Talk:Narcolepsy

From Academic Kids

Some text has been taken from the public domain document (written by NIH employee for NIH) at http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-93-051.html

And also another public domain document at http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/public/sleep/narcolep.txt

I have now merged and copyedited these versions together -- major Wiki-review is needed. In particular, can anyone provide a cite for the difference in prevalence between the sexes? The Anome

I thought that this was a well known fact (among narcoleptics anyway). Here's a web page, http://www.thehawaiichannel.com/health/1418071/detail.html, referring to one of the many studies which have addressed this aspect of narcolepsy. That study, by the Mayo Clinic, found that the incidence rate per 100,000 persons per year was 1.37 (1.72 for men and 1.05 for women). The incidence rate was highest in people in their 20s, followed in descending order by those in their 30s and then those below 10 years of age and those in their 40s. The prevalence on Jan. 1, 1985, was 56.3 per 100,000 persons. Approximately 36 percent of prevalence cases did not have cataplexy, a higher percentage than found in non-community-based studies.

I'd also like to say that, while it's nice to have the extra information from the NIH, it's addition has had two unfortunate effects. Firstly the nature of the article seems to have changed from "Narcolepsy" to "Narcolepsy in the United States". This is a pity since it's a worldwide condition. Secondly, the writer of the NIH article seems to have thought in terms of "attack" and "victim" when writing the original article. This isn't really appropriate. Everyone feels the need to sleep at least once in a twenty four hour period but they don't call that an attack. Narcoleptics just feel the need more often, in some cases much more often, but that doesn't mean they're being mugged by a passing dream! Let's reword this to avoid the attack/victim stuff.

Lastly, the NIH article is a bit out-of-date. The underlying mechanism for narcolepsy was discovered a couple of years ago, see http://www.talkaboutsleep.com/news/narcolepsy_cause_comments.htm, yet we have no indication in the article that this is so, despite it being *the* major recent advance in the understanding of narcolepsy. It's the first to give an indication of a fully effective treatment to replace the partially effective symptomatic treatment of the last 100 years. -- Derek Ross

Concur with and expand upon Derek Ross that the focus of the NIH article is, not only one of discussion of the 'victim' et al, but presupposes that the only way to live with Narcolepsy is through medication.

The drugs associated with the treatment of Narcolepsy are strong, side-effect ridden drugs. Many of the tricyclics would never make it though today's stringent tests. In addition, as the actual cause of the condition has only recently been discovered, the existing medications take a sledgehammer to the symptoms of the condition, rather than effectively treating its cause. Until a geniune causal treatment can be developed, the idea propagated in the article that all narcoleptics must take daily doses of some pretty appalling drugs is only reinforcing the image of narcoleptics as helpless sufferers. I used the available medications for just three years before realizing that I preferred (sleepy) sanity to the alternative of an erratic and addicted wakefulness. Since then, I have been pretty successful in life, albeit with a high number of bruises and concussions along the way. Suggest a break-out article or subhead within this one "The pharcotherapeutic treatment of narcolepsy" or similar.

--Sepenidur 12:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My neurologist described narcolepsy in a cool way. Think of a venn diagram with three non-overlapping circles representing consciousness, unconsciousness, and dream-state. A narcoleptic's brain has overlapping circles. <>< tbc 18:30, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)