Quote:
Originally Posted by MAT52
Well that is interesting Northerngal. I am guessing you aren't in the UK? For my body the drugs I've tried so far eg Sulfasalazine, methotrexate (both oral and injectable), Hydroxychloraquine and then Imuran have certainly been big guns!
And many RA friends have tried and failed to tolerate or improve on these first line disease modifying antirheumatic drugs and yet have tolerated and improved with the biologics further down the line.
So despite the doctors saying "big gun" in terms of tolerance what they actually mean is big gun in terms of expense to the NHS. I'm sure the same cost indications generally apply all over the world though. So maybe it is just the term "big gun" which is used properly wherever you are ie big gun to the body's tolerance levels rather than big gun to the tax payer/ health insurance companies!? Mat x
|
nope, I'm not in the UK---both of the doctors that prescribed my IVIG were in the Boston, MA (US) area. They both felt felt that IVIG was the safest because it does not suppress the immune system. I got the same speech from both that suppressing the immune system could possibly lead to cancer or other unwanted ailments.
Truthfully......I would have used the immune suppressants in a heart beat if at least one of them told me it would alleviate this neuropathy. They are still not out of the question if it starts progressing. I sometimes even want to try one now to see if suppressing my immune system would help me regain strength/function and feel better.. I know they would not help with the actual healing process of the nerves. But I just wonder because, if my "overactive" immune system caused this in the first place---maybe I would feel better if it was suppressed??? BTW....no 52 is not considered "older aged" (caught that in your earlier question---and I am 51!!! lol)