At right about the halfway point in treatment last year, I took a short vacation to Camp Mather near Yosemite. It was a real challenge, particularly regarding side effects and was described in this post. Having actually enjoyed it despite the difficulties, my wife and I decided to do it again this year. It was a vastly different experience.
Right off the bat, we didn’t need to take refrigerated drugs and the daily dose of pills was down to two (a thyroid pill and Celexa). Remembering last year’s difficulty breathing at altitude, I injected my last dose of Procrit a few days before we left. We then threw enough gear for a two month safari into the back of the pickup (it was a five day vacation – in a cabin) and headed up to Camp Mather.
The biggest difference was the energy I had this year. Even being off the treatment drugs for only 10 weeks created a noticeable difference. There was a lot less exhaustion – I only needed to take one short nap every day – and I had the energy to do a lot more walking. I even played catch, Frisbee golf and kicked around a soccer ball with my wife during the stay. We even stayed up in the evening and played board games with some of our friends, though I crapped out on the late night wine and ranting sessions that are de rigueur for any vacation. It was wonderful to enjoy physical activities without gasping, nausea and spacing out.
It’s great to feel some actual progress in recovering from treatment. I even pretend to see my hair growing back (I’m sure those dark hairs weren’t there before, both of them). Of course, after driving back to San Francisco, I went to bed and slept for 12 hours, then took an afternoon nap for two more. I guess I’m not quite yet the physical powerhouse I thought I was.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Seeing More Clearly After Treatment
Vision changes are a big part of the side effects of both standard treatment and several of the additional drugs either approved (boceprevir, telaprevir) or under study for treating Hepatitis C (RO5024048 RG7128). They can include blurry vision, changes in the strength of your vision, sparkles or light shows within or at the edge of your visual field and worst of all macular degeneration. The effects can vary in intensity during the course of treatment. Most of the visual side effects reverse after treatment is ended save for macular degeneration, which is permanent. In my case, the effects seem to be slowly reversing themselves.
In this post (about 6 paragraphs down) there is a description of the onset of the visual side effects when treatment began. At the time the primary effect seemed to be a reduction in my ability to focus on things that were close-up in my visual field. I lost most of my natural monocular vision in which the left eye focused up close the right eye focused at a distance. It eventually progressed to the point that, at the end of treatment, there was little difference between the two eyes. The left still focused a touch better close up and the right a touch better at a distance, but there was no longer a significant difference.
There was also some variation in the strength of vision. It seemed that from month to month there were variations in the amount of short sightedness I was victim to. Sometimes, it seemed my glasses were not nearly strong enough and other times they were far too strong. I took to not wearing them most of the time and carrying around reading glasses for when there was a need to focus closely (for those of you in the San Francisco Bay Area, Ichiban Kan the Japanese discount store has reading glasses for $1.50 per pair; and stylin ones at that). I decided not to get new glasses or even try to determine my prescription until the treatment was over.
Several months after I had been dropped from the experimental study and was on the standard treatment, I began to notice that there were sparkles in my visual field. They were not large nor were they particularly intrusive, but they were apparent when I wasn’t focusing on a specific area. They were also apparent at the edges of the visual field, particularly in low light. I kept thinking that I saw something out of the corner of my eye and when I tried to turn and focus on it, there was never anything there. It took a while to realize that it was due to the sparklies and not to flies, birds, mice, rain, ghosts or any of the other things that appear in the corners of your vision.
Now that 9 weeks have passed since finishing the interferon and Ribavirin treatment, there has been some reversal of the visual side effects. The sparklies in the visual field and at the corners of my eyes are mostly gone. They still appear when I am very tired, but they may have always done that and I wouldn’t know it given the state of my memory. The variations in my strength of vision have stabilized as well. There are no longer times when I cannot wear glasses because they make my eyes hurt. Perhaps it is time to visit the eye doctor and get a new prescription and even new glasses (Costco here we come). There has been no change in the loss of monocular vision. My two eyes remain slightly different, but the old ability to read with the left eye and focus long-distance with the right seems to be gone permanently.
The side effect of the eyes getting tired rapidly during reading and watching a movie, TV or computer screen has also begun to reverse. So much so that this past weekend my lovely wife and I were able to take in two movies in two days. These were not “films” either with long static takes of characters talking or meditative pans across beautiful scenery. These were eye-taxing action films with rapid changes in focus, explosions, chase scenes and all the things you watch movies on the big screen for. Yes, we saw “Cowboys and Aliens” and “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” - two brilliant examples of all that is right in Hollywood filmmaking. At least with Hep C, the treatment doesn’t make apes smarter and people dead. We got that going for us…
In this post (about 6 paragraphs down) there is a description of the onset of the visual side effects when treatment began. At the time the primary effect seemed to be a reduction in my ability to focus on things that were close-up in my visual field. I lost most of my natural monocular vision in which the left eye focused up close the right eye focused at a distance. It eventually progressed to the point that, at the end of treatment, there was little difference between the two eyes. The left still focused a touch better close up and the right a touch better at a distance, but there was no longer a significant difference.
There was also some variation in the strength of vision. It seemed that from month to month there were variations in the amount of short sightedness I was victim to. Sometimes, it seemed my glasses were not nearly strong enough and other times they were far too strong. I took to not wearing them most of the time and carrying around reading glasses for when there was a need to focus closely (for those of you in the San Francisco Bay Area, Ichiban Kan the Japanese discount store has reading glasses for $1.50 per pair; and stylin ones at that). I decided not to get new glasses or even try to determine my prescription until the treatment was over.
Several months after I had been dropped from the experimental study and was on the standard treatment, I began to notice that there were sparkles in my visual field. They were not large nor were they particularly intrusive, but they were apparent when I wasn’t focusing on a specific area. They were also apparent at the edges of the visual field, particularly in low light. I kept thinking that I saw something out of the corner of my eye and when I tried to turn and focus on it, there was never anything there. It took a while to realize that it was due to the sparklies and not to flies, birds, mice, rain, ghosts or any of the other things that appear in the corners of your vision.
Now that 9 weeks have passed since finishing the interferon and Ribavirin treatment, there has been some reversal of the visual side effects. The sparklies in the visual field and at the corners of my eyes are mostly gone. They still appear when I am very tired, but they may have always done that and I wouldn’t know it given the state of my memory. The variations in my strength of vision have stabilized as well. There are no longer times when I cannot wear glasses because they make my eyes hurt. Perhaps it is time to visit the eye doctor and get a new prescription and even new glasses (Costco here we come). There has been no change in the loss of monocular vision. My two eyes remain slightly different, but the old ability to read with the left eye and focus long-distance with the right seems to be gone permanently.
The side effect of the eyes getting tired rapidly during reading and watching a movie, TV or computer screen has also begun to reverse. So much so that this past weekend my lovely wife and I were able to take in two movies in two days. These were not “films” either with long static takes of characters talking or meditative pans across beautiful scenery. These were eye-taxing action films with rapid changes in focus, explosions, chase scenes and all the things you watch movies on the big screen for. Yes, we saw “Cowboys and Aliens” and “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” - two brilliant examples of all that is right in Hollywood filmmaking. At least with Hep C, the treatment doesn’t make apes smarter and people dead. We got that going for us…
Monday, August 22, 2011
Leaving the Support Group
As discussed previously in this post, support groups are an excellent program for HEP C sufferers. They provide a safe and secure environment to talk about the disease. They are a useful pool of knowledge about the side effects, the strategies for coping with them and, of course they provide a wealth of information about treatment. The sheer relief of finding people who have had similar trials, successes, and failures is worth attending in itself. All that being said, I stopped going to my support group in January of 2011.
Some of the reasons are the same as the ones described in this post, some are more personal. The overall tone of the group began to seem as though it was a group therapy session for folks with social interaction deficits rather than a support group dedicated to dealing with HEP C. The amount of time spent discussing the relationships and personal difficulties of the people in the group began to outweigh the time spent discussing the effects of HEP C on their lives and the sharing of knowledge about facing and treating the disease. While this kind of discussion was clearly important to those who initiated it, it seemed to me to be a case of too much information and too much bitching. It never bothers me when someone bitches about the difficulties the disease or its treatment creates in their lives, it does not seem relevant to here repeated complaints about their fathers, mothers, brothers and others in their lives. This may very well be an example of my being selfish and not caring enough about my fellow HEP C sufferers. I fully admit this. But I would rather spend the time talking about the disease, the treatments, the knowledge others have about these things and the general state of the HEP C community, research and public awareness of the disease. All of these concerns can be personal and can intersect with the personal lives of the folks with the disease; I just don’t want to hear about their landlord having a problem with their cat.
It came to a head when I realized that I had to take an Ativan before going to the meetings in order to get through them without becoming anxious and upset. It seemed that the requirement to be tranquilized to go the meeting was probably a sign that they had outlasted their usefulness. I still remain in contact with a few of the people in the group, but the dynamics of the actual bi-weekly meetings just became more than I could stand.
I still believe that support groups are a great resource. If you have one in your area you should definitely check it out. The chances are that it will be a great source of emotional support and information. Everyone with HEP C deserves all the support they can get and a support group is a great place to seek it. Perhaps those of us who are surly loners just can’t handle all that good feeling. Ah well…
Sunday, August 21, 2011
A Shout Out to Gregg Allman
The television was tuned to one of those deep cable cultural stations which was running a German film from the thirties when they went to commercial. The ad started out with a voice over from Gregg Allman mentioning the Allman Brothers Museum in Macon, Georgia. Then it morphed in a completely different direction. In a full-face statement, he announced that in 1999 he had been diagnosed with Hepatitis C. He said that on his doctor’s advice he eventually acknowledged the reality of the disease and sought help. He said that he was glad he did and that doing so allowed him to not just have memories of the past, but to continue to make memories today. He urged people to go to tuneintohepc.com for more information and to get tested.
Even though a number of prominent people in various walks of live have contracted HEP C, (list here) there have not been a correspondingly large number who have spoken out about their disease. Natalie Cole, a fellow musician who is featured on the tuneintohepc.com website talked about the disease, how she got it and what the treatment was like in 2008. A link to one of the articles is here. Pamela Anderson has talked about her disease as well. Allman talked to Sanjay Gupta on CNN about the disease, his cancer and his liver transplant earlier this summer (link here). He also made the TV public service commercial noted above. I’m sure there are others, but just the fact that it is hard to identify them means that HEP C sufferers have not had the same celebrity support that folks with many other diseases have had.
Folks who have HEP C, whether celebrity or no, have no obligation to reveal their health information to anyone. To assume that they bear greater responsibility to advocate for the disease is wrong. All of us may choose how we deal with the fact that we have it. Still, it would do a great deal for raising the awareness of HEP C if all of us who have it, especially celebrities, speak out about the disease, advocate for more research, and for those of us who have undergone treatment, inform people about what to expect if they decide to be treated.
For now, though, I would like to thank Mr. Allman for making his public service announcement, for going on CNN and for being out front and straightforward about the disease. Let’s hope it leads a lot more people to be tested and to be able to consider treatment while their liver can still be saved.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
New Drugs, New Treatments, New Hype
In mid-June of this year while at a baseball game watching my childhood hometown Minnesota Twins defeat my adopted home town team San Francisco Giants, a friend asked if I was excited about the news in the paper that morning about the new cure for Hepatitis C. He said that it cured 80% of all patients in clinical trials and that the treatment might last only 24 weeks instead of the standard 48 week therapy. The news was stunning. Which drug was it? I had been keeping up with the various new drugs in the FDA approval pipeline and had never heard of one with a viral clearance rate of more than 65%. Of course he couldn’t remember the name and none of us had a smart phone with us, so it took until after game and back at home before I could do any research.
This article appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle. It stated that about 80% of HEP C patients “with the most common strain” and relapsers from previous treatment were cured by the new drug. The drug was the protease inhibitor telaprevir, brand named Incivek by its developer Vertex Pharmaceuticals. Imagine the amount of money they must have paid a naming company to develop that brand name; rolls right off the tongue. The results from earlier studies had indicated that telaprevir increased the Sustained Viral Response (SVR) in genotype 1 HEP C, the most common genotype infecting US residents, to 65%. It seemed prudent to search out the source material to sort out all these percentages. A quick search of the web found this press release. In the fourth paragraph of the release it stated that “The sustained virologic response for patients treated with Incivek across all studies, and across all patient groups, was between 20 and 45 percent higher than current standard of care.” This seems to indicate that the low end of the SVR rate was indeed 65% and the high end might be almost 90%. The article and press release also indicated that 60% of treatment naïve patients achieved a rapid viral response (RVR) in 4 weeks and these folks not only would only be in treatment for 24 weeks, but had a 90% chance of achieving an SVR as well. It is not clear what the SVR rate for the folks who don’t achieve a RVR and continue for 48 weeks of treatment has been in the tests. It is also unclear whether there is a difference in SVR rates between genotype 1a and 1b. Folks who had relapsed after previous treatments had a 32% SVR rate when treated with the telaprevir, interferon and Ribavirin cocktail. This is very good news indeed for HEP C patients.
A month earlier, this article appeared in the NY Times announcing the debut of Victrelis the brand name of boceprevir (again where do these brand names come from) another protease inhibitor, this one developed by Merck. This drug, which is taken for either 24 or 48 weeks in combination with interferon and Ribavirin, has an SVR rate for treatment naïve genotype 1 HEP C patients of 65-70%. The SVR rate for patients who relapsed after previous treatment is about 40%. Boceprevir is a bit different in that the patient starts with 4 weeks of standard treatment and then adds the boceprevir for either an additional 24 or 48 weeks depending on the viral response. So we have two competing drugs available whose addition to the standard of care treatment increases the SVR rate by a range of 20 to 40 percent. Good news indeed but what is the rest of the story.
The rest of the story has several chapters from side effects to cost of treatment. Looking at side effects first, both boceprevir (Victrelis) and telaprevir (Incivek) have additional side effects to add to those caused by interferon and Ribavirin and both can somewhat intensify the interferon and Ribavirin side effects as well.
Boceprevir can increase the risk of anemia and neutropenia, cause strange taste sensations and cause intestinal tract issues.
Telaprevir also increases the risk of anemia, causes diarrhea, and most importantly can cause an itchy rash. The rash can be serious enough to require that the patient stop taking the telaprevir.
The new drugs are very much like the established treatment in that those with lower viral loads at the beginning of treatment have a better chance of success than those with high viral loads. Also like the established treatments, anyone who has ever tried a treatment, whether standard or experimental, and failed also has a considerably lower chance of success.
Both drugs are protease inhibitors. This means that they inhibit the action of an enzyme that the virus needs to reproduce. They are similar to the protease inhibitors developed to fight the AIDS virus. This means that they must be taken on a fairly rigid schedule: three pills per day, one every eight hours. If that means waking up to take it, wake up you must. They also need to be taken with food, so you cannot pop a pill and run off. You have to have certain types of food with the dose of the drug. This means that for 12 weeks (telaprevir) or 24-48 weeks (boceprevir) your life will be scheduled around your drug dosing.
Both drugs are vastly expensive as discussed in this article. Boceprevir/Victrelis will cost $1,100 per week making the cost of a full course of the drug either $26,400 (24 weeks) or $52,800 (48 weeks) depending on your viral response. Telaprevir/Incivek has been priced at $49,000 for the 12 week course of treatment. This cost is in addition to the $15,000-$20,000 (24 weeks) or $30,000-$40,000 (48 weeks) for the interferon and Ribavirin with which they must be taken. This also does not count the cost of the Procrit to fight anemia ($500 per week) or the Neupogen to fight neutropenia (also about $500 per week) should you need them. There are also the costs involved with antidepressants, sleep medications, thyroid medications, pain medications and whatever you will be using to deal with the rash and itching in the case of the telaprevir.
It is also not clear how quickly insurance plans will add them to their drug formularies. Kaiser Permanente, my HMO here in California, has added both to its formulary. I do not know which other insurance providers have done the same. Even if they are added, it is not clear what the requirements will be for a patient to be eligible to be prescribed and how easily insurance companies will make them available. From an economic point of view they should make them easy to get as even at these prices the cost of treatment is still much less than the cost of a liver transplant.
For those without insurance, I do not know how anyone but the wealthy could afford the additional cost. The cost of standard of care treatment is by itself so high as to exclude many HEP C sufferers from being treated. There are programs to assist those with low resources to get treatment but even with the drugs deeply discounted the ability to come up with as much as $20,000 for a course of treatment would seem impossible.
Despite all these potential problems, the advent of new drugs to combat HEP C is excellent news. Ramping up the SVR rate to a range of 60% - 80% is a vast improvement over the standard of care treatment rate that topped out at 45%. Psychologically, it is far more encouraging to go into a course of treatment thinking you have a 2-1 shot at beating the virus than to go in thinking you have just under a 50-50 shot. These drugs are also only the leading edge of a wave of new drugs and new therapy approaches that are under research and testing. There are new polymerase inhibitor drugs that have SVR rates similar to telaprevir, but with fewer and less severe side effects. Testing on the holy grail of finding a treatment regimen that does not have to include interferon is also underway with early stage results coming in soon. Within the past year, scientists have discovered a method of growing the HEP C virus in the lab. This means that future early stage testing of drugs can be done directly on the virus instead of with animal models. This should increase the pace of research dramatically. In all it is a good time to have HEP C if you are one of us infected. There are established treatments, there are promising new treatments and there are drugs and treatments in the research and development pipeline that seem to point to future in which HEP C can be attacked and treated with a high expectation that it will be successfully cleared from the human body.
Perhaps we can believe the hype surrounding these new drugs. Despite the problems of determining the actual efficacy of the drug in your own case, the potential difficulties in obtaining and paying for the treatment and persevering through the side effects, they have advanced the cause of combatting Hepatitis C.
The more cures, the fewer pig livers will have to be implanted in humans (sorry, I’ve been reading far too many science fiction novels during treatment).
This article appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle. It stated that about 80% of HEP C patients “with the most common strain” and relapsers from previous treatment were cured by the new drug. The drug was the protease inhibitor telaprevir, brand named Incivek by its developer Vertex Pharmaceuticals. Imagine the amount of money they must have paid a naming company to develop that brand name; rolls right off the tongue. The results from earlier studies had indicated that telaprevir increased the Sustained Viral Response (SVR) in genotype 1 HEP C, the most common genotype infecting US residents, to 65%. It seemed prudent to search out the source material to sort out all these percentages. A quick search of the web found this press release. In the fourth paragraph of the release it stated that “The sustained virologic response for patients treated with Incivek across all studies, and across all patient groups, was between 20 and 45 percent higher than current standard of care.” This seems to indicate that the low end of the SVR rate was indeed 65% and the high end might be almost 90%. The article and press release also indicated that 60% of treatment naïve patients achieved a rapid viral response (RVR) in 4 weeks and these folks not only would only be in treatment for 24 weeks, but had a 90% chance of achieving an SVR as well. It is not clear what the SVR rate for the folks who don’t achieve a RVR and continue for 48 weeks of treatment has been in the tests. It is also unclear whether there is a difference in SVR rates between genotype 1a and 1b. Folks who had relapsed after previous treatments had a 32% SVR rate when treated with the telaprevir, interferon and Ribavirin cocktail. This is very good news indeed for HEP C patients.
A month earlier, this article appeared in the NY Times announcing the debut of Victrelis the brand name of boceprevir (again where do these brand names come from) another protease inhibitor, this one developed by Merck. This drug, which is taken for either 24 or 48 weeks in combination with interferon and Ribavirin, has an SVR rate for treatment naïve genotype 1 HEP C patients of 65-70%. The SVR rate for patients who relapsed after previous treatment is about 40%. Boceprevir is a bit different in that the patient starts with 4 weeks of standard treatment and then adds the boceprevir for either an additional 24 or 48 weeks depending on the viral response. So we have two competing drugs available whose addition to the standard of care treatment increases the SVR rate by a range of 20 to 40 percent. Good news indeed but what is the rest of the story.
The rest of the story has several chapters from side effects to cost of treatment. Looking at side effects first, both boceprevir (Victrelis) and telaprevir (Incivek) have additional side effects to add to those caused by interferon and Ribavirin and both can somewhat intensify the interferon and Ribavirin side effects as well.
Boceprevir can increase the risk of anemia and neutropenia, cause strange taste sensations and cause intestinal tract issues.
Telaprevir also increases the risk of anemia, causes diarrhea, and most importantly can cause an itchy rash. The rash can be serious enough to require that the patient stop taking the telaprevir.
The new drugs are very much like the established treatment in that those with lower viral loads at the beginning of treatment have a better chance of success than those with high viral loads. Also like the established treatments, anyone who has ever tried a treatment, whether standard or experimental, and failed also has a considerably lower chance of success.
Both drugs are protease inhibitors. This means that they inhibit the action of an enzyme that the virus needs to reproduce. They are similar to the protease inhibitors developed to fight the AIDS virus. This means that they must be taken on a fairly rigid schedule: three pills per day, one every eight hours. If that means waking up to take it, wake up you must. They also need to be taken with food, so you cannot pop a pill and run off. You have to have certain types of food with the dose of the drug. This means that for 12 weeks (telaprevir) or 24-48 weeks (boceprevir) your life will be scheduled around your drug dosing.
Both drugs are vastly expensive as discussed in this article. Boceprevir/Victrelis will cost $1,100 per week making the cost of a full course of the drug either $26,400 (24 weeks) or $52,800 (48 weeks) depending on your viral response. Telaprevir/Incivek has been priced at $49,000 for the 12 week course of treatment. This cost is in addition to the $15,000-$20,000 (24 weeks) or $30,000-$40,000 (48 weeks) for the interferon and Ribavirin with which they must be taken. This also does not count the cost of the Procrit to fight anemia ($500 per week) or the Neupogen to fight neutropenia (also about $500 per week) should you need them. There are also the costs involved with antidepressants, sleep medications, thyroid medications, pain medications and whatever you will be using to deal with the rash and itching in the case of the telaprevir.
It is also not clear how quickly insurance plans will add them to their drug formularies. Kaiser Permanente, my HMO here in California, has added both to its formulary. I do not know which other insurance providers have done the same. Even if they are added, it is not clear what the requirements will be for a patient to be eligible to be prescribed and how easily insurance companies will make them available. From an economic point of view they should make them easy to get as even at these prices the cost of treatment is still much less than the cost of a liver transplant.
For those without insurance, I do not know how anyone but the wealthy could afford the additional cost. The cost of standard of care treatment is by itself so high as to exclude many HEP C sufferers from being treated. There are programs to assist those with low resources to get treatment but even with the drugs deeply discounted the ability to come up with as much as $20,000 for a course of treatment would seem impossible.
Despite all these potential problems, the advent of new drugs to combat HEP C is excellent news. Ramping up the SVR rate to a range of 60% - 80% is a vast improvement over the standard of care treatment rate that topped out at 45%. Psychologically, it is far more encouraging to go into a course of treatment thinking you have a 2-1 shot at beating the virus than to go in thinking you have just under a 50-50 shot. These drugs are also only the leading edge of a wave of new drugs and new therapy approaches that are under research and testing. There are new polymerase inhibitor drugs that have SVR rates similar to telaprevir, but with fewer and less severe side effects. Testing on the holy grail of finding a treatment regimen that does not have to include interferon is also underway with early stage results coming in soon. Within the past year, scientists have discovered a method of growing the HEP C virus in the lab. This means that future early stage testing of drugs can be done directly on the virus instead of with animal models. This should increase the pace of research dramatically. In all it is a good time to have HEP C if you are one of us infected. There are established treatments, there are promising new treatments and there are drugs and treatments in the research and development pipeline that seem to point to future in which HEP C can be attacked and treated with a high expectation that it will be successfully cleared from the human body.
Perhaps we can believe the hype surrounding these new drugs. Despite the problems of determining the actual efficacy of the drug in your own case, the potential difficulties in obtaining and paying for the treatment and persevering through the side effects, they have advanced the cause of combatting Hepatitis C.
The more cures, the fewer pig livers will have to be implanted in humans (sorry, I’ve been reading far too many science fiction novels during treatment).
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Changes In Visualizations During Treatment
There is a great deal of evidence that creative visualization can influence the actual physical and mental performance of people in the real world. Studies have been done on academic test performance and athletic performance to use two examples and the evidence has indicated that if one group spends a specific amount of time visualizing successfully completing a task and another group spends the same amount of time practicing the task, the two groups have similar results upon undertaking the task. There is also evidence that the same sort of creative visualization influences recovery rates and treatment outcomes in disease situations.
It was with that in mind that I created my own visualization when I started HEP C treatment in the RG7128, RO5024048 clinical trial. I imagined that the polymerase inhibitor RG7128 was an armored division of fast moving powerful tanks that struck quickly and with lethal force at the HEP C virus. The interferon and Ribavirin were the methodical infantry units that followed the tanks and mopped up the remaining resistance from viruses that were either entrenched or bypassed by the fast moving armor. I visualized that image often throughout the clinical trial. After being tossed out of the clinical trial because of a viral breakthrough, my visualization metaphor changed. My tanks had run out of gas and were now abandoned by the side of the road.
After transitioning into Standard of Care therapy I still used a military image when I thought about my battle with the HEP C virus, but now it had switched to an image of slogging trench warfare with my infantry (interferon and Ribavirin) in hand-to-hand combat with the virus. It was going to be a 12 month struggle but they were attacking an already weakened foe and had strength of numbers and better supplies on their side. I used this image for several months and sure enough, after 14 weeks the numbers came back negative indicating my infantry were winning.
Then there was the possible viral breakthrough in December after six months of treatment and the subsequent return to being virally negative in January. The metaphor was fairly tattered by then but I tried to hold to it. As the months of treatment ground on and I eventually went on disability, the only military image that seemed to fit was the battle of Stalingrad; except I didn’t know which side I was on. Holding on till the end of treatment was the only concern. This carries on the military metaphor quite well actually. At the end of a long tour of duty on the front lines, the primary concern a soldier has is surviving until it is over.
At the end of treatment, the viral load was undetectable and the viral activity was negative so we can assume that the visualization was either successful and contributed to the treatment or at least did not inhibit the effectiveness of the treatment. I would recommend the technique to anyone undergoing any kind of treatment for disease. There is no need to use a military image, whatever is vivid and emotionally engaging will work. It is no doubt easier to maintain the metaphor for shorter treatments than longer ones, but anything that can help healing is worth pursuing. Just hope your metaphor doesn’t run out of gas on the side of the road. There is nothing sadder imaginarily speaking than watching your elite troops quit the battlefield.
It was with that in mind that I created my own visualization when I started HEP C treatment in the RG7128, RO5024048 clinical trial. I imagined that the polymerase inhibitor RG7128 was an armored division of fast moving powerful tanks that struck quickly and with lethal force at the HEP C virus. The interferon and Ribavirin were the methodical infantry units that followed the tanks and mopped up the remaining resistance from viruses that were either entrenched or bypassed by the fast moving armor. I visualized that image often throughout the clinical trial. After being tossed out of the clinical trial because of a viral breakthrough, my visualization metaphor changed. My tanks had run out of gas and were now abandoned by the side of the road.
After transitioning into Standard of Care therapy I still used a military image when I thought about my battle with the HEP C virus, but now it had switched to an image of slogging trench warfare with my infantry (interferon and Ribavirin) in hand-to-hand combat with the virus. It was going to be a 12 month struggle but they were attacking an already weakened foe and had strength of numbers and better supplies on their side. I used this image for several months and sure enough, after 14 weeks the numbers came back negative indicating my infantry were winning.
Then there was the possible viral breakthrough in December after six months of treatment and the subsequent return to being virally negative in January. The metaphor was fairly tattered by then but I tried to hold to it. As the months of treatment ground on and I eventually went on disability, the only military image that seemed to fit was the battle of Stalingrad; except I didn’t know which side I was on. Holding on till the end of treatment was the only concern. This carries on the military metaphor quite well actually. At the end of a long tour of duty on the front lines, the primary concern a soldier has is surviving until it is over.
At the end of treatment, the viral load was undetectable and the viral activity was negative so we can assume that the visualization was either successful and contributed to the treatment or at least did not inhibit the effectiveness of the treatment. I would recommend the technique to anyone undergoing any kind of treatment for disease. There is no need to use a military image, whatever is vivid and emotionally engaging will work. It is no doubt easier to maintain the metaphor for shorter treatments than longer ones, but anything that can help healing is worth pursuing. Just hope your metaphor doesn’t run out of gas on the side of the road. There is nothing sadder imaginarily speaking than watching your elite troops quit the battlefield.
Friday, August 12, 2011
Night Sweats Redux
After finishing 18 months of treatment involving powerful, side-effect laden drugs one’s expectations are that once you are no longer taking the drugs, you no longer experience the side effects. This does not exactly seem to be the case. Shortly after the first week following the end of treatment, I began to experience night sweats again.
Within a few months of beginning the drug trial in 2010, I started to experience night sweats, as related in this post. The night sweats were intense with heavy sweat soaking through sleeping clothes and even requiring changing the sheets in some cases. These went on for several weeks until my body seemed to adjust to the various drugs and they receded to only an occasional event. This was the norm for about a year until they became a bit more common during the final 8 weeks of treatment. They were still not the heavy sweats that characterized the early part of treatment, but they did happend a few times a month toward the end.
About ten days after finishing treatment, I woke up on my back with a pool of sweat on my concave abdomen (did I mention that I had lost a bit of weight?). After a change of shirt and going back to sleep, I awoke later to the same condition. This happened three times during the night and by morning there were damp shirts hung all over the bedroom. It was unclear why it might be happening. My wife had recently had the flu and I was a bit feverish before retiring for the night so perhaps it was related to that. When it happened each night for the next week, it occurred to me that it might be related to the HEP C treatment. The heavy sweats have stopped, but in a milder form they have remained an event that occurs about 3 times a week.
It is not clear what the cause is. In my darkest moments, I remember that the symptoms for the onset of acute HEP C are flu-like, including fever, sweating and muscle aches. I felt some of them at the start of this round of sweats but it does not seem likely the sweating would have continued on for several weeks after the other symptoms disappeared. In talking to folks who have had relapses after treatment, they report that they relapse within the first month, which would fit the scenario, but they do not report having symptoms. It could also be related to stopping the other drugs being taken to alleviate the side effects of the standard treatment. Ambien was something I was taking every day for the final 2-3 months of treatment as sleep was not something that came easily or often. Ambien is not something that should be taken daily and even Dr. Sue had been more worried about the addictive nature of that than of any of the other drugs I was taking. There are some withdrawal symptoms that are noted for Ambien, but they do not indicate that they would go on for weeks after stopping. It could be that the long term use of interferon and Ribavirin has reset my internal thermostat. It always ran cold before as witnessed by the pile of covers on my side of the bed every night. Perhaps now it is more like my wife’s internal temperature gauge. She often sleeps covered only by a sheet on nights when I am swathed in blankets.
I hope it is something as benign as my body permanently running warmer than it used to. If nothing else, surviving summers in San Francisco will be easier if running hot, than if constantly cold. Until more evidence is gathered, the jury is out. In the meantime I am busy brainwashing myself that it is NOT because of any recurrence of HEP C.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
