Question for Me --RA Sufferers (meds)

[Rhapsody]

My rheumy doctor and I are trying out new medicine to get my RA under control..... I have a choice between Methotrexate and Azulfadine --therefore, I was wondering if any one had any exp with either of these two medicine to which they could give an honest opinion on? Thank you.

[island rehabber]

I do not have RA but two very close friends do. Both of them had many issues with methotrexate a few years back and did not find much relief while taking it. I know both of them stopped; not sure what they are taking now, whether it is the Azulfadine or not.

[Rhapsody]

Thanks for the reply IR --I was thinking about taking Azulfadine over the Methotrexate, because you have to come in every 6 weeks to have fasting blood work done if you are on Methotrexate due to possible liver failure while on this medicine and that is one more frustration I just dont need in my life.

[Uno's Mom]

I do not have RA, but work in a hospital.
Methotrexate is originally an anti-cancer chemotherapy drug and is available for infusion as well as pill form. It is also now used for RA.
Chemotherapy drugs are very hard on the body.. The periodic blood work is required to make sure the drug is not causing liver or kidney damage.

[anniedancer]

I don't have RA but my mother sure did, and as an RN Ive worked with many patients who have it. If I had to make this choice, I would go with Azulfidine. Why? Because it has a lower incidence of negative reactions. It shouldn't be taken if you have allergies to any sulfa med, and that is a long list. Some surprising drugs are sulfa-based. We used to give this drug a lot to people with Crohns Disease. It was generally tolerated pretty well.
But of course, it stinks that you have to take ANYthing for this problem. RA is such an awful thing to have. I watched my mother suffer with it her entire adult life. She lived to be 92, however. I am so lucky I don't have it. I have osteoarthritis badly, and that sure hurts, but nowhere as bad as RA does.
Annie

[amandaleet1972]

Those are both older meds.. now the 'thing' are biologics.. Like Embrel, Humira, Remicaid, and and many others. You should probably be seeing them on TV all the time.. They work with your immune system and RA is an immune system issue, not plain old "sports injury arthritis"

They are pretty hardcore, and work by suppressing your immune system which puts you at other risks. I am not sure on my opinion of them yet. They work in a different way than the old methods and for a variety of issues, like psoriasis even, but I have seen good results. There are also some pretty intense side effects, and they are EXPENSIVE.. You should Google RA and biologics. RA is 100% different from plain old arthritis and there are a lot of things to factor in..

Sorry to chime in, but it's my field.. Best of luck to you.

[Rhapsody]

I don't have RA but my mother sure did, and as an RN Ive worked with many patients who have it. If I had to make this choice, I would go with Azulfidine. Why? Because it has a lower incidence of negative reactions. It shouldn't be taken if you have allergies to any sulfa med, and that is a long list. Some surprising drugs are sulfa-based. We used to give this drug a lot to people with Crohns Disease. It was generally tolerated pretty well.
But of course, it stinks that you have to take ANYthing for this problem. RA is such an awful thing to have. I watched my mother suffer with it her entire adult life. She lived to be 92, however. I am so lucky I don't have it. I have osteoarthritis badly, and that sure hurts, but nowhere as bad as RA does.
Annie
I have RA, Bursitis, Osteoarthritis (of the spine) and a touch of Fibro --so when I say I know what PAIN is, I am not lying.
I am leaning toward taking the Azulfadine and if it helps with Crohns Disease then maybe I will get relief for my IBS too.

Thanks for the feedback.