Search results for women's health initiative

Estrogen and urinary incontinence: is there a link?

Posted by Liz on Nov 4, 2011 in aging, estrogen, HRT, incontinence/bladder control, menopause | 0 comments

One of the most common and (and yet unspoken about) conditions in women is urinary incontinence (UI) or problems with bladder control. Defined as the involuntary loss of urine – either due to a weakening of the pelvic floor muscles and in association with pressure on the bladder (stress urinary incontinence) or due to unknown causes and associated with an uncontrollable urge to pass urine, frequency and nighttime awakening (urge urinary incontinence or overactive bladder) – urinary incontinence is most definitely associated with aging. In fact, roughly 15 million women in the U.S. have stress urinary incontinence and about 20 million, overactive bladder.

There are a multitudes of risk factors for urinary incontinence and they range from weight, vaginal deliveries and pelvic surgery to alcohol use and of course, as mentioned, growing older. However, why is menopausal status also a risk factor?

One word: estrogen.

Indeed, results from the infamous Women’s Health Initiative study demonstrated that women who were randomized to combination hormone therapy or estrogen only were at increased risk for worsening urinary incontinence symptoms or for developing urinary incontinence after only one year of use. However, like other data from this study, questions have been raised with regard to the findings, namely that they are not applicable to the general population. And yet, it is critical to learn if using hormone therapy increases urinary incontinence risk; these conditions significantly affect quality of life and at their severest, limit physical and social activities, limit intimacy and other relationships, limit work productivity and affect overall wellbeing.

Rather than generalize, however, it’s important to take a close look at ethnically diverse populations of women in the community and tease out if there are any specific factors related to estrogen use that increase incontinence risk. That is exactly what a group of researchers did recently, when they examined a group of 167 women in menopause who had been surveyed in 1993, found to have no urinary incontinence and then reinterviewed eleven years later in 2004. In this study, which was published in Menopause journal,the researchers specifically evaluated if the women had used estrogen and if so, for how long (i.e. less than five years or more than five years). The findings? Although none of the women reported having urinary incontinence issues at the first interview, just over a decade later, 28% reported that they had developed urinary incontinence and almost 19%, that they developed urinary incontinence that resulted impacted their ability to function (e.g. avoiding social gatherings, not visiting friends or going to church, or avoiding traveling, shopping or physical activities). What’s more, of the women surveyed who reported that they had used estrogen for more than five years, 15% developed new cases of  urinary incontinence with an associated loss of function.

According a related piece in Reuters, the study’s lead investigator says that they didn’t take into account how much estrogen the women were using or if they used it in conjunction with progesterone, so there are weaknesses in the study. Still, it does appear that taking estrogen for more than five years may significantly increase the risk for bladder control issues. The next piece of the puzzle is discovering why it affects bladder function in the first place.

Bladder control issues are serious business. Yet another reason to speak to your doctor before moving forward on hormone therapy. Your move – worth the risk?

Newsflash: International Menopause Society has issued updated guidelines on HRT

Posted by Liz on Jun 10, 2011 in HRT | 7 comments

Got news?

I sure do!

The International Menopause Society has issued updated recommendations on the use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT, a term that they use to refer to estrogen, progesterone, combined therapies, androgens and tibolone). They note that the current guidelines are similar to those issued in 2007 but “include additional clinical data where needed.” And while they claim that there are “no reasons to place mandatory limitations on how long HRT is used (which by the way, runs counter to current recommendations of several major national and international medical associations), they do emphasize that HRT “should not be recommended without a clear indication for use, i.e. significant symptoms or physical effects of estrogen deficiency.”

The following are some highlights of the updated report:

• HRT should be used at the lowest effective dose to effectively reduce symptoms and maintain life quality
• Women who enter early menopause either spontaneously or due to hysterectomy or other condition before age 45 and particularly before age 40 may be at increased risk for heart disease, osteoporosis, mental disorders or dementia. Notably, the evidence of reduction of this risk via HRT is limited but is nevertheless recommended to preserve bone and reduce symptoms, at least until they enter the average age for menopause (i.e. ~52)
• Progestogen should be added to estrogen in all women with an intact uterus to prevent endometrial malignancies and cancer (except for in the case of low-dose estrogen)
• HRT is recommended to preserve bone health although it should not be started after age 60 and loses its effectiveness once therapy is stopped.
• Despite the controversy as to whether or not HRT is heart protective, the IMS says that it has the potential to boost or improve one’s risk profile because of how it affects the vascular system, metabolism of blood sugar, blood pressure and cholesterol levels. However, this recommendation is also framed within the recommendation that women adopt major primary prevention measures, such as stopping smoking, regular exercise, weight control, blood pressure reduction, and control of diabetes and blood pressure.

So, what about the risks of HRT that I’ve long written about on this blog? The convened panel disputes the conclusion of the Women’s Health Initiative (due to average older age of participants and when they started HRT) as well as data that have come down the pike since 2002. In fact, they say that the link with breast cancer is controversial and that HRT doesn’t initiate cancer (but rather, promotes an existing tumour). They also concur that data are still lacking with regards to type of HRT, doses, and administration type and incidence of breast cancer. And, with regards to endometrial cancer or stroke? They write that women with a uterus should be certain to add a progesterone component to their hormones to counteract any undue stimulation of their endometrium, and that stroke risk is related to increasing age and obesity, noting that risks may be avoided by using an estrogen patch or stopping use of hormones after the age of 60.

In general, the conclusion of the panel is than “most menopausal women have little to fear from the adverse effects of HRT” and that the benefits of hormone therapy outweigh the risks. Still, they do suggest that the decision to take HRT should be discussed with a physician and reviewed annually.

Not surprisingly, alternative therapies are completely
discounted in the IMS guidelines and they do not support the use of any bioidentical hormones whatsoever. Moreover, they make a point to place blame on the media without providing clear examples of their claims for “superficial and uncritical evaluations” of HRT, as if all media were one and the same.

I am not quite sure what to make of these recommendations. On one hand, they claim to have reviewed all the data since WHI but this panel convened four years ago. And while they are sure to promote HRT within a cautious framework, menopause continues to be positioned as a disease requiring treatment.Indeed, one of the report authors, Dr. Roger Lobos (Columbia University, New York), says that “the bottom line is that most doctors nowadays should feel comfortable about prescribing HRT to most women going through the menopause [but] like most medicines, you need to look at individual circumstances before deciding to taken it.”

Notably, media are once again positioned as the big bad wolf that misconstrue findings and attack  pharmaceutical companies for their profit motivations.

Has anything really changed except the date of the report? Well, the good news is that the IMS acknowledges that there are risks associated with HRT, at least for some women. And yet, the report still appears lack objectivity.

Do yourself a favour. Speak to your practitioner. HRT will shut down your symptoms. Period. But you must ask yourself, at what cost? Do your research. Ask the hard questions. And then ask them again.

You may be sweating. But the issue is greater than the sum of all sweats.

Calcium, vitamin D and heart disease. What’s the 4-11?

Posted by Liz on May 2, 2011 in bone health, heart disease | 5 comments

“Calcium supplements cause heart attacks in postmenopausal women.”

Whoa! What?!

If you saw the headlines last week, you may be wondering what’s up with calcium supplementation. Afterall, don’t medical professionals advise the use of supplements to stave off bone loss associated with osteoporosis? And as a result, the Centers for Disease Control reports that over 50% of adults currently use calcium supplements and more than 60% of women over age 60.

It’s important to get away from the sensational headline and take a closer look at what the research shows and what you need to know.

Previous studies have suggested that there may be a link between use of calcium supplements (without vitamin D) and heart attack; in fact, as Reuters‘ reported last year, calcium supplements were shown to increase the risk of heart attack by as much as 31%, possibly as a result of plaque formation in blood vessels. However, is the risk the same if calcium is used alone versus if it is used in conjunction with vitamin D?  In the Women’s Health Initiative study, the use of calcium and vitamin D did not appear to influence heart disease risk at all.

However, researchers decided to take another look at the data because they say that in this trial, more than half of participants were taking ‘personal calcium’ (i.e. not regulated or standardized to all trial participants) and almost half were also adding Vitamin D.

In this reanalysis, published just last week in the British Medical Journal, the researchers discounted the women who were characterized as personal users of calcium supplements and instead, limited their evaluation to a group of women who were not using personal calcium supplements at the study’s start and previously unpublished data from the trial. The findings? The use of calcium with or without vitamin D appeared to cause a 25% to 30% increase in the risk for heart attack and a 15% to 20% increased risk for stroke. However, the researchers say that even small increases in the incidence in heart disease may manifest substantially, especially in the elderly. They add that if you take a look at the risk-benefit ratio, it is unfavourable, meaning that taking calcium with or without vitamin D for five years would cause twice as many heart attacks or strokes than then numbers of fractures that would be prevented.  Additionally, the data analysis suggests that dosing is not a factor, and that the total amount of calcium taken daily is less important than the abrupt changes in blood calcium levels immediately following supplementation.

Although this research answers a few questions about potential risks about calcium supplementation, it also leaves a key question unanswered:  how does the addition of magnesium and vitamin K, which are often included in commercially-available calcium supplements, affect these findings? Data suggest that these minerals and vitamins are added to keep calcium in the bones where it belongs and out the arteries where it does not.

The best guideline, as always, is to visit a physician to assess your bone health and come up with a plan that works specifically for you. Although calcium supplementation appears to be risky, more data are needed before leading organizations start to change their tune about calcium and bone health. Meanwhile, stay ahead of the headlines and try to focus on increasing the amount of calcium-rich foods in your diet:

* DV = Daily Value. DVs were developed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to help consumers compare the nutrient contents among products within the context of a total daily diet. The DV for calcium is 1,000 mg for adults and children aged 4 years and older. Foods providing 20% of more of the DV are considered to be high sources of a nutrient, but foods providing lower percentages of the DV also contribute to a healthful diet. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Nutrient Database Web site lists the nutrient content of many foods. It also provides a comprehensive list of foods containing calcium.
** Calcium content varies slightly by fat content; the more fat, the less calcium the food contains.
*** Calcium content is for tofu processed with a calcium salt. Tofu processed with other salts does not provide significant amounts of calcium.

Estrogen: Worth the risk?

Posted by Liz on Apr 6, 2011 in breast cancer, estrogen, heart disease, osteoporosis | 9 comments

Any regular reader of this blog knows that I am not a fan of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) nor the health risks associated with it. Nevertheless, although I espouse alternative strategies for dealing with menopause, I do feel that sharing news about HRT is important; accurate information leads to informed and shared decisionmaking.

So, do they (i.e. hormones) or don’t they (cause harm)? Undoubtedly, important variables come into play, including current age, how close to menopause hormones are started, current health status, whether or not a woman has had a hysterectomy, smoking history, etc. Also important is whether estrogen is used alone or in combination with progesterone. And yet despite these factors, many medical organizations continue to recommend that HRT be used for the shortest time period possible if at all.

Still, researchers continue to delve into data from the now infamous Women’s Health Initiative Study to tease out the bad, ugly and even the good.

This week,  they are reporting on over 7,600 women who had taken estrogen alone for approximately 6 years, had had prior hysterectomies and were followed for an average of 10 years after the trial ended. If you recall, there has been some controversy as to whether or not estrogen alone is safer than combined HRT and actually lowers the risk for breast cancer in particular, which is why these data are particularly intriguing.

The researchers report that age at the time that hormone therapy (in this case, estrogen alone) is started is important. In fact, women who started estrogen therapy in their 50s, an increased risk for stroke and embolism, which appeared while taking estrogen, actually disappeared in the years that followed. Unfortunately, so did protection against hip fracture. Moreover, earlier reports of a decline in breast cancer risk were upheld despite body mass indices. However, the researchers say that this finding in particular, runs contrary to the preponderance of evidence from the majority of observational studies which show that estrogen use increases the risk of breast cancer, especially in lean women and after a long time period of use.

In an accompanying editorial, also in JAMA, the authors point out that more than 80% of women who took estrogen as directed only used it for an average of 3.5 years. Their point is that the results don’t directly address the “balance of risk and benefits associated with longer term estrogen use.” They also point to a larger review of data that show duration is an important factor when it comes to breast cancer risk, especially among lean women. Additionally, they say that tamoxifen, which actually antagonizes estrogen, has been shown to reduce breast cancer by 50%, which has led the International Agency for Research on Cancer to “conclude that unopposed estrogen therapy and combination HRT are carcinogenic.”

Are you confused yet?

Both set of researchers say that the decision to use estrogen or not is one that should be made between a woman and her doctor. Don’t forget: study findings continue to contradict. They add that while “there may still be a role for short-term use of unopposed estrogen for treating some women with menopausal symptoms, this role may be vanishing as existing and emerging data continue to be better understood in terms” of patients.

My thoughts? Err on the side of caution. Always.

Up in smoke…smoking and breast cancer in the postmenopausal years

Posted by Liz on Mar 14, 2011 in breast cancer | 5 comments

Cigarette smoking is something that appears to keep on giving. And giving. Not only do former smokers find that their habits, even once discarded, might come back to bite them in the hot flash ass and even lead to early menopause, but both active and passive smoking habits are being linked to a increased risk of breast cancer, even 20 years past the expiration date. So, when I was hanging with my bestie behind the fence of my childhood home sucking away at those Kool cigarettes, I guess was I truly making an unconscious choice that is starting to rear its ugly head.

Listen up: don’t smoke.

Okay, enough of the lecture; here are the facts.

Researchers have recently taken a look at the association between smoking and breast cancer risk in almost 80,000 women enrolled in a larger trial (the Women’s Health Initiative Observational Study) that took place in the ’90s. Granted, the study relied upon self-reports, which of course, are subject to some degree of what scientists call “recall bias,” meaning that the findings can be subject to some discrepancies. Nevertheless, after collecting information on smoking (never, former or current), age when started smoking, number of cigarettes smoked daily and number of years that cigarettes were smoked, along with age when quitting, as well as potential exposures to passive smoking (as a child, in the home or at work both formerly and currently), they discovered the following:

• Former smokers had a 9% increased risk of breast cancer and current smokers, a 16% increased risk. These figures were related to smoking intensity and years of smoking.
• If a woman had started smoking before their first full time pregnancy, she had a 21% increased breast cancer risk.
• Among former smokers, time since quitting was relevant, and it took as long as 20 years for a former smoker to return to a risk level that would be considered equal to someone who had never smoked.
• Passive smoking was also a huge factor; in fact women who’s exposure to passive smoke in childhood, at home and at work for 10 years or more had a 32% excess risk of developing breast cancer compared to women who had never been exposed to passive smoke. Note that that the researchers emphasize that this particular association is only suggestive and since this is the first study to so closely examine the link between passive smoking and cancer in postmenopausal women, more data are needed.

So, what about the factors that might have influenced or skewed these findings? Well, the researchers did account for age ethnicity, education, body mass index, physical activity, alcohol use, whether or not women had ever been pregnant or brought a child to term, and history of hormone therapy use. And still, the results remained solid.

The upshot of this is that many of us grew up during a time when smoking was a rite of passage, “cool,” or simply habitual. Many of us quit during our 20s or 30s. Some of us still smoke. However, not only does smoking make those menopausal symptoms ever so much worse, but it’s also risky as hell when it comes to breast cancer.

It’s time to do due diligence. Conduct monthly breast checks. Despite controversy as to their value or lack thereof, make a conscious decision about mammography. Instill healthy habits now, including physical activity, a healthy diet and moderate alcohol intake. We might not be able to take back past habits but we can certainly do all we can to alter current habits.

If I knew then what I know now, I might not have picked up those Marlboro Lights so frequently. Oh well. Payback is certainly a bitch.