Posted by gary g (208.133.217.39) on October 07, 1999 at 13:06:24:
In Reply to: Hmmmm.... posted by Dave W on October 07, 1999 at 11:25:23:
good thoughts & exchange, guys
what we need more of
one problem with cutting diagnostic prescription too finely,
is that many meds work in a combination of ways, OR work differently on different symptoms, even have different effects in different people
eg; I use a LOT of benadryl to suppress cluster cycle manifestation, with some varying degree of success
BUT this doesn't mean CH is an allergy, at least not in the classic common notion, relating to a foreign substance to which the body has a reaction (which is the first thing most folks think of in connection with benadryl)- BUT if you enlarge the concept of allergy to include response to ANY external stimulus (light, heat, motion) then maybe it comes back into play
benadryl is ALSO very effective for some people as a sleep aid and a motion sickness preventative,
check the label on those "nighttime" OTC pain pills - usually some diphenhydramine tossed in to provide the sleep aid
sometimes it's used in connection with surgery :I think it's to augment the effect of anesthisia in certain cases where other drugs might be hazardous, not sure - they've used it with a couple friends of mine connected with heart surgery
oxygen is the same way -
it drives blood vessel constriction, which may be all, or may be part, of its effectiveness in CH - it ALSO triggers differential releases of seratonin which may be linked to mechanisms other than smooth tissue vascular regulation - so it isn't a valid claim (as I have read in posts gone by) that use of o2 proves anything about the specific origin of the attacks
now, all of a sudden we're apparently learning that the way to go with imitrex is less, not more-
compared to its usage in migraine therapy;
here IS a good place to investigate another disease - because little is known about the hows & whys of imitrex success with CH. BUT there must be a lot more lit on its pharmacology in migraine - if we picked thru that, and then laid it beside whatever we DO know about CH,(NOT laying it on top, as if it were the same, an important distinction)there may be info that INFERS what might be a place to dig deeper into CH causal mechanisms -
nothing in that is intended as an "answer" of any kind - just an example of a suggested plan of inquiry that isn't running willy-nilly hoping to find a needle in a haystack by accident - an approach by which I think we could all benefit
I think the way to go is to pursue each of these ideas as far as possible, then back up & try another - gradually, a pattern SHOULD emerge
in which commonalities and exclusions become more obvious