Let me preface these comments by saying I'm not a doctor, but I deal with interpreting statistics in my financial job. My wife, age 42, suffered a broken femur while walking and hasbeen taking Fosamax since 1997.
I read an article about a study in Denmark stating that There is no link between Fosamax and increased risk of Femur fracture because of the thousands of femur fracture cases they looked at, there were relatively few femur fractures and just as many non fosamax users as fosamax users experienced femur fractures. Then they suggest that most women on Fosamax have not had a femur fracture, implying that Fosamax therefore plays no role in femur fractures.
I just want to say that this is a complete junk science reading of statistics. They start with a huge number and whittle away at the underlying question. The relevant question is "Did Fosamax play a role in the fractures of the women who DID take Fosamax? It is likely that a biopsy examination of the bone tissue in all fracture victims (Fosamax and non Fosamax) may have completely different characteristics of bone matrix. The Fosamax patients may all exhibit high mass, high density readings, but essentially dead bone matrix.....consistent with the mechanism of action in bisphosphonates. My point is that this psuedo scientific study out of Denmark being floated around now is crap and any freshman stats student can see how they are playing with the bigger patient numbers to dilute the importance of the relevant group and relevant questions.
The number of atypical femur fractures in patients taking bisphosphonates longer than 5 years is rising. The mechanism of action in the drug clearly supresses bone cell metabolism and regeneration. That is what they were made to do. The drug company didn't bother to worry about the long term effect of suppressing natural bone function because the short term and mid term effect was big $$$$$$$.
It would actually be more suprising if these drugs DIDN'T cause more dead bones and femur fractures over time. Frankly,my guess is they know darn good and well that this drug is causing an increase in fractures, but they figure that even if the science makes a causal link, it will be a small enough group that they can handle the financial hit.
Comment Reply
Let me preface these comments by saying I'm not a doctor, but I deal with interpreting statistics in my financial job. My wife, age 42, suffered a broken femur while walking and hasbeen taking Fosamax since 1997.
I read an article about a study in Denmark stating that There is no link between Fosamax and increased risk of Femur fracture because of the thousands of femur fracture cases they looked at, there were relatively few femur fractures and just as many non fosamax users as fosamax users experienced femur fractures. Then they suggest that most women on Fosamax have not had a femur fracture, implying that Fosamax therefore plays no role in femur fractures.
I just want to say that this is a complete junk science reading of statistics. They start with a huge number and whittle away at the underlying question. The relevant question is "Did Fosamax play a role in the fractures of the women who DID take Fosamax? It is likely that a biopsy examination of the bone tissue in all fracture victims (Fosamax and non Fosamax) may have completely different characteristics of bone matrix. The Fosamax patients may all exhibit high mass, high density readings, but essentially dead bone matrix.....consistent with the mechanism of action in bisphosphonates. My point is that this psuedo scientific study out of Denmark being floated around now is crap and any freshman stats student can see how they are playing with the bigger patient numbers to dilute the importance of the relevant group and relevant questions.
The number of atypical femur fractures in patients taking bisphosphonates longer than 5 years is rising. The mechanism of action in the drug clearly supresses bone cell metabolism and regeneration. That is what they were made to do. The drug company didn't bother to worry about the long term effect of suppressing natural bone function because the short term and mid term effect was big $$$$$$$.
March 25, 2010 - 12:35pmIt would actually be more suprising if these drugs DIDN'T cause more dead bones and femur fractures over time. Frankly,my guess is they know darn good and well that this drug is causing an increase in fractures, but they figure that even if the science makes a causal link, it will be a small enough group that they can handle the financial hit.
This Comment
Reply