|
If I am not mistaken I believe the PDR lists side effects. As awful as necrosis may be, if it were a choice between helping keep the cancer control and having a longer survival time vs the risk of osteonecrosis, I would opt for the former.
I would hate to see companies stop manufacturing medications such as Zometa because of 2ndary side effects. I know that ostnecrosis can be nasty, but given the choice, I would rather have prolonged life. I guess the pharmaceutical companies and 'insurers' (including govt/medicare providers) look at the overall cost-effectiveness rather than the benefits. What if its positive effects outweighed the negatives, but it became no longer cost-effective if one had to treat the 'occasional' osteonecrosis along with the impact of increased longevity/survival on our economy. Just some food for thought...
|