Posted , 10 users are following.
As I understand, the body normally produces approximately the equivalent of 7 mg of prednisone daily. Also, taking prednisone suppresses the body's production where the adrenals quit producing any. If someone is taking around 7 mg of prednisone shouldn't there be relatively few side effects since it is really just the same as what a healthy person would have circulating in their systems?
0 likes, 29 replies
We want the community to be a useful resource for our users but it is important to remember that the community are not moderated or reviewed by doctors and so you should not rely on opinions or advice given by other users in respect of any healthcare matters. Always speak to your doctor before acting and in cases of emergency seek appropriate medical assistance immediately. Use of the community is subject to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy and steps will be taken to remove posts identified as being in breach of those terms.
EileenH gilman
Posted
Depends on the person - and most of the side effects will be left over from higher doses when you get down there. Actually, I have had few side effects even with 15mg with the current form of steroid I'm on - none I can see/measure at least.
It is claimed that even low doses (3mg or so) can lead to loss of bone density - how they can be so sure is beyond me. Fewer than half of patients on longterm pred develop reduced bone density. Many people develop reduced bone density anyway - if you didn't check pre-pred you have no control for that person.
But yes - theoretically there shouldn't be much in the way of side effects from very low doses.
Anhaga EileenH
Posted
I just wrote a very long reply to Sheilamac which has been sent for moderation.
But I did read one of those research articles, or perhaps it was a summary, which described prednisone still having an effect on the osteoblasts at the 2.5 level, and in that article stating that they did not know if these effects continued at lower doses as they didn't research lower.
Sheilamac_Fife Anhaga
Posted
EileenH Anhaga
Posted
I've read about it too - doesn't alter the fact I'm less than convinced about the claims.
Anhaga EileenH
Posted
In a couple of months I may have a better idea about what prednisone does to bones. On the other hand it appears that sarcoid granulomas can contribute to high vitamin D, bone thinning and low iron, all of which I have, so maybe not. And in reference to your comment about my naivete re research, that may be so, but I prefer to think of it as sheer speculation. The obvious often escapes us humans. Things are easy once we know....
The research may not be easy, but once discovered the solution may be simple. Like washing hands, sneezing into the crook of one's elbow, drinking citrus juices....
EileenH Anhaga
Posted
Don't misunderstand me - I'm pointing out that medical research is difficult and expensive and cannot be done on the basis of pure speculation even if that does provide some of the ideas that eventually form research projects. You seemed to be suggesting it is simple to do.
And you are right, I don't think you will be able to say what pred does to bones - there are far too many pre-existing things clouding the issue. That's why most medical research is so difficult.You will have an anecdotal view - not a founded research one.
Anhaga EileenH
Posted
Yes, we need the brilliant scientist who sees through the clutter, says, you know why women are dying in childbirth - doctors need to wash their hands, or the reason all those people are dying in that district is because there's disease in the water, or look at that strange mold, why have the other organisms died, and so on.... Someday someone will look at these diseases, or some subset of them, and say, let's try this, and that will be the answer. I agree that for almost all of us there are so many other things clouding the water that to do standard studies to find the cause would be impossible. We need a flash of inspiration from someone whose subconscious mind, perhaps, has chiselled away at the problem for years.
Ardern gilman
Posted
Hi I was a 7 in june I thought the same as you. I have been able to get down to 3.5 for the past 4 weeks I still get most the same side effects when I was a 15 or so. The side effects don't seem to last as long and are not as intense but they are still there maybe after we are off the stuff for a couple weeks maybe they might vanish complete, and to add to Eileen comment about adrenal insufficiency. I had to see a Endocrinologist yesterday about a thyiord lump and she does not under stand why people who take prednisone for a long period of time think they have adernal insufficiency. Maybe it time to find different Endocrinologist !!
EileenH Ardern
Posted
How strange - it's in all the literature and it was an endocrinologist who expressed the opinion to one of the charity elders (I use that term in the nicest possible way) it should be considered in every patient who has been on pred for years once they were down to 5mg or so, particularly if they were experiencing increasing fatigue. There are one or two we know of on the forums.
Doing the synacthen test is just a way of knowing a patient is at less risk of an adrenal crisis as they continue reducing - proactive medical care I'd call it.