Saturday, 20 October 2012

Update 18 - Survey Results Part 5

This is a very long posting, but hopefully the information on the comparison between GBS and CIDP for each treatment is worth it. The first two graphs are on the effect of treatments:

It is clear that IVIG is by far the most recommended treatment for either condition (118 for GBS & 143 for CIDP).  Yet Steroids are recommended much more for CIDP & Plasma for GBS.  The percent details for each are shown below:

The above do show the difference in the treatments more clearly than the first graphs.

Below are graphs for the effectiveness of each treatment:

These again show the definite leaning towards IVIG as the recommended treatment and how much more steroids are used for CIDP.  The point of showing the information is this way is that the actual numbers for certain treatments (e.g. GBS & Steroids - 20 & Immuno-suppressants - 10) is very low so the following pie charts may be skewed and not properly representative:

This chart shows that IVIG clearly has a significant benefit to the majority of people with GBS.  So it is not surprising that this is the most recommended treatment too.

Steroids do have some benefit, but the ration of major to none is very similar and the sample size is small, so can be affected by a few results.

Plasma has a slightly better success rate than IVIG, but I understand it is more expensive and difficult to administer (please note as I never had or was offered this treatment I do not know, so apologies if I have got this wrong).  It is clear that this is a good treatment against GBS.

Immuno-Suppressants have some effect, but as the sample size is small, this really has been impacted by one or two results.

Now we move onto the same chats for CIDP:

Again IVIG has a significant effect on CIDP as with GBS, with almost exactly the same percentage scores (spooky!).  This is proof why it is the most recommended and used treatment.

Steroids have a pretty good effect on CIDP, much better than for GBS, but there are still a significant number of people it has no effect on.

Plasma is much less effective against CIDP than GBS, but it obviously still works for a fair number of people (18 out of 33, just over half).

Immuno-suppressants again have much less effect against CIDP than GBS. though the number it is proscribed for are much higher for CIDP (47) against GBS (10)?

Obviously before deciding on a treatment other factors have to be taken into consideration e.g. potential side effects, ease of administering or availability of the treatments, other health issues..... Which I have not explored and these may have a significant bearing on the results/recommendations above.

From the above data it is easy to see patterns.  What I wonder about is why certain treatments do not work for some patients?  I guess we will never know..... or not from me!  More in a couple of weeks.

No comments:

Post a Comment