infection after a single known exposure (e.g. needlestick in a medical setting). About a third of patients spontaneously clear the acute infection within six months. On top of that, some countries (such as Germany) refuse to treat acute infections with antivirals - so patients have to wait 6 months for the infection to develop into a chronic infection before they can take the medicine which cures it.
- masonic 7y agoThat's not much of a problem It certainly is a problem if they can infect others during that interval.
- chimeracoder 7y ago> It certainly is a problem if they can infect others during that interval. Tell that to Europe! The NHS, as well as private insurers in Germany and the Netherlands, refuse to treat patients until they've been infected for at least six months. In the US, insurers don't make this distinction.
- erichocean 7y ago> On top of that, some countries (such as Germany) refuse to treat acute infections with antivirals Well, that's one way to save money…
- chimeracoder 7y ago> Well, that's one way to save money… In the short term, yes. In the long term, it means far more people to treat overall, because more people get infected.
- burfog 7y agoThat is obviously not "full STD screening". Missing: human papilloma virus (HPV), mycoplasma genitalium, trichomoniasis, chancroid (haemophilus ducreyi), Lymphogranuloma venereum (LGV), Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), molluscum contagiosum, scabies, crabs
- 3fe9a03ccd14ca5 7y agoMRSA is an STD?
- giarc 7y agoI also wouldn't call scabies an STD. Just as likely to pick up scabies shaking someone's hands then someones........
- kragen 7y agoNo, scabies transmission requires sustained skin-to-skin contact. You can't get it by shaking hands unless it's some kind of publicity stunt where you shake hands without stopping for fifteen minutes.
- selimthegrim 7y agoSkin to skin contact
- 3fe9a03ccd14ca5 7y agoSo the flu is also an std.