Per 1 februari is dit forum niet meer actief. Je account en bijbehorende gegevens op dit forum zijn daarom verwijderd. Oude berichten kun je nog wel nalezen. We zien je eind februari graag terug in de nieuwe community van MS.nl. Meer informatie lees je op MS.nl of in dit topic.

MS medicatie

Alles omtrent voeding en supplementen
Jrs77

Bericht door Jrs77 »

[QUOTE=bos;1017240]Nemen jullie wel of geen medicijnen?[/QUOTE]
Het is nog onzeker of ik PP of RR heb, maar ik heb er toch voor gekozen om Rebif te gebruiken. De keuze om remmers te pakken was om (als het RR is) erger te voorkomen, de keuze voor Rebif omdat de inname en bijwerkingen het beste in mijn dagelijks leven passen.
Marsei

Bericht door Marsei »

Alleen ldn; verder nooit iets genomen.
Leonard

Bericht door Leonard »

[QUOTE=Jrs77;1017262]Het is nog onzeker of ik PP of RR heb, maar ik heb er toch voor gekozen om Rebif te gebruiken. De keuze om remmers te pakken was om (als het RR is) erger te voorkomen, de keuze voor Rebif omdat de inname en bijwerkingen het beste in mijn dagelijks leven passen.[/QUOTE]

je klnkt als een farmaceut...
Marsei

Professor Ebers - Damning Indictment of MS Clinical Drug Trials

Bericht door Marsei »

Professor Ebers - Damning Indictment of MS Clinical Drug Trials

Professor Ebers - Damning Indictment of [URL="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/662 ... 0Ebers.pdf"][U]MS Clinical Drug Trials[/U][/URL]

[QUOTE]Professor George Ebers comments make it clear that people with MS are being manipulated by an MS drugs market presently running in excess of $15billion a year. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][B]In summary[/B]:

- the Sylvia Lawry centre in Munich has evaluated outcome measures used in MS trials

- using natural history studies of 1000 patients over 30 years who did not take MS drugs

- relapses are unrelated to long term disability outcomes

- assessing drugs efficacy by number of relapses is an unvalidated measure

- no study should be published with relapses as an outcome

- studies should not be conducted with relapses as a primary outcome in view of risks to patients

- it is unethical to do so

- the International Federation of MS Societies withdrew funding from the Sylvia Lawry centre when these results were presented

- in almost all drug trials investigators do not have access to raw data as held by Sylvia Lawry

- pharmaco-economics data from Scharr leading to the UK risk-sharing scheme had shown the outcomes were flimsy at best

- Sylvia Lawry analyses also showed disability definitions used in MS drug trials are unvalidated

- pharmaceutical companies choose to use unvalidated outcome measures because they know they can beat them

- Pharmaceutical industry funded reviewers of The Lancet refused to publish papers referring to unvalidated outcome measures

- but The Lancet will publish drug studies using unvalidated outcome measures

Professor Ebers concludes:
I think the lesson from CCSVI which cannot be ignored is that the price of losing confidence in the medical system can be great and damaging on both sides of this debate. Physicians who are mystified by all this should keep this obvious conclusion in mind.[/QUOTE]
Marsei

Verhoogde kans op kanker bij Azathioprine, Cyclophosphamide en Mitoxantrone

Bericht door Marsei »

Verhoogde kans op kanker bij Azathioprine, Cyclophosphamide en Mitoxantrone

Association between multiple sclerosis, [URL="https://bmcneurol.biomedcentral.com/art ... 017-0932-0"][U]cancer risk[/U][/URL], and immunosuppressant treatment: a cohort study
[QUOTE]
[B]Abstract[/B]

[B]Background[/B]
The association between multiple sclerosis (MS) and cancer has long been investigated with conflicting results. Several reports suggest an increased cancer risk among MS patients treated with immunosuppressant (IS) drugs.

[B]Methods[/B]
We performed a cohort study including MS patients recruited at the Neurological Department of the University of Palermo. Mean follow-up period was ten years for the whole cohort. We calculated cancer incidence among patients treated with IS. Incidence rates were compared in the cohort by calculating the relative risk according to length and dose of exposure to IS. Cancer incidence among MS patients was compared to cancer incidence in the general population of Sicily in similar age groups.

[B]Results[/B]
On an overall cohort of 531 MS patients (346 women and 185 men) exposed to IS, we estimated a crude incidence rate for cancer of 2.26% (2.02% in women, 2.7% in men). Cancer risk was higher compared to rates observed among an equal number of patients not exposed to IS, and to the risk in the general population in Sicily at similar age groups (adjusted HR: 11.05; CI 1.67–73.3; p = 0.013).

[B]Conclusion[/B]
The present study showed a higher cancer risk in MS patients associated only to previous IS exposure. Studies on long-term outcomes are essential to evaluate the possibility that treatment options that need to be considered for a long time-period may modify risk for life threatening diseases.[/QUOTE]
Marsei

Video: CRITICAL REVIEW OF MS DRUGS BY GEORGE EBERS (2013)

Bericht door Marsei »

Video: CRITICAL REVIEW OF MS DRUGS BY GEORGE EBERS (2013)

Van FB: CRITICAL REVIEW OF MS DRUGS BY GEORGE EBERS

[QUOTE]George Ebers is perhaps the #1 MS researcher in the world and is a professor at Oxford in England. Notably he is also one of the few MS researchers who is not compromised by major financial ties to the MS drug companies. He recently expressed his well supported views on, why the clinical trials of the MS drugs are basically worthless, in an abstract for his presentation at Neurology conference in Barcelona.

He writes "Clinical trials of multiple sclerosis have been uniform in utilising invalidated outcome measures. This has occurred to a degree to which it is difficult to find parallels in medicine in general. We have recently evaluated the outcomes which have been used for evaluating past trials leading to drug approval and current trials. It is not a pretty sight.

It is quite clear from natural history studies that relapses have very little if anything to do with long term outcome. Similarly, MRI measures have been thoroughly evaluated within large datasets and found to be similarly non-predictive for meaningful outcomes. The measures of disability used in trials certainly don’t measure unremitting disability as investigators and their industry supporters have claimed.

The widespread embracing of dubious and poorly validated outcomes by some MS investigators, often in contexts where there are egregious conflicts of interest, threaten academic credibility not to mention long term professional autonomy.".[/QUOTE]

[URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqY-_K1fYJY"][U]Video[/U][/URL]
Köln1985

Bericht door Köln1985 »

2013....
Inmiddels is het 2017 en is er totaal niets veranderd. Geen long term followups van de medicatie laat staan dat ze van de lijst worden afgegooid.
Marsei

Medicatie niet effectief voor de gemiddelde MS patient boven de 53

Bericht door Marsei »

Medicatie niet effectief voor de gemiddelde MS patient boven de 53

DISEASE-MODIFYING DRUGS ARE [URL="https://overcomingms.org/disease-modify ... -findings/"][U]NOT EFFECTIVE[/U][/URL] FOR THE AVERAGE PERSON WITH MS AGED 53 OR MORE: MAJOR STUDY FINDINGS

Overcoming Multiple Sclerosis:
[QUOTE]They did a meta-analysis of clinical trials that assessed how effective particular DMDs were, involving in total over 28,000 people with MS. Meta-analysis is a technique where researchers pool the results of all relevant, well-conducted studies, and it provides much greater statistical strength to reach conclusions about efficacy.

They found that the usual MS drugs were less and less effective the older the average person with MS in the clinical trials was, to the point where, at age 53, they stopped being effective at all!

They also showed that the newer generation, more potent MS drugs were more effective than that standard first generation drugs like Copaxone and interferons only for people with MS who were under 40 years old.

These surprising results give serious pause for thought. The researchers themselves say: “…in view of this meta-analysis, it should serve as a reminder that aggressive immunomodulatory DMTs may be harmful in older MS patients…”. By this they meant that not only were older people likely to experience side effects without the prospect of any benefit, but that aggressive MS drugs might also hinder the usual repair processes after nervous system damage.

While the researchers were quick to point out that these conclusions apply to the “average patient”, and that some may still get some benefit after the age of 53, older people newly diagnosed with MS would be well advised to discuss the pros and cons of starting a DMD with their doctor in significant detail. Likewise, those people on a DMD who are passing this age should consider a similar conversation with their doctor. [/QUOTE]
[URL="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10 ... 00577/full"][U]
Het onderzoek[/U][/URL]: Meta-analysis of the Age-Dependent Efficacy of Multiple Sclerosis Treatments

[QUOTE][B]Objective[/B]: To perform a meta-analysis of randomized, blinded, multiple sclerosis (MS) clinical trials, to test the hypothesis that efficacy of immunomodulatory disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) on MS disability progression is strongly dependent on age.

[B]Methods[/B]: We performed a literature search with pre-defined criteria and extracted relevant features from 38 clinical trials that assessed efficacy of DMTs on disability progression. We fit a linear regression, weighted for trial sample size, and duration, to examine the hypothesis that age has a defining effect on the therapeutic efficacy of immunomodulatory DMTs.

[B]Results[/B]: More than 28,000 MS subjects participating in trials of 13 categories of immunomodulatory drugs are included in the meta-analysis. The efficacy of immunomodulatory DMTs on MS disability strongly decreased with advancing age (R2 = 0.6757, p = 6.39e−09). Inclusion of baseline EDSS did not significantly improve the model. The regression predicts zero efficacy beyond approximately age 53 years. The comparative efficacy rank derived from the regression residuals differentiates high- and low-efficacy drugs. High-efficacy drugs outperform low-efficacy drugs in inhibiting MS disability only for patients younger than 40.5 years.

[B]Conclusion[/B]: The meta-analysis supports the notion that progressive MS is simply a later stage of the MS disease process and that age is an essential modifier of a drug efficacy. Higher efficacy treatments exert their benefit over lower efficacy treatments only during early stages of MS, and, after age 53, the model suggests that there is no predicted benefit to receiving immunomodulatory DMTs for the average MS patient.[/QUOTE]
Marsei

BartsMS blog

Bericht door Marsei »

BartsMS blog

[URL="http://multiple-sclerosis-research.blog ... -nice.html"][U]BartsMS blog[/U][/URL]: NICE and not so nice

[QUOTE]On the 20th December 2017, NICE published an appraisal document on the use 1st line DMTs (disease-modifying treatments), specifically the interferon's and glatiramer acetate (see below for the full report).

The summary points are:

- Extavia (IFNB 1b) is recommended as a treatment for people with relapsing remitting MS or secondary progressive MS with continued relapses.

- Copaxone, Avonex (IFNB 1a), Betaferon (IFNB 1b), Plegridy (pegylated IFNB 1b) and Rebif (IFNB 1a) are not recommended.
Anyone already taking one of these drugs will not be affected by this guidance and can continue without change until they and their neurologist consider it appropriate to stop.

- This consultation only applies to those resident in the UK (excluding Scotland).[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Make no mistake, this consultation is all about money.[/QUOTE]
Plaats reactie Vorig onderwerpVolgend onderwerp