Relapse to remission without treatment??

[Edge Of Ruin]

I have RRMS. The relapse is handled with steroids but it's not good to take steroids very often because they have their own health hazards. I've never taken "CRAB's". I was wondering if if your body after going into relapse can go into remission on it's own. I especially ask this because that seems to what happened to me before I was even diagnosed. It seems my onset of MS was 1998 with many
symptoms of MS and many a day I spent all day in bed. Then in 2000 I got better and felt fairly healthy until 2006
when it seemed I was blasted with the onset of MS but the MRI imagery showed some dark lesions which I was told meant "Old lesions". That would fit the timeframe yet I'd never had any treatment for MS. Mystery.

[Thinkimjob]

No but yes but no is the short answer. The 'roids improve the symptoms and might shorten the length of a flare, but they don't put you into remission.
The CRABs (doesn't that sound lovely) drugs don't put you into remission either - they just reduce the number of relapses by about 30%.
So every time a flare ends, that's really down to your own body.
The trouble is remission is not really remission. There's all sorts of stuff going on under the surface, even when you're not having a relapse.
MS, the gift that gives on giving!

[Redwings]

I was wondering if your body after going into relapse can go into remission on it's own.

Yes. Not only [I]can[/I] it, it [I]does[/I]. That's the very definition of relapsing-remitting MS and how it got its name. In RRMS, relapses go into remission [I]on their own[/I] and steroids aren't necessary. Otherwise, no relapse would ever end without steroids, and we know that that isn't true.

Steroids are used to try to shorten the duration of a relapse. But if steroids aren't used, remission occurs anyway, perhaps just not as quickly. If there is no remission, then by definition, it isn't relapsing-remitting MS.

Being in remission -- the state of not being in relapse -- and staying that way has nothing to do with steroids. Shortening the duration of a relapse with steroids should not be confused to mean that "steroids put MS into remission." Shortening the duration of a relapse with steroids and the body not being in the state of an inflammatory attack are technically different phenomena. Relapses have been going into remission since long before steroids were ever used.

Remission doesn't necessarily mean lack of symptoms or return to pre-relapse baseline. Remission means that the inflammatory attack has resolved. And again, by definition, the relapse remits/resolves or it isn't relapsing-remitting MS.

[Sequoia]

I've had MS for going on 35 years, RR for the first 25+ years, then SP with relapses, now full-blown SP. I've [U]never[/U] had steroids, and I remitted just fine after each relapse.

If I had it all to do over again, I still wouldn't consider using steroids. The side effects, both short term and long term, are not acceptable...not to me, anyway.

[Edge Of Ruin]

I'm still learning about MS and what was posted was what I wanted to hear. I don't want to mess with Steroids and I don't want to get started on "Crab's". [That always makes me LOL.] Also, the long periods of time involved makes me more relieved. I don't know what I've got right now but after being declared in remission in early 2008 I have been
steadily going down hill since May 2009 without the major symptoms I had in 2006 such as body numbness and deafness in one ear. I have the symptoms I keep living with. We all get spasticity, or a pin prick that makes our leg jump, vertigo, falls are common. There are so many of those standard symptoms especially chronic exhaustion.
I'm worse now than I was in 2009 or 2010 but I can't exactly say I am in relapse, can I?

[MaxGrey]

I'm still learning a lot too and you ask good questions.
I'm still confused about a lot too.

I've read that even if you have RRMS and you are not having an inflammatory attack you can have new lesions and disease progression but i thought that only SPMS had that absent of a flare?

Also about remission and CRABS etc. I saw this study:

http://www.overcomingmultiplescleros...rolled+trials/

which basically says they did a 10 year study on CRABS and that placebo was just as effective. So if your not looking to start taking them you may be able to find some solace there.

Also I'm a bit confused about the effect of the DMDs we have. I read somewhere that they only reduce the amount of inflammatory attacks but not necessarily disease progression outside of that. Coupled with my other question and the study, how much good are DMDs doing?

[ClearBlueSky]

I have doubts about CRABs as well.
I've been using copaxone for 2 years and I'm definitely worse than I was a year ago.

At this time last year, I was working, though my walking was a little off, as well as my balance, I felt I had at least another 5 years.

Now, my balance is bad, walking is worse, etc. I stopped working because I could not do it any more. It all happened pretty fast.

I really don't know. It's so confusing.
I really don't think I relaspe-remit anymore.
Like I said, I don't get it.

[Lendi]

there's still so much to learn about this crazy disease, isn't there? It confuses me how there can be lesions in locations that don't coorelate with disability and disability where there are no lesions.

Whether or not one medication is better or none at all. I don't "feel" better being on meds but I do feel a bit better mentally knowing that I'm doing all that I can. Placebo, maybe but if it works it works.

Now, have the neuro try to put me back on injections and I just don't know. They made me soooo miserable as though my life revolved around MS rather MS being part of my life.

I get confused with the different types of MS as well. And, I've looked them up but to be honest I don't seem to fit as I can't really tell you exactly when I had a relapse and not. Ever, not for sure anyway. It's just been a slow downhill slide. Yet, I'm still considered RRMS.