This thread highlights the fact that Drs. aren't in any hurry to move their patients from Gleevec to Sprycel. That includes my Doctor. Yet Sprycel has an anecdotal reputation for far fewer and less intense side effects than Gleevec (with a few relatively rare exceptions), and there isn't any statistical data to refute that - at least that I have seen. Can anyone out there shed light on why this is so? My Dr. says Gleevec is working, so don't change anything, and, because the Sprycel trials were restricted to people who could not tolerate Gleevec or for whom Gleevec was ineffective, there isn't enough data to suggest that switching to Sprycel is a good idea for people who are successful on Gleevec. My intuition says "so what." There doesn't seem to be any evidence that switching to Sprycel causes harm, so why not try it? If it doesn't work, one can always go back on Gleevec.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ [CMLHope] A support group of http://cmlhope.com ------------------------------------------------- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CMLHope" group. To post to this group, send email to CMLHope@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/CMLHope -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
