Quote:


am I the only one who finds it exciting that somebody, somewhere, has bothered to try to figure out what's going on with the gender-based differences in this disease? Am I the only one who gets that maybe the reason for the lag in diagnosis in women could be based in this variance:


Sorry if I sound frustrated, but the ratio of men:women is not the point of this article and it frustrates the crap out of me that women and the progression of AS in women are constantly (apparently) being ignored. Does this genetic difference make a difference? I don't know, but it is proof positive (to me) that there is a difference. And if more GPs and PCPs and rheumies knew about these things, if researchers bothered to do studies on women, maybe women like our Karen and Sue wouldn't be lost in diagnosis limbo. It has to start somewhere and this seems a pretty good start - figuring out that there is a genetic difference in where the disease sits in men and women (if that's what this article indeed says - my brain twitch activates automatically after a point). Why does it appear that AS is severe in different ways in both genders? Why does it appear that severe kyphosis is more common in men? Why does it appear that fusing doesn't occur in women until later in life? I don't know about anyone else, but I want to know these things and this is the first time I've seen anything beyond Dr. Monika Østensen and Dr. Harald Østensen's research of over 10 years ago that even talks about women with AS in a research capacity. One other article I've found (one dating back to 1959) acknowledge that women get it more frequently than was generally thought and noted differences in progression, but again, nobody actually bothered to look into the whys, the wherefors, and the hows. And nobody was actually listening in this particular case either, because this doctor felt in 1956 (the year the research was done) that the ratio was closer to 5:1 and for another 40 odd years, the mainstream medical community still believed the 10:1 crap.

OK, I'm going to get off my soapbox now. grumble grumble grouch. I need more coffee.

Warm hugs,




hi Kat

just a big thank you.

i did read this with interest

but was afraid if i responded, i'd get myself all worked up again

i've wondered the same kinds of things.....

can i not get a spondy dx because i don't have the "classic" symptoms other than the crazy SI and pain at the entheses, but not enough "proof" for a dx, at least by the docs i've been to.

or, should i be careful not to get too hung up on the AS dx because i really have something else, and i don't want to miss that while focussing on the wrong thing.

so, the two pronged approach: go to rheumies and go to other kinds of docs seems to be my best bet.

and i know there are a number of people here that are in the same boat,
they just don't write as much,

but i figure anything that i can figure out, will hopefully help someone else....

thanks again,

Sue