I read this on the Arthritis Today page on facebook. Interesting information about how Humira continues to regulate the immune system with good results, even after stopping it.
http://www.arthritistoday.org/news/stopping-adalimumab-for-rheumatoid-arthritis-333.php
The most important lesson of the study though stated is not emphasized. These results only came when EARLY and AGGRESIVE therapy was initiated.
One would think instead of finding reasons NOT to start Anti-tnf therapy Insurance companies and governmental regulators wanting to save money would DEMAND a 6 - 12 mos course of biologics followed by a med holiday. Bur once again they are a part of the destruction of the world economy by concentrating on short term cashflow/profits rather than stability and long term strength.
This was of interest to me, since I recently stopped Humira due to a very brief response ( of about 6 weeks ) followed by a huge decline from which I have thankfully recovered.
I have been off of humia for about three weeks and the WEIRD part is, I feel better than I have in about 2 years. I got a steroid shot in my wonky knee and I have been able to cut my pred back to 2.5 mg. That is monumental !
I think I was very late getting into treatment and getting my first biologic. This whole thing is the most confusing, maddening thing from start to finish. I never know what to expect, but I am going to keep on trucking.
I don't know if I will do another biologic, as my options seem to be waning.
Studies are not in themselves conclusive, of course (I don’t need to tell Lamb that, LOL) but evidence seems to be mounting that early and aggressive treatment has enoromous benefits. Why, oh why, then, do some rheumatologists do everything possible to avoid prescribing them?
I can completely understand why someone with only a couple of joints involved would be treated with NSADs and/or a conventional DMARD. That makes perfect economic and practical sense. But for someone with a constellation of joint involvement and other symptoms (of which there are so many), it just makes more sense to me that early treatment with a biologic would be the way to go. And this study just reinforces that opinion. But what do I know? I’m not a rheumatologist … nor am I a drug company rep.
MOD NOTE: I am moving this thread to News and Research.
I am fairly new to this group, having been diagnosed with the disease last October. But in my case it is very aggresive in my fingers, wrists and feet. There are days when I can hardly walk. I am allergic to anti-inflammatory meds. I would like to try a Biologic, but my Dr is sending me to a neurologist to check for nerve damage. Is this a normal step? I was first on Arava for 8 weeks, but I developed severe burning in my feet, and had to stop taking it. I am now on Methotrexate. Do Biologics have the same side effects? Is my doctor aggresive enough?
Hi Cooker !
My sympathies ! I will defer to the moderators regarding your questions. I hope you find a treatment plan that helps you !
My sympathies too, Cooker! We have some Newbie information sections coming soon, on the DMARDs and the Biologics. Can’t comment on your doc’s decision to send you to a neurologist, but I can tell you that mine sent me to one as well to check for nerve damage in my feet. (There wasn’t, all the funny stuff happening was because of deep swelling)
In general, Biologics, because they are very targetted, don’t have nearly the nasty side effects that the other drug do. But because they are relatively new, we don’t know about their long-term performance.
Did you get the book that I recommend in BOOK REVIEWS? The authors, PsA specialists, believe that early and aggressive treatment gives the best outcome, and that the biologics have the best track record of preventing joint damage. The book really is worth reading.