Re: Conceived with Glucophage--??
From: Penhead (anonymous@obgyn.net)
Mon, 14 Jan 2002 15:07:58 -0600 (CST)
Congratulations!! I am so happy for you. My DH and I are TTC for baby
#1. This is the first month I have ovulated and I just started the
Glucophage a few months ago!
I do have another question. I think I read somewhere on here that it is
reccommended that you take the Glucophage through the 1st tri-mester to
decrease the risk of miscarriage. I notice you said that you are no
longer taking it. I am just wondering b/c hopefully we'll be pregnant
soon!
Again congratulations!!
--
Penhead
>At Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Julie wrote:
>>
>>Great News! This is for all of you out there who are trying to conceive
>>and are very frustrated. My husband and I have been TTC for over a
>>year. I got very frustrated last week when the medication they gave me
>>to induce a cycle didn't work. The last tests they did several months
>>back showed that I was not ovulating at all. I had been on Glucophage
>>since early summer 1500mg. I lost some weight, but noticed no
>>difference in my cycles at all. I still was not having them. I called
>>the doctor and asked where we go from here and they told me to do a
>>pregnancy test just to see and then we would try another medication. I
>>told my doctor that I was 99.9% sure that I was not pregnant but I would
>>do the test if that is what they wanted. Much to my surprise, it was
>>positive. Over the course of the weekend I did four more of them just
>>to make sure - they were all positive. I am now 7 weeks pregnant and no
>>longer taking Glucophage. I wanted to share my news with all of you who
>>are as frustrated as I was. I know how hard it is. I thought I would
>>never have a child. I can't tell you how many times I got down on
>>myself thinking I was a failure. When I least expected it, it happened.
>>My husband and I could not be more pleased. Please don't give up hope.
>>I am proof positive that it works! My progesterone level without
>>Glucophage was .2 barely even registering. With the Glucophage it was
>>21.9. What a difference!
>
>--
>Panacea
>