|
AI's longterm
A while back, Dr. Susan Love's website had two commentaries (pro and con) about the value of taking AI's. It may still be there somewhere....
AI's are not a perfect answer, and as RB notes, questions about use likely are not limited to bone health long term. Since they do not yet have a really long history of use, plus they are being used now by younger women who achieve menopausal status by unnatural means, there are unknowns about them.
We each have to make our own personal guess about our own personal risk level.
As a personal side note, in trying to address the problem of weight gained during chemo, I have been gradually increasing weightbearing exercise. Over 2 decades ago I had very slight knee damage successfully repaired that has never given me any trouble over a very active life. Recently that knee started falling apart. It "might" have happened with or without the use of AI's -- but my interpretation is that the reason joints hurt so much with use of some AI's is that by reducing the estrogen we also lose not just the lubrication in places like the vagina but in the joints and many other places as well. For example, my eyes are much drier now than they were previously. I don't want to make this a long post but I just raise the question of the need to balance out the likely net effects long-term with any benefit. I happen to be highly ER/PR and that would weigh in favor of using an AI, whereas someone barely positive might not want to take on the early progressive deterioration. I happen to be Stage 1, which might be some reason NOT to take an AI.
It is also known that resistance to AI's often develops. So if someone is low risk in the first place, would it make more sense not to take an AI so as not to allow resistance to it to build?
Lots of questions about AI's, not a lot of answers....
AlaskaAngel
|