RE: Strontium: An Alternative Treatment For Osteoporosis

[Guest guest]

My husband died from lung cancer/spread to bones. Leaflets the hospital gave me

said that if you don't have enough calcium that Strontium 90 takes it's place

and is the cause of cancer spread to bone.

 

 

 

Veronica

 

 

 

 

 

starshar

Tue, 24 Mar 2009 23:23:55 -0400

<< >> Re: Strontium: An Alternative

Treatment For Osteoporosis

 

 

 

 

 

Do you have any idea where you could have read about these negative side effects

for strontium? I would very much appreciate it as I haven't found any. And my

doctor is using strontium with some of her patients and so is a good friend of

mine. blessings Shan

 

I have the following saved to a file. I hope it's alright to reproduce this

here, because I do not have the original posters name saved. Sharon

****

 

The promotion of essential micronutrients like sex hormones, vitamins and

minerals for multisystem health including bones is vital.

 

But what evidence for longterm cost:benefit is there for strontium supplement

for anything let alone bones?

 

A warning was published in 2005 (Prescrire Int. 2005;14:207-11.) Strontium: new

drug. Postmenopausal osteoporosis: too many unknowns. [No authors listed]).

http://www.level1diet.com/759319_id. No new strontium trials have appeared

since. And all the big strontium trials have been done by one group, funded by

the manufacturer.

 

There is in fact only one solitary major trial published of sodium ranelate in

osteoporosis, the SOTI-TROPOS trial by Reginster, Meneur ea for the strontium

ranelate SrR manufacturers (Servier) at 72 centers in 11 European countries and

Australia, in some 5000 postmenopausal women recruited from 1996 through 1998 ie

till about 2003, with either previous postmenopausal fracture or frank

osteoporosis: All on 1 to 1.5gm calcium and vitamin D 400-800iu/day, they were

randomized to placebo or SrR 2gm/day. After a mean of 3 years, compared to

placebo, vertebral fractures in 1442 women at a mean of 69yrs were reduced by

49% from baseline , but in the entire cohort nonvertebral fractures were reduced

by only 16% from baseline at mean age of 77yrs.. All fractures were reduced from

12.9% to 11.2% ie 4.3%pa to 3.7%pa; hip fractures from 3.4% to 2.9%, vertebral

fractures from 14% to 7.7%.

 

Are these differences significant for patient care, when the longterm effects of

strontium therapy are unknown, and the longterm adverse effects of

biphosphonates are becoming horrifically clear?

 

But these trials of SrR used only weak baseline prevention of lowdose calcium

and vitamin D . Magnesium, estrogen. vigorous-dose vitamin D eg 2000iu/d,

vitamin K, androgen, boron, zinc, and the numerous other preventative bone-and

muscle-strengthening supplements were apparently specifically excluded or

omitted.

 

And like the concurrent Womens' Health Initiative, the SOTI-TROPOS trial was

stopped woefully too soon instead of letting it run for at least 10 years to see

the longterm benefit (if any). Worst of all, it did not test whether SrR adds

any benefit on a sensible baseline of all the proven supplements that we have

used for decades.

 

As Winzenberg ea ask in a recent 2007 Australian review, Strontium ranelate Does

it affect the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis?

http://www.racgp.org.au/Content/NavigationMenu/Publications/AustralianFamilyPhys\

/2007issues/afp2007august/200708wizenberg.pdf

" Strontium ranelate did not cause gastritis, back pain or death, but more or

less doubled numerous adverse effects :

*50% more (ie six out of 100 women taking strontium ranelate) experienced

diarrhoea compared to four out of 100 taking placebo,

.. The risk of vascular system disorders including venous thromboembolism (two

trials, n=6669, 2.2 vs. 1.5%, OR: 1.5, 95% CI: 1.1-2.1) , pulmonary embolism

(two trials, n=6669, 0.8 vs. 0.4%, OR: 1.7, 95% CI: 1.0-3.1) as well as nervous

system disorders such as headache (3.9 vs. 2.9%), seizures (0.3 vs. 0.1%),

memory loss (2.4 vs. 1.9%) and disturbance in consciousness (2.5 vs. 2.0%) is

slightly increased with taking 2 g of SrR daily over 3-4 years

.. There were no RCTs identified which compared SrR to other treatments of

postmenopausal osteoporosis. "

 

It is common cause that the chief risk factor for fracture is not bone density

but frailty, falls; and that the only microsupplements that strengthen muscle

are apparently androgen, zinc, calcium and magnesium and the vitamins D and B6,

9 and 12. There is no absolute contraindication to appropriate long term human

androgen plus estrogen replacement .

 

Now Fuchs ea show that " Strontium ranelate does not stimulate bone formation in

ovariectomized rats " ..

http://www.galenicom.com/pt/medline/article/18385919/Strontium+ranelate+does+not\

+stimulate+bone+formation+in+ovariectomized+rats./ - sex hormones are necessary

for strontium to benefit bones.

 

With the old fashioned calmag, zinc, boron, fluoride vitamins A-E, and

parenteral androgen plus estrogen, we have seen bone density rise by 1%pa and

hip density by 1/2% pa over 15years from age 52 in a frail woman with severe

rheumatoid arthritis, despite management with corticosteroid and other remittive

drugs, and repeated surgeries to replace destroyed joints. She has never

sustained an osteoporotic fracture.

 

So what is the indication to add the long-term (ie >10year) unproven strontium

to proven effective supplements?

 

Strontium ranelate may work in the medium term (3 to 5 years) but there is still

apparently no more justification for using strontium routinely for preventing/

treating ageing osteoporosis than there is for biphosphonates or calcitonin.

Considering it's cost including risks, it may be asked if it is ethical to

recommed strontium at more than trace levels?

Refs at http://healthspanlife.wordpress.com/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_______________

Internet Explorer 8 – Get your Hotmail Accelerated. Download free!

http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/141323790/direct/01/

 

 

[Guest guest]

Shan,

Good for you in paying close attention to the strontium information. The fact

that they are calling it Strontium 'Ranelate', and also mention " new drug "

should've raised my red flags.

It sure doesn't sound like the natural mineral.

Also, someone had mentioned the dangers of " strontium 90 " . There was a big scare

about this, maybe 15 yrs ago, and my memory of what I read at the time is now

hazy. My recall is that the strontium 90 is a radioactive factor that had been

found in milk, and probably other substances. (this needs updated research!)

 

But that is still not the same as the natural mineral, strontium.

 

Thanks, Shan!

 

Sharon

 

> In reading this I keep getting the impression that they are basing their

opinions on a drug ,not the natural mineral. And I know that regardless hwo much

the drug companies try to tell us differently, that drugs which are supposedly

knock offs of natural substances - aspirin for one - are not the same at all as

if easily seen in the side effects of the drugs which the natural products do

not have. So I have become suspicious of studies that seem to say that natural

nutrients have damageing efffects,

>

> It is just me or do you also get the impression that they are considering a

knock-off drugs substitute for the minerals strontium?? I know that the articles

I posted before as well as my doctor's experiance, - they ALL used the natural

mineral of strontium.

>

> blessings

> Shan

>

> , " Starshar " <starshar

wrote:

>>

>> Do you have any idea where you could have read about these negative side

effects for strontium? I would very much appreciate it as I haven't found any.

And my doctor is using strontium with some of her patients and so is a good

friend of mine. blessings Shan

>>

>> I have the following saved to a file. I hope it's alright to reproduce this

here, because I do not have the original posters name saved. Sharon

>> ****

>>

>> The promotion of essential micronutrients like sex hormones, vitamins and

minerals for multisystem health including bones is vital.

>>

>> But what evidence for longterm cost:benefit is there for strontium

supplement for anything let alone bones?

>>

>> A warning was published in 2005 (Prescrire Int. 2005;14:207-11.) Strontium:

new drug. Postmenopausal osteoporosis: too many unknowns. [No authors listed]).

http://www.level1diet.com/759319_id. No new strontium trials have appeared

since. And all the big strontium trials have been done by one group, funded by

the manufacturer.

>>

>> There is in fact only one solitary major trial published of sodium ranelate

in osteoporosis, the SOTI-TROPOS trial by Reginster, Meneur ea for the

strontium ranelate SrR manufacturers (Servier) at 72 centers in 11 European

countries and Australia, in some 5000 postmenopausal women recruited from 1996

through 1998 ie till about 2003, with either previous postmenopausal fracture

or frank osteoporosis: All on 1 to 1.5gm calcium and vitamin D 400-800iu/day,

they were randomized to placebo or SrR 2gm/day. After a mean of 3 years,

compared to placebo, vertebral fractures in 1442 women at a mean of 69yrs were

reduced by 49% from baseline , but in the entire cohort nonvertebral fractures

were reduced by only 16% from baseline at mean age of 77yrs.. All fractures

were reduced from 12.9% to 11.2% ie 4.3%pa to 3.7%pa; hip fractures from 3.4%

to 2.9%, vertebral fractures from 14% to 7.7%.

>>

>> Are these differences significant for patient care, when the longterm effects

of strontium therapy are unknown, and the longterm adverse effects of

biphosphonates are becoming horrifically clear?

>>

>> But these trials of SrR used only weak baseline prevention of lowdose

calcium and vitamin D . Magnesium, estrogen. vigorous-dose vitamin D eg

2000iu/d, vitamin K, androgen, boron, zinc, and the numerous other preventative

bone-and muscle-strengthening supplements were apparently specifically excluded

or omitted.

>>

>> And like the concurrent Womens' Health Initiative, the SOTI-TROPOS trial was

stopped woefully too soon instead of letting it run for at least 10 years to see

the longterm benefit (if any). Worst of all, it did not test whether SrR adds

any benefit on a sensible baseline of all the proven supplements that we have

used for decades.

>>

>> As Winzenberg ea ask in a recent 2007 Australian review, Strontium ranelate

Does it affect the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis?

http://www.racgp.org.au/Content/NavigationMenu/Publications/AustralianFamilyPhys\

/2007issues/afp2007august/200708wizenberg.pdf

>> " Strontium ranelate did not cause gastritis, back pain or death, but more or

less doubled numerous adverse effects :

>> *50% more (ie six out of 100 women taking strontium ranelate) experienced

diarrhoea compared to four out of 100 taking placebo,

>> . The risk of vascular system disorders including venous thromboembolism (two

trials, n=6669, 2.2 vs. 1.5%, OR: 1.5, 95% CI: 1.1-2.1) , pulmonary embolism

(two trials, n=6669, 0.8 vs. 0.4%, OR: 1.7, 95% CI: 1.0-3.1) as well as nervous

system disorders such as headache (3.9 vs. 2.9%), seizures (0.3 vs. 0.1%),

memory loss (2.4 vs. 1.9%) and disturbance in consciousness (2.5 vs. 2.0%) is

slightly increased with taking 2 g of SrR daily over 3-4 years

>> . There were no RCTs identified which compared SrR to other treatments of

postmenopausal osteoporosis. "

>>

>> It is common cause that the chief risk factor for fracture is not bone

density but frailty, falls; and that the only microsupplements that strengthen

muscle are apparently androgen, zinc, calcium and magnesium and the vitamins D

and B6, 9 and 12. There is no absolute contraindication to appropriate long

term human androgen plus estrogen replacement .

>>

>> Now Fuchs ea show that " Strontium ranelate does not stimulate bone formation

in ovariectomized rats " ..

http://www.galenicom.com/pt/medline/article/18385919/Strontium+ranelate+does+not\

+stimulate+bone+formation+in+ovariectomized+rats./ - sex hormones are necessary

for strontium to benefit bones.

>>

>> With the old fashioned calmag, zinc, boron, fluoride vitamins A-E, and

parenteral androgen plus estrogen, we have seen bone density rise by 1%pa and

hip density by 1/2% pa over 15years from age 52 in a frail woman with severe

rheumatoid arthritis, despite management with corticosteroid and other remittive

drugs, and repeated surgeries to replace destroyed joints. She has never

sustained an osteoporotic fracture.

>>

>> So what is the indication to add the long-term (ie >10year) unproven

strontium to proven effective supplements?

>>

>> Strontium ranelate may work in the medium term (3 to 5 years) but there is

still apparently no more justification for using strontium routinely for

preventing/ treating ageing osteoporosis than there is for biphosphonates or

calcitonin. Considering it's cost including risks, it may be asked if it is

ethical to recommed strontium at more than trace levels?

>> Refs at http://healthspanlife.wordpress.com/