New Consensus Treatment Document

Use this section to discuss your experiences with prescription drugs, iron injections, and other medical interventions that involve the introduction of a drug or medicine into the body. Discuss side effects, successes, failures, published research, information about drug trials, and information about new medications being developed.

Important: Posts and information in this section are based on personal experiences and recommendations; they should not be considered a substitute for the advice of a healthcare provider.
Post Reply
Rustsmith
Moderator
Posts: 5085
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 9:31 pm
Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado

New Consensus Treatment Document

Post by Rustsmith »

During the RLS Patient Symposium yesterday, a comment was made that the experts have come up with a revision to the consensus document for treating RLS. It isn't available yet, but will be published soon on the Mayo Clinic site. They didn't say much about the changes other than that they left the recommended ferritin level at 100. Apparently this was highly contentious with some members (Earley) wanting to increase it to 150 and others were steadfast that it should remain at 100, so it remains there.
Steve

Augmentation Evaluation http://bb.rls.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=9005

Opinions presented by Discussion Board Moderators are personal in nature and do not, in any way, represent the opinion of the RLS Foundation, and are not medical advice.

stjohnh
Posts: 1153
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 3:13 pm
Location: Palo Alto, California

Re: New Consensus Treatment Document

Post by stjohnh »

Changing to ferritin of 150 would make LOTS more patients eligible. We REALLY need better tests of our body's iron status. A brain iron test would be wonderful. There are way too many problems other than excessive iron that cause the ferritin to increase.
Blessings,
Holland

Rustsmith
Moderator
Posts: 5085
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 9:31 pm
Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado

Re: New Consensus Treatment Document

Post by Rustsmith »

I keep waiting for Hopkins to publish some sort of procedure about how they use ultrasound to measure brain iron. My guess is that like their procedure for using an MRI, it is research grade equipment. But that sort of equipment has to be available in a number of teaching hospitals around the country.
Steve

Augmentation Evaluation http://bb.rls.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=9005

Opinions presented by Discussion Board Moderators are personal in nature and do not, in any way, represent the opinion of the RLS Foundation, and are not medical advice.

Stainless
Posts: 172
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 9:30 pm

Re: New Consensus Treatment Document

Post by Stainless »

I never hear why hematologist are so leery of more iron. My MD says it is organ failure related but no details.

Rustsmith
Moderator
Posts: 5085
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 9:31 pm
Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado

Re: New Consensus Treatment Document

Post by Rustsmith »

The issue with the hematologists is one of insufficient knowledge about RLS. They are used to treating patients who are anemic and we do not fit into that category and are therefore outside of their comfort range. This also means that they are not used to working with the forms of IV iron that have shown the greatest benefit for RLS. During the patient seminar last Saturday, Dr Earley explained that the preferred forms of IV iron for RLS are the ones that have a long half life. He said that the short half life forms tend to get gobbled up to form red blood cells and that this iron will eventually become ferritin, but that it takes about 120 days. More of the longer half life forms tend to end up as ferritin, so it tends to end up in the brain more quickly (even though it still takes a few weeks).

As your doctor mentioned, they also have a fear of causing organ damage by raising ferritin levels too high and thereby creating a condition similar to hemachromatosis. Some of them are also concerned about the potential for allergic reactions since they don't have experience with the longer half life forms of iron used for treating RLS.

But fortunately, that is starting to change. One of the leading hematologists has bought into treating RLS and is now a very vocal spokesman for us. But, as we know with neurologists, educating the rank and file physicians within a specialty can take years, even when there are consensus documents in the literature.
Steve

Augmentation Evaluation http://bb.rls.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=9005

Opinions presented by Discussion Board Moderators are personal in nature and do not, in any way, represent the opinion of the RLS Foundation, and are not medical advice.

Oozz
Posts: 123
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:09 pm

Re: New Consensus Treatment Document

Post by Oozz »

If I recall the conversation correctly, there were a number of optimistic remarks regarding IV iron. Dr. Earley indicated that he’s a short way away from giving infusions at ferritin of 200 as long as TIBC is below 45%. Another doctor indicated they are comfortable going even higher than that. It seemed like there was quite wide agreement from everyone’s experience that the risk of hemochromatosis is lowZ

Rustsmith
Moderator
Posts: 5085
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 9:31 pm
Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado

Re: New Consensus Treatment Document

Post by Rustsmith »

It is currently possible to conduct a genetic test for hemachromatosis (my doctor had me do one since my ferritin was over 400 for several years). So I would think that that old excuse should be going away.

But there was also a rather pointed and cryptic remark targeted at one of the doctors (I don't remember which) that indicated that he was the holdout that would not budge from 100. Before I retired, I chaired a committee that owned a consensus document in my technical specialty. In that role, you very quickly learn that in order to get a consensus, you have to accept things that the majority does not like, but has to be included to satisfy what can be a very vocal minority. I had to include something in "my" document that I knew was obviously incorrect, but had to be done in order to silence a very vocal critic. I then revised the document 2 yrs later and removed the part that was offensive to most of us because the critic had moved on to another position.
Steve

Augmentation Evaluation http://bb.rls.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=9005

Opinions presented by Discussion Board Moderators are personal in nature and do not, in any way, represent the opinion of the RLS Foundation, and are not medical advice.

Post Reply