lupron osteoporosis

Lupron, Estradiol, and the Mitochondria: A Pathway to Adverse Reactions

Published on
24427 views
Lupron mitochondria

Leuprolide, more commonly known as Lupron, is the GnRH agonist prescribed for endometriosis, uterine fibroids, cysts, undiagnosed pelvic pain, precocious puberty, during infertility treatments, to treat some cancers, and a host of other off-label uses. It induces a chemical castration in both women and men. In women, Lupron stops menstruation and ovulation and crashes endogenous estradiol synthesis rapidly and completely, inducing menopause and menopause-associated symptoms like hot flashes, sweats and osteoporosis, to name but a few. In men, where it is used as a treatment for prostate cancer, it prevents the synthesis of testosterone, pharmacologically castrating its users and evoking a similar constellation of symptoms.

Lupron for Endometriosis: Questionable Research

Lupron’s widespread use for pain-related, female reproductive disorders, such as endometriosis or fibroids is not well supported, with little research indicating its efficacy in reducing pain and no research delineating its effects on disease progression. Conversely, evidence of safety issues have long been recognized, especially within the patient communities where reports of chronic and life-altering side effects are common. We have many case reports on our site alone. Although, class-action and marketing lawsuits have arisen, Lupron continues to be mis-prescribed regularly to diagnose or treat pelvic pain disorders like endometriosis, generating over $700 million in revenue in 2010 and 2011 for the manufacturers and an array of serious and chronic health issue for its recipients.

The reported side effects of Lupron are staggering both in the breadth of physiological systems affected and the depth of symptom severity experienced (a partial list). Indeed, everything from the brain and nervous system to the musculature, skeletal, gastrointestinal and cardiac systems are affected by Lupron, sometimes irreversibly. This is in addition to  thyroid, gallbladder and pancreatic side effects. How can one drug evoke so many seemingly disparate side effects? Is it possible that the magic of chemical castration is not as safe as we were led to believe; and that hormones regulate a myriad of functions beyond reproduction? It is.

Beyond Reproduction and Reproductive Disease

A major fallacy in medical science, and indeed medical research, is the total compartmentalization of physiological systems and by association an insoluble marriage of hormones to their respective reproductive organs, functions, and gender. Lupron, and drugs like it, were developed based upon this fallacy; that somehow suppressing estradiol and the other endogenous estrogens would affect solely the reproductive system. If only human physiology were that simple.

Hormones, even those inappropriately designated sex hormones, like estradiol and testosterone, regulate all manner of physiological adaptations in every tissue and organ in the body and they do so in conjunction with other hormones and by decidedly non-linear trajectories. That is, the dose-response functions are curvilinear where both too little and too much of a particular hormone can evoke serious negative consequences in body systems totally unrelated to reproduction. Chemical and surgical castration would fall into the ‘too little’ category.

Hormone Receptors are Ubiquitous

Hormones mediate these reactions via hormone receptors. Estrogen and androgen receptors are located throughout the brain and the nervous system, on the heart, in GI system, in fat cells, in immune cells, in muscle, the pancreas, the gallbladder, the liver,  everywhere. When hormones bind to these receptors, whether they are membrane bound, nuclear, or other types, the hormone-receptor complex activates or deactivates what are called signal transduction pathways, essentially message lines. Those messaging lines tell the cell to do something. Too much or too little of any one type of hormone sends mixed messages, skewing cell behavior just slightly at first and when there are only small changes in hormone concentration, but with more chronic or more severe hormone changes, the signals become increasingly more deranged and the compensatory reactions, meant only for short term, become more exaggerated and self-perpetuating. This is where problems emerge. Even if estradiol or more appropriately, estrogens (there are many estrogens) feed endometriosis, tanking estradiol concentrations is dangerous and sets into motion complex reactions that we are only now beginning to understand.

Hormones Influence Everything

Since the hormones and receptors are broadly located throughout the body, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that if we kill off one or more hormones completely, as Lupron does with estradiol, there are going to be negative effects globally, and they are likely to be pretty serious. So, even a surface level evaluation of the safety of drug like Lupron, would suggest a strong possibility of negative outcomes in regions of the body not associated with reproductive function. And with just a little bit of endocrinology under one’s belt, it should be clear that negative outcomes would compound over time, as additional reactions meant to compensate for short term changes in hormone concentrations, become increasingly entrenched and self-perpetuating, and in many cases, increasingly damaging to the health of the cells – but it isn’t. Despite the range of serious side effects, Lupron is a commonly and cavalierly prescribed drug and newer versions of Lupron like drugs are expected to take the market by storm.

Estradiol Is Critical to Human Health

While the pharmacological mechanism of action for Lupron and drugs like it is clear, they override pituitary control of the tropic hormones that signal the ovaries or testes to synthesize new hormones, how these drugs induce the array of side effects, many of them long term and even permanent, has not been explored as seriously as it should be. Certainly, one can hypothesize the effects of estradiol elimination on different systems based upon receptor distribution within each tissue and the signaling pathways therewith, but the effects are diverse and sometimes contradictory or highly tissue specific. One has to wonder if there might be a final common pathway by which the elimination of estradiol could disrupt multiple physiological systems in a predictably discriminate manner. Indeed, there might be.

Estradiol Regulates Mitochondrial Function: Mitochondria Regulate Everything Else

If you’ve read any of our articles over the last year, you’re aware that we have become increasingly interested in mitochondria, particularly how drugs and nutrients or nutrient deficiencies, impact mitochondrial functioning. Mitochondria take nutrients from food we eat and convert them to the biochemical energy required to power cellular life – ATP. Without appropriate cellular energy all sorts of things go wrong. Energy is fundamental to life and so functioning ATP pathways are critical for cellular and organismal health (and so is proper nutrition!). A number of disease states emerge when the mitochondria are damaged or inefficient at producing ATP, from chronic fatigue, muscle wasting and autonomic system dysregulation to name but a few. Estradiol, and likely other hormones, (most of the research focuses on estradiol), influences mitochondrial functioning and the production of ATP via a number of mechanisms.

Estradiol Is Needed for the Production of ATP

Though not a component of what is called the citric acid or TCA cycle or the electron transport chain (also called the mitochondrial respiratory chain), estradiol appears to be intimately involved in up – and down-regulating the enzymes and other proteins within those energy production cycles. Estradiol directly and indirectly modifies the types fuel used to produce ATP (glucose, fatty acids or proteins) and impacts the efficiency and flexibility with which ATP is produced. Essentially, estradiol impacts the substrate inputs and keeps the cogs in electron transport chain cycles moving. When estradiol is eliminated, fuel sources shift (by tissue) and those cogs, called complexes, begin to slow, become less efficient and send off more damage signals (reactive oxygen species – ROS) than can be effectively cleaned up. Since functioning mitochondria and sufficient ATP are required for cellular health in all cells, where energy demands are greatest, symptoms emerge: the brain and nervous system, the  heart, the GI system, muscles, and bone formation/turnover.

In the brain, we see serious cognitive deficits and derangement of mood and perception with damaged mitochondria relative to estradiol elimination. We also see autonomic instability that impacts mood (flipping between depression and anxiety) but also heart rhythm and balance.

In the heart, the estradiol directly impacts mitochondrial fuel preferences and availability by regulating cardiac glucose and fatty acid metabolism. Without estradiol, the machinery within the mitochondria are not as flexible in their ability to switch between glucose, fat or proteins for precursor fuels to make ATP. The lack of flexibility, particularly during other physiological stressors, leads to impaired cardiac functioning and increased inflammation in affected tissues.

Bone formation is particularly hard hit as estradiol is required bone growth, maturation and turnover. Estradiol deficiency leads to increased osteoclast formation and enhanced bone resorption – destruction of bone or osteoporosis. Proper bone formation is also highly dependent upon vitamin D concentrations. Vitamin D deficiency leads to bone loss. Vitamin D activates estradiol synthesis, while estradiol activates vitamin D receptors. Lupron tanks estradiol and by association vitamin D, a double hit to bone health. At the level of the mitochondria, the third hit, reduced ATP, further damages bone health.

Estradiol is an Antioxidant

Antioxidants scavenge ROS. Antioxidants are needed to keep ROS concentrations at bay as too much ROS, though a natural byproduct of ATP production, will damage the mitochondria and initiate a damaging, self-perpetuating cycle. The body has a number of anti-oxidants to temper ROS. Many nutrients are included in this category: Vitamins C and E, CoEnzyme Q10 and glutathione are among the most well known. It turns out that estradiol and progesterone are potent anti-oxidants as well. So chemically or surgically eliminating estradiol reduces the body’s ability to detoxify and eliminate damaging ROS, evoking further mitochondrial damage.

Estradiol Modulates Mitochondrial Hormone Synthesis

That’s right, the mitochondrial estrogen receptors impact what is called steroidogenesis – steroid hormone synthesis – for multiple hormones, not just those pesky ‘female’ hormones. Like a thermostat that turns on or off when the temperature changes, mitochondrial estrogen (and other hormone) receptors sense hormone changes and up or downregulate the synthesis of pregnenolone (and the use of cholesterol to make pregnenolone). Pregnenolone is the precursor for all steroid hormones. So when Lupron or ovariectomy tank estradiol, not only is the synthesis of estrogens affected, but so too is the synthesis of other steroid hormones.

Estradiol Tempers Mitochondrial Ca2+ Homeostasis

Ca2+ balance is a complicated topic, a bit beyond the scope of this paper but is an important function modified by mitochondrial estrogen receptors. Ca2+ influx into cells is excitatory and turns on the cellular machinery. As one might expect, too much or too little Ca2+ activity could be damaging. Too much Ca2+ is cytotoxic or neurotoxic (if in the brain), killing the cells. The mitochondria are largely responsible for controlling the influx of Ca2+, sequestering Ca2+ when there is too much in order to save the cells. So when mitochondria become damaged or inefficient by any mechanism, Ca2+ homeostasis becomes an issue and cell death, tissue and organ damage become very real outcomes. Estradiol influences the mitochondria’s ability to sequester and temper Ca2+, so that the cells don’t become too turned on or over-active and die. (This is an interesting mechanism because estradiol itself is an excitatory hormone, increasing the activity of the cell when bound to the cell membrane or nuclear receptors but when bound to receptors on the mitochondria, estradiol tempers that excitation.)

Estradiol Regulates Immune Function

Estradiol bound to the estrogen receptors on immune and other cells activate and deactivate a number of signal transduction pathways that turn on/off inflammation and other immune responses. The mitochondria also regulate immune function via ROS signalling. Depletion of estradiol, particularly at the mitochondrial level, guarantees disrupted immune function and hyper inflammation by way of mitochondrial structural damage, derangement in function, and the loss of estradiol mediated anti-oxidant abilities. So by multiple mechanisms Lupron, drugs like it, and ovariectomy, damage mitochondria and initiate cascades of ill health.

Lupron, Maybe Not Such a Good Idea

Estradiol bound to mitochondrial receptors, controls a whole host of functions in the mitochondria, which then control cellular health throughout the brain and body. Without estradiol, the mitochondria become misshapen and dysfunctional and eventually die a messy death (necrosis), but not before inducing mutations in next generation mitochondria (mitochondrial life cycles include the regular birth of new mitochondria and the necessary death of old and damaged mitochondria). As the damage and mutations build and the ratio of healthy to damaged mitochondria shifts, cell death, tissue/organ damage and disease develop. Lupron, other drugs that tank estradiol, and ovariectomy, initiate mitochondrial damage. The mitochondrial damage represents a possible final common pathway by which Lupron induces the myriad of side-effects and adverse reactions associated with this drug.

A question that remains, is whether this damage can be offset by supporting mitochondrial machinery by other mechanisms. This is particularly important since millions of women have been exposed to Lupron and/or have had their ovaries removed. Other hormones and a myriad of nutrient factors are necessary for the enzymes within the mitochondrial machinery to work properly. Could we offset the damage evoked by too little (or too much) hormone by maximizing the efficiency of the other reactions. I think it is possible, at least theoretically and at least partially. That will be addressed in a subsequent post. For now, however, I think we ought to reconsider the use Lupron, other GnRH agonists, antagonists and the surgical removal of women’s ovaries. The damage evoked by eliminating estradiol is likely far greater than any potential benefit in an ill-understood disease process like endometriosis.

We Need Your Help

More people than ever are reading Hormones Matter, a testament to the need for independent voices in health and medicine. We are not funded and accept limited advertising. Unlike many health sites, we don’t force you to purchase a subscription. We believe health information should be open to all. If you read Hormones Matter, like it, please help support it. Contribute now.

Yes, I would like to support Hormones Matter. 

Photo by Mufid Majnun on Unsplash.

This article was first published on January 16, 2015. 

Related posts:

Lupron mitochondrial damageTank Estradiol and Lose Metabolic Flexibility: Pitfalls of Lupron and Oophorectomy lupron liesThey Say Lupron Is Safe Lupron precocious pubertyLupron for Precocious Puberty and Beyond: Two Decades of Regulatory Silence pregnancy toesPregnancy Toes – What Sugar Does to Feet

You might be interested in

They Say Lupron Is Safe

Published on
20228 views
lupron lies

In addition to the adverse event of dizziness reported during and post Lupron use, just reading and trying to understand Lupron’s literature can also be dizzying. So much of the research and information about this drug is utterly baffling; some circumstances have been manipulated by slick design, with information hidden or suppressed, other Lupron information can be readily disproved by known facts, and all this is admixed with conflicts of interest. In the process, decades of victims have accumulated and are without any real medical or legal advocacy. All the while, the powers that be have essentially appeared inert.

The contradictions found within Lupron documentation are indeed baffling and Lupron’s history is littered with instances of nefarious machinations. In prior installments of this series, the conflicting information about Lupron’s metabolism has been explored (part 4), as well as addressing the fact that Lupron is categorized as a hazardous, Pregnancy Category X drug (meaning it should be avoided by any woman who is or who may become pregnant), yet Lupron is prescribed to women in IVF, egg donation and surrogacy (part 3).  Since there are numerous other examples of puzzling – just plain wacky (inexplicable and unacceptable) – ‘circumstances’ surrounding Lupron, this final installment will look at a number of these head-scratchers, as well as reviewing some of the more notorious slick maneuvers associated with Lupron. (The other installments in this series were Part 1, Part 2, and Part 5.)

Why has Lupron’s manufacturer made statements that can be proven inaccurate?

Oral Lupron:  No — Yes — Maybe so?

Lupron’s labels and the literature ubiquitously proclaim that Lupron “is not active when given orally” – yet early investigation shows information to the contrary. None other than Andrew Schally, who is responsible for the isolation of the GnRH molecule (allowing the subsequent manufacturing of its analogs), and who won the 1977 Nobel Prize in Medicine for doing so, co-authored a 1975 article on the oral administration of Lupron. Thirteen healthy men were given Lupron (known only chemically, at the time, as “D-Leu-6 des-Gly-NH2-10”) by mouth, and within 45 minutes “the analogue had produced a statistically significant increase in mean plasma LH concentration”, and “the times of maximum LH activity noted … by mouth were not much different from those observed after parenteral injection”.

While the majority of men in this study did not have raised FSH concentrations, the remaining subjects had a significantly different mean change in plasma FSH concentrations “24 hours after the oral dose”. The article notes that “[a]lthough [Lupron] seemed to have little effect on FSH release, the interpretation depends upon how the results are expressed.” Discussion of Lupron’s parenteral effects decades later noted “the lack of long-term suppression of FSH observed in some patients” (American Hospital Formulary Service, Drug Information, 1994; p. 644). So it would appear that both oral and parenteral routes of Lupron have induced similar LH and FSH responses.

Andrew Schally stated 42 years ago that “oral administration [of Lupron] can now be added to the previously established effective methods [of intravenous, subcutaneous, and intramuscular administration].” Yet Lupron’s labels continue to state that it is “not active when given orally”.

Lupron Induces Menopause – NOT

In Lupron brochures for its use in endometriosis, the manufacturer states: “GnRH … acts on the pituitary to stimulate two other hormones, LH and FSH. … When LUPRON DEPOT is administered monthly, production of these hormones is reduced to the very low levels found after menopause” (emphasis mine). Yet, any medical textbook describes menopause as “FSH and LH (mainly FSH) are produced thereafter in large and continuous quantities” (emphasis mine) (‘Textbook of Medical Physiology’, A.C. Guyton.  1981.  6th Edition.  W.B Saunders Co. Philadelphia; p. 1016).

And most astoundingly, the hormonal profile of a menopausal woman – increased FSH/LH, decreased estrogen (“hypergonadotropic hypogonadism”) does not match the hormonal profile of a woman on Lupron – decreased FSH/LH, decreased {sometimes} estrogen (“hypogonadotropic hypogonadism”).  (See ‘Chart 1″ on page 2 here.)  Yet women are repeatedly told Lupron will put them into a temporary “menopause”.

Endometriosis Clinical Trials’ Data versus Claim in Lupron’s Label

Lupron’s female labels state the drug’s hypoestrogenic effect “is reversible on discontinuation of therapy”. However, an independent analysis of the endometriosis clinical trials’ raw data conducted during a product liability litigation revealed “62.5% of study subjects had failed to return to baseline ovarian function one year after stopping Lupron.” (Issue discussed in further detail below.)

Lupron-induced Impotence 

Initial 1980s clinical trials for FDA approval of Lupron for use in palliative treatment of prostate cancer found that 2 out of 98 subjects experienced the adverse event of impotence. More than a decade later, it was reported that Lupron “strongly suppresses erectile function and sexual activity” and “sexual desire, sexual interest and sexual intercourse were totally annulled.”  Large scale studies have revealed “80%” of subjects using GnRHas reported being impotent, and a “267% increase in impotence was observed after one year of treatment”

A decrease in sex drive (reported by both sexes) and impotence are such well-known, expected, adverse effects of Lupron that the drug has for some time been used (court ordered at times) as ‘treatment’ for sex offenders (see here, here, and here).

It should be found curious that what has become accepted as a near-universal adverse event to Lupron (impotence) was claimed, in the initial clinical trials, to affect a mere “2 out of 98” subjects.

Infamous Fraudulent Marketing Schemes and Unlawful Off-label Promotion of Lupron

There is quite a history of Lupron being unlawfully promoted for off-label indications, including the company receiving “Notices of Adverse Findings” from the FDA about the company’s Lupron symposiums (deemed ‘indoctrinations‘ by the FDA).

In 2001, Lupron’s manufacturer paid $875 million, the then-highest criminal and civil fine in U.S. history, for its fraudulent marketing scheme to promote sales of Lupron, involving violations of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729.  The landmark case highlighted the company’s monetary incentive schemes to physicians to boost Lupron sales. Internal confidential company memos detailed how urologists could earn $105,011.40 annually by prescribing Lupron to just 65 patients.  The U.S. government’s investigation revealed that the company provided many sales incentives, such as products, cash prizes, and trips, including a vacation referred to as the “Excalibur” – and the “Excalibur party was awarded annually to the top 30% of the [] sales force. …  At times in the 1990s, the annual budget for the Excalibur party exceeded $4,000,000” (see page 9 here).

More recent ideation can be gleaned from anonymous postings in a pharmaceutical ‘sales rep chat room’;  i.e., a few noteworthy 2010 posts state: “ABBOTT PAYS MILLIONS UNDER THE TABLE SO DOCS USE LUPRON” (emphasis in original) (posted 3/27/10 @ 7:45 PM);  and “the docs know who has buttered their bread, and we [Abbott] got very deep pockets” (posted 3/27/10 @ 9:41 AM)

Why was the preservative in daily Lupron given only to humans, and not given to the “study rats”?

The daily formulation of Lupron is prescribed to both the pediatric and adult population, and was the very first FDA approval Lupron received, in 1985.  This initial, approved formulation contains the preservative “benzyl alcohol”.  But curiously, the animal toxicology studies required for Lupron’s initial FDA approval were not done using Lupron and benzyl alcohol, but were done using Lupron and “normal saline” (NDA 19-010).  Shouldn’t these animal toxicology studies reflect the exact injection intended for humans?

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) lists pages of toxicity data for benzyl alcohol, while the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for benzyl alcohol identifies that there is “no information available” for numerous areas (such as teratogenicity, neurotoxicity, reproductive effects – See ‘Section 11’ here). Why were rats spared the exposure to benzyl alcohol in their Lupron injections, when humans were and are exposed to the benzyl alcohol day after day in their daily Lupron injections?

Funny Business with Bones

In this discussion, it is important to note that human bones contain 2 different types of bone – cortical (or compact) bone and trabecular (or cancellous or spongy) bone (see here and here).

While there are studies which claim no adverse effect of Lupron/GnRHas on the bones of treated children (i.e., here), other published reports on treated children note leuprolide/GnRHas “may have an adverse effect upon bone health“. As early as 1991, “a small but significant decrease in bone mass” was noted in a small Italian study using another GnRH analog (triptorelin) in children with precocious puberty. Another small Italian study in 1995 using leuprolide to treat precocious puberty found a “reduction of trabecular bone mass”. In a small Taiwanese follow-up study of girls treated with either leuprolide or triptorelin, “45% of patients had lumbar bone mineral density less than 1 SD below that of normal young Taipei adults”, evidencing “45% of patients had decreased bone accretion during therapy“. And recently a small study in Turkey using leuprolide in children concluded “GnRHas may have an adverse effect on bone health” perhaps via an impact upon vitamin D levels.

As early as 1991, in gynecological uses of GnRHas, evidence indicated that there was little or no change in cortical bone density, however “[t]he great majority of studies of trabecular bone show a significant reduction in bone mass in both spine and distal radius during 6 months of agonist therapy … between 5-10% of baseline”. Another early study in treatment of endometriosis found “bone loss induced by GnRH analogs may be associated with adverse effects on cancellous [trabecular] microstructure which are unlikely to be reversed following cessation of therapy.”  (An increased rate of bone loss in men receiving Lupron and other GnRHas has also been reported, i.e. here.)

It is important to note that most of the bone mineral testing done using Lupron or other GnRHas in adults have been done using DEXA (Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry) or DPA (Dual-photon absorptiometry) scans; and there have been GnRHa studies using DEXA in precocious puberty bone mineral density assessments. Another study, using triptorelin in precocious puberty subjects, evaluated bone mineral density by assessment with DEXA and concluded that while bone mineral density was significantly lower at discontinuation of GnRHa, later DEXA scans showed values “not significantly different from controls.”  (But what would QCT [quantitated computerized tomography] scans have revealed?)

Bone density scans such as DEXA/DXA and DPA assess both cortical and trabecular bone – and studies using DEXA and DPA scans have revealed adverse effects from GnRHas  (i.e. bone mineral density “decreased significantly [6 months: -6.0%, 12 months: -8.0%]”).  However, QCT scans assess only trabecular bone and are most effective at detecting “the significant trabecular bone loss of the vertebrae and hip [associated] with GnRH agonists”.  (See also here.)

GnRHas appear to have “a significant negative impact on trabecular bone mass.  … Initial studies [in women] with dual-photon absorptiometry [DPA] were unable to detect any appreciable bone loss with GnRH agonists.  … Quantitated computerized tomography [QCT] always shows significant trabecular bone loss of the vertebrae and hip with GnRH agonists. Depot preparations appear to produce more marked loss than daily intranasal sprays.”  (emphasis mine).

Early investigations of leuprolide and buserelin’s effect upon cortical and trabecular bone mineral content in women with endometriosis identified that “[b]ecause QCT of the spine measures only the trabecular bone … any significant change affecting mainly the trabecular bone is more readily detected earlier by the QCT”, and “[b]ecause DPA measures both trabecular and cortical bone, a significant reduction in true trabecular bone mass actually may be diluted … thus giving a lack of significant change.”

In further illustration of this point, note that Lupron’s label for endometriosis from 1991 through 1996 stated “after 6 months the vertebral trabecular bone density as measured by QCT was decreased by an average of 13.5%”, however in 1996 Lupron’s endometriosis label was changed to read the “vertebral bone density as measured by DEXA was decreased by an average of 3.9%” (1991 – 1995 Physicians Desk Reference, Lupron Depot 3.75 mg).  By using data only from DEXA scans, the significant bone density loss previously detected by QCT was eliminated.  Current Lupron Depot 3.75 mg label states “vertebral bone density as measured by dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) decreased by an average of 3.2%”.   By continuing to use data only from DEXA scans, the “significant” bone density loss detectable by QCT is ensured to remain undetected.

In a 2000 study of bone markers and bone mineral density during growth hormone treatment in children with growth hormone deficiency, it was noted that future research should be carried out “by the direct measurement of bone density using quantitative computer tomography [QCT]. Mineralization is only one facet of bone strength, however; other important components (e.g. bone structure and geometry) should be addressed in future paediatric studies.”  (See also here.)  A PubMed literature search of ‘QCT bone pediatric GnRHa’ produced zero results for humans, but one result was found for a report on rats  (in which bone mineral density was “significantly decreased in GnRHa-treated rats” and concluded “a delay in the onset of sexual maturation may cause prolonged, possibly irreversible defect in bone mineralization”).

In a 1995 study, bone biopsies and microscopic analyses (histomorphometric analysis) were done on women treated with GnRHas and the “results suggest that bone loss induced by GnRH analogs may be associated with adverse effects on cancellous [trabecular] microstructure which are unlikely to be reversed following cessation of therapy.”  Microscopic scan photographs of a 28 year old woman treated with GnRHa for 6 months show “severe disruption of the cancellous microstructure in the post-treatment biopsy” – see photo on page 6 here.

It would appear that without a body of data specific for QCT results, appropriate conclusions cannot be reached about the effects of GnRHas upon the type of bone (trabecular) that is most impacted by GnRHas. All the above points to the need to assess Lupron/GnRHas effect upon trabecular bone through QCT scans – and it would seem that to do otherwise would hinder data collection.

Yet many Lupron studies and follow-up studies have been designed using non-QCT bone density scans, and often it is wrist (and not hip or vertebral) scans that are performed. A perverse analogy comes to mind, relating to the heinous act of sick individuals who hide dangerous items (i.e., needles, razor blades) into the center of Halloween candy – and the community safeguards that have been enacted to X-Ray the candy in order to assess and ensure safety (i.e., here and here): What if these community resources were not offering to X-Ray the candy but instead were offering to merely photograph the candy in attempts to ‘assess and ensure safety’?

Tricks in the Courtroom Yield Treats for Lupron’s Manufacturer

The only lawsuit to make it to trial (in 2011), the case of Karin Klein v. TAP, Abbott, stemmed from Karin’s prescription of Lupron Depot 3.75 mg in 2005 as a 17 year old for endometriosis – and resulted in the development of (among others) a thyroid disorder. Pre-2005 Lupron Depot 3.75 mg labels, and post-2005 Lupron Depot 3.75 mg labels (domestic and foreign), warned of thyroid adverse events, but the company removed this warning for the 2005 label – the year of Karin’s prescription.

At trial, Karin was prevented from presenting to the jury any pre-2005 or post-2005 Lupron Depot 3.75 mg labels acknowledging thyroid adverse events, and the trial judge only allowed the jury to consider the 2005 label which lacked the warning. Lupron manufacturer’s principal medical expert, Dr. Richard Blackwell, under oath falsely stated “the thyroid gland … There are no receptors for GnRH. So there is no basic key on the thyroid gland for Lupron. Therefore, it is absolutely biologically impossible for Lupron to affect the thyroid gland. No textbook, no article has ever supported that contention. It’s simply biologically impossible” (emphasis mine) – see page 20 here.

Of note, Dr. Richard Blackwell has a history of receiving monies to study Lupron in women – see ‘Birmingham Center’ in this ‘Multicenter Lupron Study Group’. Also note that the latter study’s lead investigator, Dr. Andrew Friedman, was found guilty of fabricating and falsifying approximately 80% of data in 4 Lupron studies.

When the Klein jury heard Lupron’s expert medical witness proclaim it was “biologically impossible” for Lupron to affect the thyroid gland, they could not possibly know this physician was committing perjury. (Perjury is a felony, and if convicted involves fines and/or imprisonment up to 5 years – see here and here). If only the jury had known that evidence of this misinformation was just a keyboard away – a simple PubMed search (up to, and including, 2005) reveals the following published medical journal articles that evidence it is absolutely biologically possible for Lupron to affect the thyroid gland’:

“The first report to demonstrate the association of thyroid disorder with leuprolide [Lupron] injections” (2000), “Possible induction of Grave’s disease & painless thyroiditis by GnRHa’s” (2003), “The role of leuprolide acetate therapy in triggering auto-immune thyroiditis” (2005).

Serving as an “expert”, this is information that must certainly have been known, yet as a ‘hired gun’ for the drug company, the existence of this information was emphatically denied – leading the jury to believe it was impossible for Lupron to cause Karin’s thyroid disorder, and resulted in the jury finding in favor of the drug company. And thus the queue of Lupron litigation that was forming in anticipation of a Klein victory suddenly evaporated in the face of unmitigated, unethical, unlawful, unseemly, unchallenged ‘expert’ machinations.

To quote a ‘friend of the court’ brief filed on behalf of Klein by the organization “Consumer Attorneys of California”:

“[Klein was] entirely shackled in the evidence she was allowed to present. It is particularly galling to have qualified (and expensive) expert witnesses on hand to testify [on behalf of Klein], only for them to be shut down before the jury and precluded from offering competing expert opinions. The pattern shown by the record is deeply disturbing. Virtually every discovery and evidentiary ruling, and other orders of significance, went for one party [Lupron’s manufacturer]. Klein was not entitled to a perfect trial, but at least an evenhanded one. Such a one-sided proceeding was not the fair trial our system demands” (emphasis mine) – see page 6 here.

Klein ultimately petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court which refused to hear the case – great news for Lupron’s manufacturer, terrible news for young, disabled Klein, and chilling repercussions for society at large and Lupron victims in particular. Apparently, perjury under oath by paid medical experts, grossly misleading a jury, and the denial of a right to fair trial are issues deemed not significant by the U.S. Supreme Court.  For further information on the Klein matter, see here, here and here.

Obscuring the Drug’s Hazardous Status

Lupron is categorized by the FDA as a “Pregnancy Category X drug” (page 20, “leuprolide” – meaning any woman who is or who may become pregnant should avoid exposure), yet it became a staple of ovulation induction medication regimens in infertility, egg donation, and surrogacy. Lupron’s labels do state there is “a potential hazard to a fetus” (and oddly the most wording is found within the male Lupron Depot label). Lupron is classified by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) as a “hazardous drug” (page 20, “leuprolide”), however nowhere in any of Lupron’s labels is there identification that Lupron is classified as a “hazardous drug” (i.e., pediatric, female, male);  nor does the label advise that as a result of this classification by NIOSH, special requirements apply for the handling, preparation, and administration of “hazardous drugs” (see here and here).

Around 2008, curious changes took place within Lupron labels (multiple indications) whereby it appears that cleverly, as if hiding evidence in plain sight, the “References” section of the labels now contained 4 citations – yet there are no corresponding footnotes within the label’s text for any one of these 4 citations. These 4 new “References” are as follows: (#1) NIOSH Alert, Preventing occupational exposures to antineoplastic and other hazardous drugs in healthcare settings; 2004. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, NIOSH Publication No. 2004-165;  (#2) 1999 OSHA Technical Manual on Hazardous Drugs; (#3) 2006 ASHP guidelines on hazardous drugs; and (#4) 2005 Oncology Nursing guidelines on hazardous drugs (see pages 6, 14, 25, 36, and 47). Again, most curiously, not one of these 4 citations/”References” — or the information the citation source contains — were referred to, mentioned, identified, or discussed, at all, within the Lupron labels.

And presently, revised labels no longer contain the 4 citations mentioned above (see pediatric, female, male); and the labels continue to omit any identification of Lupron as a “hazardous drug”.

Measures Undertaken to Silence Critics

The Cardiac Stent Internal Memo

When Lupron’s manufacturer was under investigation for potential fraud related to its cardiac stents, numerous critical articles were written by a Baltimore Sun news columnist – and the drug company apparently targeted this columnist. As reported in a 2010 Senate Committee on Finance (examining a “clear example of potential fraud, waste and abuse”), “one Abbott official suggested that local connections or the “Philly mob” should intervene to silence Baltimore Sun columnist Jay Hancock for his coverage of the scandal, saying “someone needs to take this writer outside and kick his ass!”

Not a ‘seal of approval’ – the Hidden Lupron Endometriosis Clinical Trials’ Data

To the best of my knowledge, no one other than Dr. Redwine has independently analyzed the thousands of pages of raw data from the 1980s clinical trials for Lupron’s initial use in adult females (Lupron Depot 3.75 mg, for endometriosis). The conclusion from this independent analysis was that fraudulent data and misleading outcomes were found within these trials’ raw data. In one example, the raw data showed that “62.5%” of subjects had failed to return to baseline ovarian function one year after stop of study – yet Lupron’s label states Lupron’s hypoestrogenic effect “is reversible on discontinuation of drug therapy.” (For further information, see Part 3 of this series; the FDA’s response to Dr. Redwine’s request for an investigation into this serious matter; and here.)

It certainty appears that Lupron’s manufacturer intends to keep this raw data hidden from public view. Years ago the company sought and obtained a court-ordered seal on the raw data from these endometriosis clinical trials (see page 6 here), ensuring that this data will remain concealed from the public and any inquiring eyes.

Several years ago, when my assistance was sought by a Lupron victim whose attorney had retired in the middle of her case, the opportunity was used to file a motion to request the Court remove this seal (see “Reply Motion … and a Request that Court Seal on Defendants’ Clinical Trial Data Be Lifted”, Document # 135, Case 1:11-cv-04860, filed 2-20-14,  Paulsen v. Abbott, Takeda, TAP, US District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division). No response from the Court was ever forthcoming from this request to unseal the raw data. The Paulsen case remains pending (see also here). A request to Lupron’s manufacturer to lift their seal also was unsuccessful (personal correspondence, 2015).

Suppression of Lupron’s Risks in Physician Continuing Medical Education

Renowned endometriosis surgeon Dr. Redwine became an outspoken critic of the use of Lupron in gynecology, and his opinion was reinforced by more than 700 women in his surgical practice who relayed harm from prior Lupron exposure. Dr. Redwine had most honorably refused the Lupron sales representative’s offer of $100,000 if he would prescribe Lupron to his patients. In 1994, Dr. Redwine wrote a ‘letter to editor’ in a fertility journal stating

“Inclusion of patients with a poor response to GnRHa therapy has not always occurred in outcome analysis in the published medical literature” (Letters:  Pros and Cons of “Add-Back” Therapy. 1994. Fertility and Sterility, 61:2:404).

According to Dr. Redwine’s expert medical testimony in the Klein case (in which he describes Lupron as being “unsafe and harmful in addition to being ineffective”), the following incident from the 1990s is described: Dr. Redwine was scheduled to be a speaker at a continuing medical education forum but was prevented from doing so by Lupron’s manufacturer because of his opposition to the use of Lupron. The drug manufacturer “interfered in the continuing medical education of physicians in order to enhance the sales of Lupron Depot” (see other excerpts of Dr. Redwine’s testimony here).

Peculiar Omission of Lupron/GnRHa Data in Studies of Health Disorders in Women With Endometriosis

Bone Density Loss

In 1989, a leading Lupron/GnRHa investigator in precocious puberty and gynecology concluded in a study that reduced bone mass (“significantly decreased cortical and trabecular bone mass”) was associated with the disease endometriosis. However, another study which found contrasting findings reported that “women with endometriosis do not have reduced bone density … One explanation for the difference between the results of this study and those of Comite et al. is that they included women who previously had been treated with GnRH agonists and these agonists are associated with bone loss.” (For further elaboration on these studies, see here.)

In my opinion, claims that the disease of endometriosis is associated with bone density loss, while appearing to deliberately omit the endometriosis patients’ common history of prior use of Lupron (which is known to causes bone density loss), is a treacherous concept and a slick maneuver — seeming to shield and manipulate iatrogenic, adverse drug effects into an ‘endometriosis-disease-related’ (and non-tort) phenomenon. This is something that deserves attention.

Autoimmune and Endocrine Disorders, Fibromyalgia, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Atopic Diseases

A 2002 publication (“High rates of autoimmune and endocrine disorders, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome and atopic diseases among women with endometriosis: a survey analysis”) also failed to make any mention of Lupron or other GnRHas as treatment for endometriosis. This survey analysis, co-authored by the President of the Endometriosis Association (which has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from Lupron and other GnRHa manufacturers) also failed to identify the reported adverse events to Lupron (the most commonly prescribed medical therapy for endometriosis) – which have included autoimmune and endocrine disorders, fibromyalgia-like syndrome, chronic fatigue syndrome, and atopic diseases.

Yet, the survey upon which this analysis drew its conclusion does contain reference to Lupron/GnRHa use in the survey participants. In fact, of the 4000 surveys tabulated, 59% of survey respondents reported a history of Lupron/GnRHa use (‘Key Results from North American Membership Survey’, Endometriosis Association, 1998.  Presented at VI World Congress on Endometriosis). Given that the majority of the endometriosis respondents reported a history of Lupron/GnRHa use, how could this fact and highly significant confounding factor be ignored?

In my opinion, claims that the disease of endometriosis is associated with autoimmune and endocrine disorders, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome and atopic diseases, while appearing to deliberately omit the endometriosis patients’ common history of prior use of Lupron (which is known to cause autoimmune and endocrine disorders, fibromyalgia-like symptoms, chronic fatigue syndrome and atopic diseases), is a treacherous concept and a slick maneuver — seeming to shield and manipulate iatrogenic, adverse drug effects into an ‘endometriosis-disease-related’ (and non-tort) phenomenon.  This is something that deserves attention.

Coronary Heart Disease

Upon initial FDA approval for men in 1985, Lupron was alleged to have ‘insignificant cardiac adverse events’. (For further details on cardiac adverse events provided to and withheld from FDA by the manufacturer prior to approval, see page 4 here.) Subsequently, Lupron became the most prescribed GnRH analog. Decades later, a large study would show that the use of Lupron (and other GnRH analogs) for androgen deprivation therapy in management of prostate cancer was associated with a “10 – 50% increase” in the risks of coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction and sudden cardiac death (as well as fractures, strokes, and diabetes).

As a result of this and similar studies, the FDA issued a warning in 2010 concerning an increased risk of developing cardiovascular problems in men prescribed Lupron/GnRHas. The FDA acknowledged that there are no studies evaluating the cardiovascular risks of Lupron/GnRHas in children or women.  (To the best of my knowledge, there remains today no studies looking at Lupron/GnRHas cardiovascular risks in pediatric or female use; however there is presently an FDA “specific review” of nervous system and psychiatric events in children, and the NIH is in the midst of a study of long-term outcomes in transgender youth’s use of Lupron/GnRHas, evaluating “physiological and psychosocial impact, as well as safety”.)

In 2016, a cardiology journal published a study based on survey responses from the large-scale ‘Nurses’ Health Study II’ database, and this study associated endometriosis with an increased risk of coronary heart disease. Can you guess which drug was not queried in this ‘Nurses’ Health Study II’ survey? This survey sought information on the woman’s use of alcohol, cigarettes, post-menopausal hormones, oral contraceptives, multivitamins, analgesics (including acetaminophen, aspirin, ibuprofen, indometacin, naproxen, nabumetone, ketoprofen, celecoxib, rofecoxib, and valdecoxib), but omitted any questions about the woman’s exposure to the most frequently prescribed treatment for endometriosis – Lupron/GnRHas.

My response to this inexcusable omission of Lupron/GnRHa exposure data was published in the journal – see “Article’s conclusions seriously flawed without data on Lupron/GnRHa use”.  The authors of the study responded with inaccurate information on Lupron (see May 11, 2016 response), prompting me to submit a reply addressing this incorrect information. The journal failed to publish this corrective information, therefore I’ve published my reply on my own website.

In my opinion, claims that the disease of endometriosis is associated with coronary heart disease, while appearing to deliberately omit the endometriosis patients’ common history of  prior use of Lupron (which is known to cause numerous cardiovascular adverse effects in women – see ‘Cardiovascular Effects’, Left column here; and here), is a treacherous concept and a slick maneuver — seeming to shield and manipulate iatrogenic, adverse drug effects into an ‘endometriosis-disease-related’ (and non-tort) phenomenon. This trend is very troubling, and is something that deserves significant attention and investigation.

Conclusions

The above information, as well as information found within this series, the Kaiser Report, and other media sources (see here) should be more than sufficient indication that numerous investigations into the effects of Lupron (and all GnRHas) are warranted.

That there are large numbers of Lupron victims cannot be disputed – one need only have computer access to verify this sad fact. (For links to a large sampling of Lupron reviews, stories, posts and comments in various medication and legal websites, see here.) The petitions to Congress requesting an investigation into Lupron appear to have fallen on deaf ears; one petition started in 2009 states more than 21,000 messages have been sent to date. (Links to multiple petitions, in the U.S. and France, containing more Lupron horror stories, can be found here.)  There are more than ample numbers of Lupron victims complaining, the problem has been identified – what is needed is action.

Investigative reporters, the FDA, Congress, public health authorities, and the medical and legal community need to do their job and focus multiple spotlights on all the aspects of this drug, its effects, its associated harms, and the lack of medicolegal advocacy for its victims.

In my opinion, this drug should have been withdrawn from the market a long time ago – just how many more victims will it take?

Someone needs to be held responsible for all the suffering, and the ruined health, and careers, and lives of so many Lupron victims and their families. The devastation that Lupron has wrought ought to be criminal. People need to go to jail.

Or perhaps, they should just get a Lupron injection themselves.

Share your Story

If you have a Lupron story, please consider sharing it on Hormones Matter.

We Need Your Help

More people than ever are reading Hormones Matter, a testament to the need for independent voices in health and medicine. We are not funded and accept limited advertising. Unlike many health sites, we don’t force you to purchase a subscription. We believe health information should be open to all. If you read Hormones Matter, like it, please help support it. Contribute now.

Yes, I would like to support Hormones Matter. 

This article was published originally on May 31, 2017. 

Image by Peter Timmerhues from Pixabay.

Related posts:

Lupron precocious pubertyLupron for Precocious Puberty and Beyond: Two Decades of Regulatory Silence Lupron - follow the moneyThe Lupron Money Trail Lupron mitochondriaLupron, Estradiol, and the Mitochondria: A Pathway to Adverse Reactions Lupron for Precocious Puberty: Parents and Patients Speak Out

You might be interested in

Lupron Induced Osteoporosis?

Published on
9763 views
lupron osteoporosis

Women who suffer with endometriosis do not have many options for treatment. As a result, many women try Lupron because they are desperate to be pain and symptom free. I was one of these women. In 2011 and 2013, I tried Lupron for a total of three doses and wish I knew then what I know now.

In 2010, I was diagnosed with endometriosis laparoscopically. After that, I tried everything from many different types of birth controls and pain medications to depression medications that can also be used to treat pain. Nothing worked. My doctor at the time suggested Lupron to me and I was desperate. I felt like I had already put my life on hold long enough because of this disease and just wanted to be out of pain. However, now I feel like I am suffering the consequences and it didn’t even get rid of my pain.

In 2015, I was diagnosed with osteoporosis. Prior to this, I had never had a bone scan done, not even before being administered Lupron. In 2009, I was diagnosed with Vitamin D deficiency and have been taking a supplement ever since. Three months before being diagnosed with osteoporosis, I stress fractured my knee and was told at my age, it should not have happened. In 2014, I had a hysterectomy because of endometriosis; I couldn’t take the pain anymore and had disease on both ovaries.

Before this, I had never had bone problems or been told that I could. I blame Lupron and strongly believe using it as a treatment for endometriosis led to me having osteoporosis. At 27 years old, I am still trying to work with doctors to determine if there are any treatments I can do because people my age having osteoporosis is rare. Many medications women use for osteoporosis could negatively impact my bones even more because of my age. If I don’t use any treatment, I could suffer from even more fractures or bone breaks the older I get. Right now, my average T-score for my left hip is -3.6 and was -3.3 when I was first diagnosed. I have no idea when my bones became so brittle. In my case, I wish I would have never tried Lupron as now I know this is one of the many side effects of this terrible treatment for endometriosis and something I will have to deal with for the rest of my life.

There are not studies done on medications for osteoporosis in my age group because there are not enough people with the disease to study. The medications my current doctor wants me to try would be a daily injection I would give myself in the abdomen for two years. They are known to possibly cause osteosarcoma, a bone cancer. Based on my history, I don’t like my odds. At this time, I don’t know how I will try to treat osteoporosis. I am planning on looking into natural ways of treating the disease and see how that goes.

As a result from my knee injury two years ago, I had to have an arthroscopic surgery. My doctor repaired my torn meniscus and removed scar tissue. It is taking me longer to heal than I anticipated and I wonder if it is because I have osteoporosis.

If doctors use Lupron for patients, they should be required to give these patients bone scans before their first dose and do follow ups yearly. It is a known fact that Lupron should not be administered in more than 12 doses over a patient’s LIFETIME. I wonder why this is?

I hope my story helps someone make a decision that is best for their body and raise awareness about Lupron. I am not a doctor, nor do I claim to be, but I am a patient that continues to live with the outcomes of having endometriosis.

We Need Your Help

Hormones Matter needs funding now. Our research funding was cut recently and because of our commitment to independent health research and journalism unbiased by commercial interests we allow minimal advertising on the site. That means all funding must come from you, our readers. Don’t let Hormones Matter die.

Yes, I’d like to support Hormones Matter.

Related posts:

lupron injuryLupron: The Cycle of Negligence lupron and reproductive injuryLupron and Reproductive Injury

You might be interested in

A Life Journey to Wellness – With Chronic Pain and Fatigue

Published on
3891 views
Robyn Myers

Today much is made of being healthy, of the importance of health and wellness. I have always been “healthy” – I still am technically, even with my chronic pain and fatigue conditions. But through the years I have come to think of health as my Doctor does, as things like a healthy lifestyle with good food and regular exercise, a healthy weight, good blood pressure, normal lab work. I have those things. When I think of “wellness” I think more of my “well being” instead of whether or not I am feeling good at the moment – because for the past 15 years I have had pain and fatigue and other symptoms every single day. In fact, I haven’t had a day without joint pain since my second Lupron shot back in 2001 – but more on that below.

But I have had a few pain free hours, and with “skills and pills” (as my Chronic Pain psychologist used to say) I can get my pain and discomfort to fade into the background for a while most days. I have learned that I can feel good about feeling bad – well, or to at least be “okay” with it. I have also applied all my skills as a research scientist (in Ecosystem Ecology) to my own medical condition. This has given me a sense of power and control over the uncontrollable nature of the symptoms caused by my chronic conditions (I have several) – but all were eventually eclipsed  by the diagnosis as Chronic Fatigue Immune Dysfunction Syndrome (CFIDS – also known as ME/CFS/SEID etc…). Whether they are caused by hormonal, mitochondrial, nervous or immune system related problems (probably all of the above), does not really matter in my day-to-day management of my symptoms, since there currently are no treatments. I manage my symptoms by eating healthy, walking and doing yoga for exercise, making sure I get good sleep, and pacing my activity and rest.  I am able to be active at a slower, relaxed pace. I am working hard to be as “healthy” as I can be, treat my symptoms individually, and I try to focus on my wellness and well being. Our bodies are amazing things, and though I have felt for years than mine let me down, I have discovered that in reality it is a complex and amazing thing.  Even with genetic predispositions and chemical assaults, I am trying to support my body so that it has the best chance to heal itself, and I am getting better.

For those who want the details of my predisposing conditions and my healthy journey with endometriosis, Lupron and CFIDS, here is a more or less chronological account:

Pre-disposing Conditions

As a baby I often had allergies with earaches and fevers.  This was considered normal. When it is actually a sign the immune system is kicking into action for things in the environment that “should be” normal. For me they were an allergen.

In elementary school my knees and ankles hurt, and all my joints were “funny” – in that they bent back farther than everyone else’s, which was entertaining on the playground.  The Pediatrician said this was nothing to worry about and these were “just growing pains.” He suggested my parents have me take ice skating lessons to strengthen my ankles. In fact, 35 years later I was diagnosed with benign hypermobile joint syndrome, a condition which causes joint pain, inflammation and other symptoms.

We are Born with Endometriosis

At age 12, with my first menstrual cycle I had horrible cramping pain.  I was told “this is normal for some girls” and given a hot water bottle and told to take Midol®.  I knew this was not “normal” but no one could tell me why I felt this way when my girlfriends did not.  My mom understood and taught me coping skills so that the pain would not stop me from enjoying life.  Each month the pain worsened. I can recall my major life events in my teens and twenties by whether (or not) I was on my period and in terrible pain. By my mid-twenties I had to miss a day of school or work a month to manage the pain. I was prescribed Motrin® and birth control pills to manage my cycles. Over time pre-menstrual symptoms began, so I had pain and discomfort before and during my periods. It felt like I was just recovering from one cycle, and could enjoy  one pain-free week, and then PMS would begin the cycle all over again.  My doctors were sympathetic but really could not do much for me. They offered birth control to help control my cycles.  I started with low-dose pills, which would help for a while, but as pain and heavy bleeding would return they would move to a stronger pill.  In my late 20s a diagnostic laparoscopy confirmed I had endometriosis and fibroid tumors.  It explained all I had been experiencing since age 12.  I felt vindicated that I had been going through was NOT normal. But all they could do was recommend I go off birth control, so that my husband and I could try to have a baby as quickly as possible. I stopped taking birth control, knowing my abdominal pain would get worse, but we hoped to let nature take its course on the timing of a baby.

Odd Mono-like Viruses

During the 1980s, in my 20s, in college as an undergrad and after periods of high stress (such as finals), I had several multi-week episodes of fatigue, sore throat, swollen glands, flu-like symptoms.  I was always tested for Mono (which always came back negative) and was always told I “had a virus.”  I always bounced back from these, and went back to my worsening month-to-month endometriosis symptoms.

Hypothyroid Hormone Crash

I was in Graduate School in the 1990s, in my 30s, and having the time of my life doing research I loved and advancing my career.  However, after the high stress of prepping for and passing my PhD oral exams in 1994 I crashed, as “everyone does,” but this time I didn’t bounce back. I was beyond tired with a new the bone crushing fatigue (I attributed the many other vague symptoms to my endometriosis).  I guessed I might be anemic from my heavy bleeding during my periods, but my blood work showed a high TSH level, indicating, that at age 35, I was hypothyroid.

As most do, my doctor prescribed Synthroid® which restored about 80% energy, but my endometriosis was worsening with menstrual migraines and month long pain. One lesson I learned was not to assume that all my symptoms were related to my endometriosis, although the hypothyroidism had almost certainly made my endometriosis and infertility worse. By the end 1997, since I already had secured a good career position, so that when I filed my dissertation my inability to get pregnant and my endometriosis were my primary concerns.

Infertility Treatment Treats Endometriosis

When I was unable to conceive and wanted to get pregnant, I was referred to a Reproductive Endocrinologist. He did extensive testing, followed by extensive surgery to remove numerous marble sized fibroid tumors and patches of endometriosis (treatment that, at least in the 1990s, was not offered to me unless I wanted to have a baby). What followed was three years of infertility (IF) treatments, with  repeated cycles that included my doctor balancing my hormones, then giving me stimulating hormones to grow eggs, followed by interuterine insemination. I knew the IF  process would caused the endometriosis and fibroids to regrow, and two more laparoscopic surgeries were needed to remove them again, as well as scar tissue caused by the previous surgeries, to give me the best chance to conceive. We were not successful, but at least had no regrets for not having tried.

Lupron Treatment

However, I was left with worsening abdominal pain from endometriosis and fibroids stimulated by the fertility drugs, and very difficult choices to make regarding treatment.  I considered hysterectomy but I really wanted to avoid it because of my scar tissue issues, and because I wanted to keep my ovaries. I researched Lupron and knew there were risks.  What I didn’t know was that I had pre-disposing conditions that made it riskier for me and more likely I would have a bad reaction. We were more concerned about scar tissue causing lifelong abdominal pain if I had more surgery. Lupron seemed like the conservative choice to shut down the endometriosis and shrink the fibroids. I was told the treatment would be six monthly Lupron Depot injections. I insisted on, and my doctor agreed to, low dose hormone add-back therapy (estradiol and progesterone, prescribed separately) to minimize side effects.

With my first Lupron depot monthly injection (in Dec 2000), I had the expected mild menopausal side effects. The second injection the following month added severe joint pain in all paired joints to the hot flashes and other symptoms, but in addition, my abdominal pain went down!  I was told that the joint pain should go away after about 6 weeks, but unfortunately, it did not. By the end of Lupron treatment my abdominal pain was reduced by half (and was considered a success) but my Doctor recommended we stop treatment after 5 injections due to the joint pain. I was assured the joint pain should stop with the treatments. In fact, it has never gone away. Eventually, I was referred to a rheumatologist. I reported my negative experience with Lupron to the adverse drug events sections of the FDA.

Post Lupron Joint Pain

My doctor recommended that I take the birth control Depo Provera to try to maintain the “Lupron gains.”  This was mid 2001, and it worked for a while, before the abdominal pain and bleeding slowly returned, and then worsened.  During this time, I still thought the endometriosis, hormones and abdominal pain caused the fatigue, nausea, and unwellness I was experiencing. Between my primary care doctor and my rheumatologist, they were treating my individual symptoms and watching me become more symptomatic. By  2002 my joint and abdominal pain was so bad I was on 8 vicodin a day and high dose ibuprofin.

Chronic Pain Clinic – “Skills and Pills”

I was referred to a chronic pain clinic (CPC) to receive better prescription pain management and cognitive behavioral therapy which helped me to learn coping skills like mindfulness meditation, self-hypnosis, and other skills in order to “feel better about feeling bad.”  Thanks to the “Skills and Pills” of the two year Chronic Pain Clinic program, my pain was now  under better control. I was still working fulltime, but more and more days from home a few days a week now as the fatigue, brain fog, headaches, flu-like symptoms all worsened along with the ab pain.

Minimally Invasive LAVH-BSO

At this point, I am still thinking all the fatigue and other symptoms are primarily from endometriosis pain, and that Lupron triggered the arthtitis due to HMJS. My rheumatologist blamed the Lupron for triggering it all (still does). My primary care doctor, rheumatologist and Pain Doctor all witnessed my decline.  By the Fall of 2003, I was bleeding so badly I sought  a referral for a minimally invasive GYN for an LAVH-BSO. To manage the endo, it was agreed the ovaries had to go. He did a great job. I have only very mild discomfort around my bikini scar – otherwise no further ab pain at all. I went on Vivelle Dot patch immediately. Minimal menopause symptoms at age 44.

Diagnosed with CFIDS

The Joint pain continued and the rest of the ME/CFS symptoms intensified through 2004-2005…I was struggling to keep working 3/4 time with “reasonable accommodations”, getting sicker and taking FMLA because I was out of sick leave. I was working so hard trying to keep working. Finally, an endocrinologist in 2005 said I met all the criteria for CFIDS (and told me it was ridiculous to blame the Lupron…she was wrong). My pain was managable but not the fatigue. I took the Bruce Campbell course in managing ME/CFS and added “Pacing” to my list of skills. By late 2006, I was facing medical retirement after 22 years and by June 2007 I was out on Federal Disability Retirement at age 48.

Thanks to my Kaiser Doctor’s observing my decline and my own ability to write, I was awarded SSDI on first appeal in 2008. Technically it is for chronic pain but really it was the fatigue, flu-like symptoms and brain fog that kept me from working. And still today keeps me from being as active as I once was.

Living Well with CFIDS

These days I have to sleep 8-10 hours per night. I used to take daily 2 hour naps but since starting Armour Dessicated Thyroid with T3 (in 2013), I get by with horizontal rests, not daytime sleep most days now. I have a 1:3 activity to rest ratio – for each hour of activity, I need about 3 hours of rest. I consciously “rest before and recover after” extra activities not part of my daily routine (from laundry to a doctors appointment to dinner out).

I keep regular hours, and most days I am able to make meals, take a 30-60 minute walk and can manage one “extra activity” per day. I do a bit of volunteer work. I leave the house 3-4 days a week for 1-3 hrs without a setback, depending on what I do. I can grocery shop (with effort) but no longer shop for pleasure. Despite this careful pacing ANY infection, social event, life stressor, or simply too long duration of mental, emotional or physical activity can tip me over into Post Exertinal Nueroendocrine Exhaustion PENE. I have a 36-48 hour PENE/PEM response (the time from the over-exertion to the crash) with increased flu-like and CNS symptoms and usually must rest 3 times as long as whatever caused the crash took to do.  After a bout of flu or an abscessed tooth, I have had bad dysautonomia episodes that resolved over weeks or months to my “baseline” – my “new normal” since Lupron activated or switched on (or off) a gene or damaged my mitochondria and reset that baseline. For me, the Lupron was the turning point. It is a tough balancing act. But I have worked on pacing, keeping healthy and being as active as I can.

Ironically my husband of 30 years has Fibromyalgia and knows keeping active helps him.  So we support and encourage each other. He helps me be active and I remind him to pace and rest and we have a happy life, all things considered. He was able to retire at 55 so we are able to manage our conditions and enjoy life. We have a truck-camper RV and a small cabin-cruiser boat from before I got sick, both of which have allowed me to travel and do things at my own pace, with my own bed, bath and kitchen.  Whether we are visiting family or traveling the West, this kind of travel allows me to be as active as I can without causing crashes. We are both very grateful for all we have.

It seems there are many ways to end up with the same or similar body response and set of symptoms that is ME/CFS and/or Fibromyalgia. For me if it hadn’t been Lupron, it would probably been something else since I have so many co-morbid factors. Understanding this has helped with acceptance. And knowledge is power. I know there are no ways, yet, to reset the genes or fix the mitochondria, or other body systems that no longer work as they should, but I am hopeful researchers, who care and collaborate, will find the answer.  In the meantime, I will work to be as healthy and well as I can be.

Related posts:

No related posts.

You might be interested in