I was just hoping I can call on the collective wisdom here to understand the logic of my new rheumy consultant.
I have seroneg inflam arth (have had it for about 12 years) but only diagnosed 3 years ago. My main problems are in my knees, which balloon with a steadily increasing frequency.
I had a rheumy consultant for the first 2 years who was great, and my meds (hydroxy, plus naproxen and omeprazole) were doing ok, however, over time they haven;t been enough. I was prescribed Sulfa back in October, but had a pretty nasty time with it and after 2 months of persevering, was advised to come off it. This brought me to my appointment with the consultant yesterday. We had something of a 'debate' (well ok, I bl''dy grilled him) about taking the next level of meds. He told me the next logical step is meth, but he needs more evidence of my inflamation. My argument was that as I am seroneg, he won't be able to have any obvious reference point, except if he had seen it. He then pursued the line of me having my next flare and getting an appointment with him pronto - all in the name of evidencing to him, so that his backside is covered for prescribing meth (or if he is not available, taking pictures ?!). I asked him what the critical factors were (according to NICE - as he quoted them at me) to trigger it being prescribed for a seroneg and got a very woolly answer.
Can someone wiser and more experienced than me tell me if this is reasonable or normal practice ? Or, should he be able to work from my articulating the impact of how my flares are - rather than seemingly throwing into doubt what my experience of my condition is ? :?