Hospital stays vs. steroids--equal in effectiveness

kareng7 · Post by **kareng7** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:19 pm

Got to talking with my neuro at yesterday's appointment about how I'm sure there's a correlation between stress and MS exacerbations, and she agreed. Then she told me something very interesting.

She said, in the 1970s, when docs were just at the beginning of studying steroid use and other means to alleviate MS exacerbations, they compared two things: a dose of steroids at home vs. hospitalization, which meant the patient was admitted into a caring, low-stress facility and kept there for a few days. The result? Equal.

So, why do we get steroids at home or in an outpatient facility so often now? Because it's cheaper to pump those chemicals into us than put us in the hospital.

Sounds like stress relief is of utmost importance to me.

mrhodes40 · Post by **mrhodes40** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 11:06 am

thatis interesting . It occurs to me though that it is known that MS is not truly helped by steroids done in the pulse form. All it does is clear up the immediate symptoms but 6 months later the treated and untreated person has the same disability. That being true, you wonder if this research was tallied right away or if it was long term. If both got the same immediate symptom relief that is really interesting, if it was that they both were the same at 6 months then seemingly it means that both are equally ineffective essentially. I wish I could see it...
marie

kareng7 · Post by **kareng7** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 1:55 pm

mrhodes40 wrote:If both got the same immediate symptom relief that is really interesting, if it was that they both were the same at 6 months then seemingly it means that both are equally ineffective essentially. I wish I could see it...marie

In my best interpretation of what we discussed, I believe she was referring to immediate relief of symptoms, not long-term results. Meaning, exacerbations lessened in the short-term, not long-term results. I'll ask her next time I see her and report back.