Thanks for this and your subsequent comment @duncan -- what are the very good alternatives to Ceftriaxone you are interested in? Have you started to try them? Cheers mate!
Cheers
Cheers
In the US, there are political issues also swirling around Rocephin use, thanks to the IDSA.
You'd think it would be as simple as if you suspect NB, try Rocephin. I have a couple of clinicians recommending I do IV Rocephin for this very same reason, and it seems like good logic on paper. To date, I have declined because: a)I think there are very good alternatives, b) politics.
I have a quick question, though, for those like Helen who have had spinal taps. Really, the main determinant when scrutinizing CSF these days is the AI. That is certainly true in Europe. I wouldn't be surprised if when the IDSA releases its new guidelines, it will recommend an AI metric for the US as well.
I had a lumbar puncture. I had a low positive ELISA. My tester was a researcher, who declined to do a WB or C6 on my spinal fluid. Instead, that researcher went for the AI value, which was negative. When I pushed for an explanation as to why a WB or C6 wasn't employed, I was told they are not good metrics for CSF.
Only, for the life of me I cannot find any literature that has convinced me that AI is any better a metric than an ELISA or WB in CSF exams when is comes to very late stage NB. So I agree with KDM.
Has anyone gotten positive AI results? Has anyone spoken with their clinician about the inherent strengths and/or weaknesses of the AI value when looking for signs of Borrelia in patients' CSF?