This is what I posted in response to that:
I did notice this statement - obviously with some concern.
However: I can only view this in the context of my own experience and others who have posted on their experiences on titrating down. I have titrated down to 80mg successfully and have been happily AF for well over a year. I see no reason to have remained on 270mg indefinitely. My sobriety is easy to maintain: I simply don't want to drink...
Since no detailed explanation is available as to why "they" think one should remain at the switch dose, I will remain fairly sceptical. What has come to mind is the possibility that the success stats can be "boosted" by reducing the risk of people relapsing should they titrate down too low or too fast (as we've seen happening here with cravings returning).
What is actually of much greater concern is what the long-term impact of this can be on the treatment of alcoholism with baclofen. I know that I, for one, would have had 2nd thoughts if I knew upfront that I would have to remain at such high doses of baclofen. The prospect of taking only a maintenance dose after the intial effort provided me with some comfort. Then there is the cost factor. One also cannot lose sight of the issue of broader acceptance of baclofen in the medical community. I'm fairly certain that if long-term high-dose baclofen without the prospect of tapering down to a level more in line with current clinical guidelines becomes the advisable route, many doctors will think twice before prescribing.
What do others think? I really don't see the need to titrate up again after tapering down so successfully.
Comment