OK, so I’m going to have a bit of a rant (warning!)
For the last month, I have have been experiencing issues with both arms (stinging sensation/numbness/dragging/weakness). I was getting over a chest infection that required 2 weeks of antibiotics, and it was suggested to me that this infection had caused this flare up.
Things got so bad this week I contacted my MS team again, and yesterday I went to the MS relapse clinic. After seeing a very nice registrar and much discussion, plus discovering my right arm has a definite weakness in comparison to the last time it was recorded, it was decided…no, no relapse, maybe a pseudo-relapse, maybe a flare-up as I’d had an infection.
I’ve had MS now for over 20 years. I’ve taken multiple DMTs (currently on Kesimpta). I realise that the only way to perhaps definitively tell if I have new activity is to have an MRI “in the moment”. But what irks me, as a long timer, is the reluctance to to even countenance the idea that you might be having a relapse. I know I’m on a very effective DMT, and it’s not like I want to have new activity, but I sometimes feel that the definition of “relapse” needs to redefined.
Is this reluctance down to not wanting to upset the patient? Or if it is a relapse, this might mean switching DMTs because it might indicate the one you are on isn’t working well enough? I don’t want the NHS to be put under more strain by having needless MRIs, but I do wonder if neurologists’ language doesn’t match up with the definitions we might see on this website, for instance. I’ve experiences this for years, this general reluctance to say “it’s a relapse” when the definition of a relapse that we all know has been met. Do things need to change? Do health professionals need to change their criteria, or do we need to think of relapses differently?
Anyway, rant over. Whether it’s a relapse or not, my arms are still not right, there’s not a great deal I can do about that.