← Return to Undecided choice of drugs for Osteoporosis

Discussion
Comment receiving replies
@normahorn

Gently wrote:
"I have the idea mainly from the Tower studies that we may be over medicated with Forteo and alternate dosing could open the metabolic window. My real plan is to follow the bone markers. :

You may be on to something. Maybe we are overmedicated with most of the drugs. I would like to see what dosage and intervals were used in developing the protocols. Is it what they thought would be acceptable to patients? If the dosage were cut in half for Evenity, would we be willing to go to a doctor's office monthly for 2 years? If cut in half for forteo and Tymlos, would patients accept daily injections for 3 to 4 years. Prolia injections quarterly for years? Reclast infusions every 6 months instead of yearly. Or would patients balk?

Jump to this post


Replies to "Gently wrote: "I have the idea mainly from the Tower studies that we may be over..."

njhornung,
it would be interesting to know. The studies consider patient compliance and economic feasibility. Individualized medicine is time consuming and expensive. I suspect that part of the problem of adverse reactions is in dosage.
The greatest good for the greatest number is a valuable adage. And pure stastatics are valuable. But we each are just one. I, for one would be willing to save my bones by going to the doctors office monthly every year. (But, not for Evenity) I can easily accept self injections daily for 30 years. Injections quarterly for years and years (but not Prolia). Infusions every six months (but I'd rather not Reclast). Would you balk or comply with the greater effort?
But my thought is that a lower dose of Forteo weekly would work better than the full 120mcg, extending the time for which it continues to increase bone density and strengh, requiring fewer injections over many more years.
Some physicians use the bone markers to encourage compliance by showing the patient the positive effect on the bone that we mostly can't feel.