I'm continuing to take my shots, but I must admit to being very conflicted about doing so after the study published in JAMA. They seem to have done a thorough job, but there (as with all things MS) is still doubt enough for doctors to continue to prescribe it and patients like me to continue to take it.
I think the question "Have I been prescribing useless medication to my patients" is almost as difficult for doctors as "Have I been taking useless medication" is for patients. I will define useless as not delaying progression - lowering relapse rates and lesions is something, but not exactly what we're expecting.
So are we all ignoring the study and continuing without mentioning that elephant in the room, are we hoping that a drug with so much research behind it can't possibly not work, or is there enough room for doubt to bridge us to the next exciting/disappointing discovery?
I think the question "Have I been prescribing useless medication to my patients" is almost as difficult for doctors as "Have I been taking useless medication" is for patients. I will define useless as not delaying progression - lowering relapse rates and lesions is something, but not exactly what we're expecting.
So are we all ignoring the study and continuing without mentioning that elephant in the room, are we hoping that a drug with so much research behind it can't possibly not work, or is there enough room for doubt to bridge us to the next exciting/disappointing discovery?
Comment