Continued From Above

What about common sense and the idea that the dose does not have an effect on the side effects? The third study reports that side effects are the same with half dose or full dose. Interestingly, looking at the charts and tables you see they actually report the side effects are slightly worse with the lower dose (I'm not going to even try to discuss that one).

Is it logical that a half dose or a quarter dose would have the same side effects as the larger dose? When does the world work that way? The saying that the dose makes the poison is pretty apt in this case. I'm going to go with simple logic and common sense on this one.

If a much smaller dose of Reclast produces roughly the same benefit I'm going to go with the smaller dose as it is logically much less likely to produce harm than a larger dose. If I'm wrong in my logic and half a bottle of wine produces just as bad a hangover as a full bottle of wine, well I've lost nothing because I've had the same fun at the party and the same hangover. But if simple logic and common sense is right, I would have less of a hangover from the half bottle of wine. Translated to taking Reclast, with the lower dose I might dodge chronic bone pain for the next 2 years completely or at least it may be less intense.

Wrapping up, two of the three studies I cited clearly show that various smaller doses and dosing schedules work just as well as the larger dose. The third study with a bit of digging shows the same, despite the authors reaching a different conclusion (and an erroneous one as shown by their own data). So lower doses work just as well in all these studies. What about adverse events (side effects)? Some of the studies claim side effects are the same whether low dose or high dose. I offer logical, common senseical and historical reasons to doubt that conclusion. For myself I want to increase my odds for safety as best I can in this complex puzzle of medications for osteoporosis. I think lower doses improve my odds with Reclast.