Is 1 Mg of Arimidex Once Per Week Okay for Estradiol of 50 pg/ml?

[Cataceous]

Apart from my doctor, my wife is a CC-RN and she doesn't like the idea of needles e3d. She does my IM injections so it's not something one can sneak past her. Something to do with abscesses and the risk of contaminants entering your body (more frequent = more chances). Scoff or not, I suppose that's their medical training.

But if she's going to apply logic then isn't it better to risk a fairly superficial abscess subQ than one deep in the muscle? And isn't it better not to risk scarring your muscles via injections over the years? And isn't more chances times a very low probability also pretty low? I cared for a diabetic cat for several years, giving her twice-daily injections without any skin prep. She never got an infection. Of course I cringe at the thought now, and studiously swab before my daily injection, but the point is there's still very little risk from frequent subQ injections. I should ask my father if he's ever had a problem in 50 years of injecting insulin.

[Cataceous]

Okay, thanks. I've since Googled and found one rather easily. ...

Since no mod has commented I'll note that chem1research seems to be a decent source.

[simmer]

Apart from my doctor, my wife is a CC-RN and she doesn't like the idea of needles e3d. She does my IM injections so it's not something one can sneak past her. Something to do with abscesses and the risk of contaminants entering your body (more frequent = more chances). Scoff or not, I suppose that's their medical training.

Thanks.

But if she's going to apply logic then isn't it better to risk a fairly superficial abscess subQ than one deep in the muscle? And isn't it better not to risk scarring your muscles via injections over the years? And isn't more chances times a very low probability also pretty low?

Because the logic of reading the patient information leaflet, which states IM, trumps unlabelled uses.

I cared for a diabetic cat for several years, giving her twice-daily injections without any skin prep. She never got an infection. Of course I cringe at the thought now, and studiously swab before my daily injection, but the point is there's still very little risk from frequent subQ injections. I should ask my father if he's ever had a problem in 50 years of injecting insulin.

With respect, given their professions, I suspect they've seen far more than we ever will. SubQ insulin with tiny needles is also not comparable with IM/subQ ~23G testosterone injections.

[Cataceous]

Because the logic of reading the patient information leaflet, which states IM, trumps unlabelled uses.
...
 SubQ insulin with tiny needles is also not comparable with IM/subQ ~23G testosterone injections.

The patient information leaflet states the method they tested. It doesn't mean it's better than other methods.

Upon what do you base your claim that the methods are not comparable? Peer reviewed studies?

Wade through this long thread and you'll see Scally and others providing references to peer reviewed studies. Note also the start year: ten years ago. Guys have been doing this for quite a while now. You'd think if the methods weren't comparable there might be more definitive evidence by now.

Mentioned in the thread:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17143361

CONCLUSION:

Therapy with weekly subcutaneous testosterone produced serum levels that were within the normal range in 100% of patients for both peak and trough levels. This is the first report, which demonstrated the efficacy of delivering weekly testosterone using this cheap, safe, and less painful subcutaneous route.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1016169/000119312515061057/d880836dex991.htm

Antares Pharma, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATRS) today announced positive top-line pharmacokinetic results that showed that the primary endpoint was achieved in the Company’s ongoing, multi-center, phase 3 clinical study (QST-13-003) evaluating the efficacy and safety of testosterone enanthate administered once-weekly by subcutaneous injection using the QuickShot® auto injector in testosterone deficient adult males.

From Defy Medical:

... For a long time it was thought that these oil based testosterone medications could only be administered intramuscularly, however a few physicians who specialized in prescribing testosterone therapies noticed that testosterone levels appeared to be the same, even more stable, when patients administered their testosterone subcutaneously using a much smaller needle versus an IM injection. Over the years there have been more observations and studies supporting the subq administration of injectable testosterone, including the pilot study below. ...

[Hydranted]

You're correct, the amount of testosterone you were injecting over, let's say a month, was the same...but the timing and size of each dose matters.  Your labs aren't going to look the same on those protocols despite the total monthly dose being the same.  They are very different protocols.

Fair enough! Thought maybe I'd messed up some figures somewhere.

If your total T was 1100 and your e2 was 53 on 60mg e3d...why not try something like 50mg e3d?  Or maybe even 40mg e3d?  Or 75mg e5d?

Apart from my doctor, my wife is a CC-RN and she doesn't like the idea of needles e3d. She does my IM injections so it's not something one can sneak past her. Something to do with abscesses and the risk of contaminants entering your body (more frequent = more chances). Scoff or not, I suppose that's their medical training.

Do you have a phobia of needles?  Perhaps it's related to a bad experience using a needle that was too large for an injection? 

I work in medicine as well, and I can say with certainty that the risk for an abscess is incredibly low as long as sterile procedures are followed...and all that really entails is hand washing, use of alcohol swabs, and a bit of common sense. 

It's really a non issue as long as you use new needles/syringes and keep the injection site clean.  Heck, even if you forgot to clean the injection site before injecting, chances are high that nothing would go wrong. 

[simmer]

The patient information leaflet states the method they tested. It doesn't mean it's better than other methods.

The patient information leaflet states what is approved. Yes, it might not be the best method according to some people, and I did not claim that any route was the best method. I'd much rather a doctor or nurse followed the prescribed directions than struck out on their own path of treatment. I wouldn't be surprised that if there were bad incidents then said doctor or nurse could be successfully sued.

Upon what do you base your claim that the methods are not comparable? Peer reviewed studies?

Regarding your cat? Common sense. You're comparing different drugs, different needles, and different routes.

Wade through this long thread and you'll see Scally and others providing references to peer reviewed studies. Note also the start year: ten years ago. Guys have been doing this for quite a while now. You'd think if the methods weren't comparable there might be more definitive evidence by now.

You'd think the manufacturers would have followed suit. But they haven't. Why? (I have no idea)

Look, I'm not saying the research is not sound, or that anything you're saying is wrong. But while the prescribed route is X, then as medical professionals my wife/nurse and doctor are within their rights and professional judgement to follow the X route. Even if you or I do not like it.

Thanks for the research links: they are helpful.

Do you have a phobia of needles?  Perhaps it's related to a bad experience using a needle that was too large for an injection? 

Hah, no! I was injecting myself every 3 days with 23G needles. Yes, I had a moment of sanity every time I injected, as in "why TF would I want to stick something painful in my leg" but it's okay. Weirdly, wifey doing it is different: it's the anticipation of the needle going in, rather than the injection itself. She has a steady hand unlike me trying to do it myself, so the injection itself is almost painless. I just wish she were quicker! But either way, I don't have an issue with needles.

I work in medicine as well, and I can say with certainty that the risk for an abscess is incredibly low as long as sterile procedures are followed...and all that really entails is hand washing, use of alcohol swabs, and a bit of common sense. 

It's really a non issue as long as you use new needles/syringes and keep the injection site clean.  Heck, even if you forgot to clean the injection site before injecting, chances are high that nothing would go wrong. 

Okay, I just checked with her, and yes she does see a fair amount of abscesses/pus. Maybe that's the nature of ICU, I don't know. Some are drug addicts who probably have unsanitary needle habits, but others are regular people... like bodybuilders... who crave injections and end up with bumps on their skin. Yes, they're probably a minority but I've been one of the 3%-ers who have had an (unrelated) operation and fallen into that minority "complications from surgery" category. And I guess that is the category they're concerned about.

Again, I'm not saying that anybody is right or wrong, just that I respect their profession and understand where they're coming from. Though there are definitely some duds around, but I would like to think neither my wife or hopefully my current endo is one of them.