On 6th Sept Sharon wrote:
>
> > Brian,
> >
> > I'm having a looong night/morning and perhaps am a bit groggy (could
> > that be intoxicated from lack of sleep??), but would you please explain
> > again your comment ----
> >
> > "The exposure if you start with an agonist on diagnosis,
> > would be in the region of 60-100 Pergolide years. ...... but at
> > least my exposure is only 15 Pergolide years."
Hello Sharon
I thought I might get pulled-up on this one! It is my attempt to define a
parameter which illustrates the amount of risk associated with a
particular drug. I reckon that there will be two main parameters:
The length of time over which the PWP is exposed to the risk, and
The amount of the drug which he has taken.
So, if you take an agonist for 5 years and you take 6 mg of the agonist
per day, your exposure index will be 6 x 5 = 30 milligram-years)
If you ramped-up the tablet intake (As I did with my Permax, the
effective exposure will be halved (= 15 milligram-years).
We are not much wiser having done these sums, but maybe we can use
them to get a measure of the risk associated with starting an agonist
soon after diagnosis. I'll take a wild guess, and assume that you would
like to live for quite a long time,- let's say another 30 years.
At the end of that period, let's assume that you will be taking 9 mg per
day. (I know that some people are now taking 12 mg, and I am on 6 mg/day.
Let's be generous and assume that you try to keep to a Ramped input.
The risk factor is 30 x 0.5 x 9 = 135
That is 9 times the risk exposure compared with my philosophy,
based on only using the agonists when you have no other option.
PS - With all the hair-raising symptoms floating around in response to
this thread, I consider my case to be made, so I won't make too much of
that aspect
--
Brian Collins <[log in to unmask]>
