ActiveMSers Forums  

Go Back   ActiveMSers Forums > ActiveMSers.org Forums > General

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-04-2018, 03:16 PM
Lmh Lmh is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 48
Unhappy Age and DMTís

Have any of you read simialar articles ? Itís making my next DMT selection a bit conflicting. The whole risks versus benefit issue, and now throw age in the equation.

http://www.msbrainhealth.org/treatme...-linked-to-age
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-04-2018, 04:15 PM
Fit Paul Fit Paul is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 129
Default

That leaves exercise, diet, rest and a positive outlook.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-05-2018, 04:48 PM
AMFADVENTURES AMFADVENTURES is online now
MS Yoda
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Colorado
Posts: 880
Default

Lmh, first off, I didn't see anywhere in the study where they accounted for increasing disability due strictly to ageing and it seems to be a huge stretch to blame all of the increase of disability on efficacy of the DMT alone. Secondly, if you look at the actual study, they admit to having made an awful lot of assumptions many of which could be questioned. Thirdly, the linear regression model they use does not seem to fit their data very well. And fourthly, to say that "on average DMT's cease to be effective beyond the age of 53 years" is a grossly misleading generalization.

The efficacy of a given DMT may well vary with age however, the effectiveness of certain drugs still stands out on the scattergram. Ocrelizumab, Rituximab, Siponimab, and Glatiramer Acetate are all above the mean linear regression line at advancing age.

Bottom line, I wouldn't give up based on this particular study.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-08-2018, 07:26 PM
Suebee Suebee is offline
MS Gladiator
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 411
Default

I 100% agree with Larry. I couldn't follow all the math but the description of the assumptions seemed just like an attempt to quantify, but not really solid numbers....

I also note that the main designer of the study and writer for the paper discloses she owns part of the patent to daclizumab. Per the pretty chart, it looks to me like daclizumab is most effective in early 30s rather than mid 50s like copaxone. Makes me wonder maybe that she wanted to show a study that spins a drug's effectiveness in the young to be a positive rather than a negative? I.D.K.
I wonder how much funding money it took to do this meta analysis? Would it be better to put money into meta analysis of PT outcomes? How about meta analysis of MSers who are denied disability? Or meta analysis of costs of living with MS or effect on income? These seem to be the types of studies that could be used to make the quality of life of MSers better. Just sayin'...
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
ActiveMSers