 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Sinusitis / July 2006Allergy shots: taking an antihistimine before
Tuesday I'm supposed to get my first shots. I'm supposed to take an antihistimine before. Some of my choices are Benadryl, Claritin, Zyrtec. I'm leaning towards Zyrtec because it's non-drowsy: Benadryl wipes me out. The sheet I got says to take it from 1 to 24 hours before my injections. Any idea why such a range and has timing ever made a difference? BTW, I also take Ziac for HBP. Since it's a beta blocker, there was a concern that taking that along with shots might lead to an adverse reaction. But my allergist (who thought at first it wasn't a beta blocker) said it should be ok. Anyone have to change their HBP medicine while taking shots? And about how long did it take before your improvement (if any)? I've been on shots for years. I'll take periodic breaks, and find I'm worse, so I resume them. I take allegra daily, so the premedication isn't an issue. I would imagine the time variation has to do with the medications: benadryl is a a 6-8 hour drug, claritin and zyrtec are daily. Zyrtec is actually the metabolite of atarax, so some people get a little drowsy on it, but it's a more effective antihistamine than the truely nonsedating antihistamines: claritin, allegra and possibly clarinex. The beta blocker could provoke bronchospasm, and is an issue if you are an asthmatic. It could theoretically mask an allergic reaction, but I don't think it's a true contraindication to shots. I've personally founds allergy shots extremely helpful, both for myself and my daughter. good luck. (Your first dose is so low, it's almost homeopathic. Both my daughter and I chose to build to maintanence with twice weekly shots, and we were told you both get to a therapeutic dose faster and there's less chance of a reaction. We found that to be true for both of us. Otherwise, it takes about 6 months to get to maintenance doses. Studies show that allergy shots at maintenance should be continued for a minimum of 3 years (ideally 5 years) to get lasting benefit--although they only studied the people who stopped for about a year.) Judy > Tuesday I'm supposed to get my first shots. I'm supposed to take an > antihistimine before. Some of my choices are Benadryl, Claritin, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > And about how long did it take before your improvement (if any)? > Tuesday I'm supposed to get my first shots. I'm supposed to take an > antihistimine before. Some of my choices are Benadryl, Claritin, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > And about how long did it take before your improvement (if any)? I usually take a 25mg benadryl about an hour before my allergy shot. Benadryl in this dosage doesn't make me sleepy. Allergy shots have not had any effect on my BP or BP meds, including the beta blocker I take. It took me 6 months of getting shots before noticing significant improvement. If your allergies are worse in the spring or summer you should notice quite a bit of improvement by next year and even more the year after that. AW > Tuesday I'm supposed to get my first shots. I'm supposed to take an > antihistimine before. Some of my choices are Benadryl, Claritin, > Zyrtec. I'm leaning towards Zyrtec because it's non-drowsy: Benadryl > wipes me out. The sheet I got says to take it from 1 to 24 hours > before my injections. Any idea why such a range and has timing ever > made a difference? No idea, but it's never mattered what time I've taken my Zyrtec prior to shots. > BTW, I also take Ziac for HBP. Since it's a beta blocker, there was a > concern that taking that along with shots might lead to an adverse [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > And about how long did it take before your improvement (if any)? This depends upon how diluted the shots are. My current allergist's shots offer miraculous results within 12 weeks, which increase with the bi-weekly or monthly shots I get thereafter. When I moved and temporarily left him, the new allergist's shots weren't up to desensitization dose after a full year of weekly shots, and all my allergies came back. If your immunologist tell you it takes a year or more, keep looking for someone more aggressive. And read the current literature on beta blockers; they've just been dropped in the UK as a first line drug for HT. Susan I agree with Susan: my allergist uses a protocol where you get to maintenance quickly--at twice weekly it took about 3-4 months to get to maintenance. I felt results within the first few months. My daughter has noticed them in that time frame as well. One thing I've noticed is that a lot of ENT's attempt to practice allergy as well: it's lucrative, and fairly simple to administer skin tests and have nurses give the shots. In one ENT office I was in, they didn't make the patients wait after their shots (to make sure they didn't have a reaction) and the receptionist was burning a scented candle! So, I prefer my board-certified allergist to give me my immunotherapy. Judy > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Susan > I agree with Susan: my allergist uses a protocol where you get to > maintenance quickly--at twice weekly it took about 3-4 months to get to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > candle! So, I prefer my board-certified allergist to give me my > immunotherapy. No waiting *and* a scented candle! :-) I have to confess, I travel an hour to see my old/current allergist, despite the fact that his old office bldg. smells a bit of mildew. If he ever retires or croaks, I'm going to slit my wrists. Susan My allergist is starting to slow down: to two days/week. His younger partner was well-trained, but just isn't the same. My allergist calls me at home/ gives his cell number/ is incredibly thorough. I'll be lost when he retires. Judy > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Susan > My allergist is starting to slow down: to two days/week. His younger > partner was well-trained, but just isn't the same. My allergist calls > me at home/ gives his cell number/ is incredibly thorough. I'll be lost > when he retires. Mine practiced with his legendary dad (folks drove for hours from all over Long Island to see him) who's been dead for many years now. Mine is closing in on retirement age, I think. I hope he's not the retiring type. How does one go about finding a similar allergist, instead of the typical, low dosing, academic type? I had no idea there was a diff til I got so horribly resensitized by the other allergist I'd seen for a year. Susan Susan, I wish I could tell you how to find the better allergists. In RI there are really only three groups and all the rest of the allergists are pulmonologists and/or ENT's. I just happened to work with my allergist and learned how great he was. I'm dreading hs retirement. Once, when my daughter ended up in the ER with her first severe asthma attack of her life after two days in a moldy dorm room, I called his cell. He was in the patient waiting room, halfway across the country, while a relative was in the OR. He said "I have time, tell me what's the problem." He quietly called up to a highly regarded (mistakenly) Boston teaching hospital, whose allergist/pulmonologist horribly mismanaged my daughter, and simply got the labs/records/ and took over her care. People travel for hours to see him also. I taught with him, and the residents were scared of him, and I would encourage them to approach him, because he's so brilliant. When we worked for an HMO (that is now bankrupt) they had to put a second phlebotomist in the lab when he worked, because he was so complete in his evaluations. I just don't know how you find people like him. The guy in Boston had all the right credentials, but he was arrogant, ill-informed, sloppy and down right dangerous. Scary. Judy > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Susan > Susan, > I wish I could tell you how to find the better allergists. In RI [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > all the right credentials, but he was arrogant, ill-informed, sloppy > and down right dangerous. Scary. You were so lucky to have him to turn to when your daughter was so ill. I used to think Lyme disease and all the controversy and scandal surrounding it was unique. Then I got type 2 diabetes and found that the standards promulgated by mainstream authorities injure and kill diabetics but fatten the wallets of grain, sugar and drug producers who fund organizations like the ADA. Then I learned about the underground economy feeding off of desperate sinusitis sufferers. I just always assume that academic medical folks in particular will be smug, self satisfied, intellectually lazy and incurious until proven otherwise. Thank heavens for the exceptions, like my allergist (who took care of my child's awful years of tick borne diseases til complete resolution) and my internist (who was originally just my inf. diseases consult). The problem is, if they hurt you or kill you, docs have just had a bad day at the office, but you've lost your own life or a loved one's. And the doc gets paid the same either way. Don't even get me *started* on those who are Dialing for Dollars and reeling in chronically ill patients (FMS, Lyme, CFS, sinusitis) failed by other practitioners and cashing in on our/their desperation for relief. Entrepreneurs in doc's clothing. People who aren't cynical just aren't paying attention. Or they've been blessed with very good health and lack of experience with what passes for the community standard for clinical practice. Susan Susan, I completely agree. I have a wonderful friend who's a great nurse practioner, who currently works in Student Health at an Ivy League University, who has said for years: "Whenever I've needed the healthcare system, it never fails to dissapoint me." She's brilliant, her family members are physicians, she should be able to "work the system", yet we share tales of horror. I worked as a faculty member for an Ivy League residency, and had a lot of illusions shattered. I really idealized academic medicine until my four years as full time faculty.... One of the physicians I worked with, left the hospital as well, and founded a foundation, HealthCare renewal, which has a blog, where they extensively chronicle the problems in healthcare while desperately searching for solutions. You're right: it's a very broken system, and as my sister's neurosurgeon once said to her: "I can quote percentages, but if it happens to you, it's 100%." When we or our family members suffer, it's 100%. Some of the national standards: for blood pressure, cholesterol, diabetes, all but assure than most people will require medications to meet the ideal. Is that right? Or does big pharma have a hand in it? It starts to feel like the old X-Files TV show: the truth is out there, we just haven't found it. Judy > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > Susan > Susan, > I completely agree. I have a wonderful friend who's a great nurse [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > neurosurgeon once said to her: "I can quote percentages, but if it > happens to you, it's 100%." Exactly. > When we or our family members suffer, it's 100%. And if we're ungrateful for the lousy care we get, we're labeled "non-compliant." > Some of the national standards: for blood pressure, cholesterol, > diabetes, all but assure than most people will require medications to > meet the ideal. Is that right? Well, they don't have to mean we'll need drugs, except for the bogus low cholesterol targets that ignore the fact that LDL is the worst predictor of CVD there is. The best predictors (HDL/TGL)along with diabetes and HT are easily controlled by low glycemic diet. We have the information, it's in the peer reviewed literature, but ignored in the U.S. due to the incestuousness between pharma, the FDA, NIH, and alleged non-profits like the AHA and ADA. I don't need meds to control diabetes (though I choose to take metformin for reduction of IR) as long as I ignore the dietary advice of those groups. I get completely safe and dramatic lipid improvements (ratios) by taking high dose pantethine instead of dangerous statins, too. >Or does big pharma have a hand in it? The sugar lobby won the battle for the new dietary regs, which state that it's okay for fully 10% of your daily diet to come from refined sugar. :-/ Pharma, cereal growers, all are driving the reccos. Just follow the money trail. The publishers of our most prestigious (and dependent upon drug advertising) journals are beating this drum, too, about how $$ skews investigators reliability in reporting trial results. > It starts to feel like the old X-Files TV show: the truth is out > there, we just haven't found it. > Judy I think we've found it, and some folks are hard at work burying it, twisting it, lying about it... Susan |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.