Having problems with message search?
Shilpa,
Interesting. Though I’m not sure I completely follow DC’s reasoning for why treating low LAD with LIT does not increase the chance of a successful pregnancy outcome. I mean, taking a pregnancy plus a trimester to boost LAD levels to a sufficient level – okay – I get that. But who cares? If you can boost them artificially with LIT and sustain them long enough to have a successful outcome – who really cares
if take 50 weeks versus 40 weeks to create a sustainable level. I don’t! (LOL!)
Also, if this extensive study showed no benefit for treating low LAD women with LIT, why are women successfully getting/staying PG after LIT? I’d be more convinced of DC’s claims if she could back it up with a quantifiable study. If this study can statistically quantify how many women with low (or no) LADs had a full-term PG without LIT versus how many women had a full-term PG with LIT – with all variables such as age and other reproductive factors being equal – then I’d give her claim
some merit. Until then, it sounds to me like she has another agenda that she’s pushing.
But I do LOVE controversy and I appreciate you initiating the discussion. I’ll tell ya, when I first learned that LIT was my only option for increasing low LAD – I searched and searched for alternative ways (donor sperm, IVIG, mega-progesterone, etc.) to circumvent the problem. But in the end nothing worked. I tried IVIG for my low LAD and miscarried a fifth time with IVIG as the only treatment (well, in addition to Lovenox,
Folgard, etc.) – so inevitably (and sort of reluctantly) I went for LIT. Two weeks after my first LIT I discovered I was pregnant – and I’m now 10 weeks and (God willing) everything is thriving! So yeah – I’m a believer in LIT!
Regarding your question about IVIG versus LIT for low LAD. The difference between IVIG and LIT (as I understand it) – is that LIT is an active therapy in that it actually CREATES blocking antibodies. And IVIG is a passive therapy in that it suppresses the attacking cells. And I’m not talking about NK cells exclusively. I’m talking about a basic biological immune response to a foreign entity (the fetus) that all humans share. Since IVIG will never be able to eliminate ALL the attacking cells on its own, your body’s own blocking antibodies are necessary to protect the fetus. Without blocking antibodies the fetus will be under constant assault – even with IVIG. For example, IVIG might reduce the attack potential from 100% to 30% - but it will never bring it to zero and keep it there. As a result, babies born to low LAD mothers have a variety of health issues, most notably they suffer a higher rate of IUGR. So if your body’s own defenses
(i.e. blocking antibodies) aren’t sufficient, LIT is the only thing that’s going to help.
But get that Coulam study if you can!! I would absolutely LOVE to see it! And thanks for sharing this very interesting perspective with the board. I’m sure others will find it fascinating as well.
shilpa_spencer <shilpaspencer@...> wrote:
Hi girls,
Sorry to be contraversial with what I'm going to ask, but I think
it's important that we all examine all aspects of what we are told,
and keep an open mind one way or the other. But I'm apologizing in
advance if I offend anyone- that is not at all my intention!
I have low LAD levels, as do many of you on this board I think.
However, when I reviewed this with the RI I was working with (Dr.
Coulam), she said low LADs are no longer an issue worth treating.
She explained very clearly and firmly to me that the theory of low
LAD levels being a reproductive issue that causes m/c or IF has
been "debunked". She said that there was an extensive study done on
this a few years ago which tested LAD levels in RPL women, in women
current successfully pg, and in women that had completed 1 successful
pregnancy, and the last group was women with more than 1 successful
pregnancy. She said that they were able to determine that LAD levels
are only elevated in women after 50 weeks of pregnancy. In other
words, it requires more than 1 full pregnancy for the blocking
antibodies to build up fully. So of course women who have not had 50
weeks of pregnancy will show low levels of blocking antibodies. The
results were absolutely the same for women currently successfully
pregnancy as women who were experiencing miscarriages or IF.
Therefore, low LAD levels are insignificant and certainly treatment
to boost them is unnecessary- they won't create any change in the
ability to successfully conceive and carry a baby.
I am planning on asking her for a copy of that study (don't know why
I didn't do that in the first place).
But given that I want to understand all angles here and be convinced
that Dr. Coulam is wrong (if she is), do any of you have any
commentary you've heard from physicians that refutes this? Why are
DS/DB still firm believes in LIT treatment and low LADs in general?
Also, does IVIG address low LADs or is LIT the only treatment for
it?
Thanks very much for you insight/input!
-Shilpa
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Offline 
Send Email