1. < Osteoporosis & Bone Health
Profile picture for lilipe

Osteoporosis drugs and age implications

Posted by lilipe @lilipe, Feb 19 7:56pm

I am a newly diagnosed Osteoporosis patient, I am a female and only 51. Was diagnosed at 50. Early menopause at 46. Osteoporosis at the lumbar spine -2.7 and osteopenia at the femoral neck -1.9 -2.1.
I am healthy otherwise, never taken any medication and only recently my lipid blood work came with mild high cholesterol. My question is, what are the implications to take into consideration when being my age and starting medication so early, at 50 you are looking into at least 25 years of managing this issue. For now I am taking raloxifene as my doctor agreed to let me research on what to do while being on this medication, he stated this is not first line medication and I need a different treatment. I feel like every one with osteoporosis is at least already in their 60’s and I have still such a long way to go. Thanks

Interested in more discussions like this? Go to the Osteoporosis & Bone Health Support Group.

Profile picture for jozer
jozer | @jozer | Feb 24 9:19am
In reply to @kathleen1314 "@jozer Just for my personal tally of self reporting users, do you still have your uterus/ovaries?..." + (show)
Profile picture for mcchesney @kathleen1314

@jozer
Just for my personal tally of self reporting users, do you still have your uterus/ovaries?

I am personally finding that there needs to be a foundation of estrogen systemically which the vaginal estriol (for me) then supports. I also find over and over again that women without a uterus/ovaries just have a hard time making their own hormones and even incorporating any HRT into the body. The major organs and adrenals still produce sex hormones, but this seems impacted negatively by the loss of the uterus/ovaries, but this is just me looking at all the self reporting which I have seen.

As a 73 year old woman, until recently, I made plenty of estradiol and did not need to take estradiol. So I just used, until recently, estriol systemically and vaginally. I am in the process of trying to add safely and gradually some small amount of estradiol to my body to prop up my bodies' low now estradiol production and my vaginal/bladder health.

My point being that we are all different with our different bodies and needs.

There are lots of studies showing estrogen, in all its forms, promotes bone and vaginal health. But as I said I personally find that there needs to be a foundation systemically of a good estrogen level.
I also personally pay for my saliva test and for my compounded drugs; I find the money and forego small luxuries to do so. I am lucky to be able to do this and know that many people do not have that space to find those extra funds.

Jump to this post

@kathleen1314 I had complete hysterectomy (age 64; currently 68)and prolapse repair a couple of years ago, but not ovary removal as the thinking currently per surgeon is that ovaries are still working a tiny bit and are better left. My current endo does not test for much beyond CMP and kidney function pre Reclast. He - and many others - do not do bone marker testing, but he might at my appointment this spring. Choice of treatment and testing somewhat creative among med pros. He started me on fosamax, then reclast. A rheumatologist I saw would have started with a different class of drug. Been learning about the many types of tests that could be helpful in trying to figure out best way to treat, supplements to take, nutrition, etc. most of the information on osteoporosis I have gotten from websites like this (not at the 15 minute doctor appointments) and the people sharing their research and experiences…thankfully!

REPLY
Profile picture for pbradley1954
pbradley1954 | @pbradley1954 | Feb 24 9:11pm
In reply to @tillymack "Have you considered HRT? I just started at 78 and wish I had started much sooner..." + (show)
Profile picture for tillymack @tillymack

Have you considered HRT? I just started at 78 and wish I had started much sooner after menopause to take advantage of all the HRT benefits.

Jump to this post

@tillymack
I was told that you can only do HRT if you are under 60. Did your doctor say that it was okay to take at 78 without increased risk of cancer?

REPLY
1 reply
Profile picture for kfhoz
kfhoz | @kfhoz | Feb 25 10:35am
In reply to @pbradley1954 "@tillymack I was told that you can only do HRT if you are under 60. Did..." + (show)
Profile picture for pbradley1954 @pbradley1954

@tillymack
I was told that you can only do HRT if you are under 60. Did your doctor say that it was okay to take at 78 without increased risk of cancer?

Jump to this post

@pbradley1954 Newer transdermal (as opposed to oral) has newer research and papers on Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) have changed the old advice.

There is discussion on other treads in this forum. My doctor put me on transdermal patches at age 66. Many others report that their clinicians have not caught up with the recent data and are still denying them. Your specific medical situation may be different, but age alone should not eliminate a woman from HRT.

Here is one example video by Dr. Doug Lucas reviewing a recent paper "How Late is TOO Late to Start HRT for Women? New Research Study REVEALED":

REPLY
Profile picture for vagirl57
vagirl57 | @vagirl57 | Feb 25 1:30pm
In reply to @kathleen1314 "@jozer Just for my personal tally of self reporting users, do you still have your uterus/ovaries?..." + (show)
Profile picture for mcchesney @kathleen1314

@jozer
Just for my personal tally of self reporting users, do you still have your uterus/ovaries?

I am personally finding that there needs to be a foundation of estrogen systemically which the vaginal estriol (for me) then supports. I also find over and over again that women without a uterus/ovaries just have a hard time making their own hormones and even incorporating any HRT into the body. The major organs and adrenals still produce sex hormones, but this seems impacted negatively by the loss of the uterus/ovaries, but this is just me looking at all the self reporting which I have seen.

As a 73 year old woman, until recently, I made plenty of estradiol and did not need to take estradiol. So I just used, until recently, estriol systemically and vaginally. I am in the process of trying to add safely and gradually some small amount of estradiol to my body to prop up my bodies' low now estradiol production and my vaginal/bladder health.

My point being that we are all different with our different bodies and needs.

There are lots of studies showing estrogen, in all its forms, promotes bone and vaginal health. But as I said I personally find that there needs to be a foundation systemically of a good estrogen level.
I also personally pay for my saliva test and for my compounded drugs; I find the money and forego small luxuries to do so. I am lucky to be able to do this and know that many people do not have that space to find those extra funds.

Jump to this post

@kathleen1314 Complete hysterectomy at 45. Low dose estrogen until 65. At 75 my urogynecologist prescribed Estradiol for a urinary issue. I have been using it weekly for 10 years. I just had my check up. I asked him if there was a possibility that the Estradiol could be helping my bones. Being a cream, it does not process via the liver, and therefore a safer than estrogen pills. He didn't think it was helping the bones, but agreed it might have some influence. I am at high risk for fracturing, and had a bad fall last year and nothing broke. I exercise and do resistance training. Have been through many of the popular meds and had too many side effects. Recently had to come off Prolia (after 1 injection). Used Fosamax for the rebound, but that caused even worse side effects.
At this point my heart takes precedence over my bones. I was amazed to see how many on this thread are using Estradiol. Good luck to everyone.

REPLY
View MoreView Less
Please sign in or register to post a reply.