Posts Tagged "HRT"

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.

Flaming the fires of HRT: what influences risk?

Posted by Liz on Mar 4, 2011 in heart disease, HRT | 6 comments

Let’s face it. Despite my doubts about hormone replacement therapy (HRT), just like the Energizer Bunny, it’s going to keep on going. So as any responsible journalist must do, I have to share the good along with the bad and ugly. The trouble is that data rarely agree, lending confusion to the growing controversy about health risks, appropriate timing, combination and use of HRT.

Last week, several of you sent me a link to a study in the current issue of Menopause that appears to further clarify use of HRT and heart disease risk. Quite honestly, I had seen the study but was hesitant to write about it for fear of simply fueling the fires. But you’ve asked so I’ve answered.

The investigators of this particular study note that experts suspect that timing of hormone replacement, i.e. age when it’s started or time since menopause has begun when it’s started, plays a role in some of the differences between previous reports on HRT and heart disease. For example, reanalysis of data from the Nurses Health Study demonstrates that any heart benefits of HRT rely on starting therapy within 10 years of menopause, while data from the Women’s Health Initiative show that younger age plays an important role as well.

In a quest to tease this out further, they examined information on deaths from ischemic heart disease, age at first and/or current use of HRT, prior use and duration of use in 71,237 postmenopausal women in the California Teachers Study over a period of approximately 9 years. The findings?

• Overall, current age while using HRT appears to influence risk of dying from any cause. This factor appears to be much more importan than age that HRT was started or years since menopause began. Indeed, women using HRT at the time of the study who were younger than 65 years were found to have a 45% reduced risk of death from any cause compared to women who had never used HRT.
• Similar findings were seen when the researchers examined death from heart disease, with HRT providing some protection in younger current users that virtually disappeared once they reached 75 years.

The upshot is that the health consequences and risks of HRT may be influenced most by age at current use, with younger women having the most benefits to gain. Any sort of protection starts to disappear as women grow older so the window of opportunity might be small.

Still, questions remain. These researchers were only trying to determine the most important influencer(s) of death from heart disease and not examining cancer or other risks that have been definitively demonstrated.  Do these data fan the controversial fires and serve to heat up the debate? I believe that they do.

As always, buyer beware. Nothing is ever as it seems. Especially when it comes to hormone replacement therapy.

Hormone replacement therapy…timing is everything, right?

Posted by Liz on Jan 31, 2011 in breast cancer, HRT | 5 comments

Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) continues to be a hot topic in the menopausal world. And no wonder! Because the deeper we dive into the controversies, the more information we seem to learn about its dangers.

If you search for hormone replacement or HRT on this blog, you’ll find that the dialogue has nothing but consistent. And while naysayers may try to accuse me of a personal vendetta against hormones, it’s actually not the case. I started Flashfree for several reasons, the most important being that I wanted to provide enough information about menopause and aging and treatment strategies to enable women to think on their feet, consider the facts and have intelligent dialogues with their peers and practitioners before making any decisions that could affect their health and wellbeing as they grow older. Moreover, although I am a strong proponent of alternative strategies to combat the unpleasantries of dwindling hormones, I still believe strongly in the benefits of certain Western approaches to treating illness. However, I also a strong believer in integrative strategies that combine the best of our knowledge in an individualized fashion; my mantra is ‘treat the individual, not the masses.’ Hence, when I read about the history of the menopause in general and HRT in particular, what I see is disease mongering at its finest, examples of fear and loathing and mostly, a disrespect of women. And I care too much about women’s health to remain silent.

Last Friday, several of my colleagues sent me a link to the following study:

“Breast cancer risk in relation to the interval between menopause and starting hormone therapy.”

This newly-published study in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute is one of the largest to date since the findings of the now infamous Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study linking Preempro to breast cancer. In it, investigators used observational information culled from over a million postmenopausal women in the United Kingdom to determine how type and timing of hormone therapy might influence the risk of developing breast cancer.

A bit of context is necessary for those of you who are unfamiliar with the major criticisms of WHI, namely that that the women studied were not representative of the normal menopausal population, were older, started hormone therapy later in life (i.e. >5 years from when menopause started) when their risks for disease were greater, and that the type of hormone replacement, namely the progestin component, were not taken into consideration. WHI was also criticized for not focusing on the small percentage of women in the study who took estrogen-only and were not at greater risk for breast cancer. (If you want to read more about that particular issue, check out the write up on data presented at this past year’s San Antonio Breast Cancer Conference.)

In the UK study, the average age of participants was 56.6, considerably younger than the study population in WHI. More than half (55%) of participants reported having used hormones at some point and 35% were current users, and the rest, had never used hormone therapy. Study participants were matched by socioeconomic status, childbirth information, BMI, physical activity, alcohol consumption and smoking to insure that these factors did not influence the study findings.

Overall, 15,759 breast cancers developed and were diagnosed approximately a year and a half after the last point of contact:

• Despite contentions by some experts that starting combination hormonal therapy within 5 years of menopause is safe, women between the ages of 50 and 50 who began HRT less than 5 years after menopause had the highest rates per year of breast cancer — .61% per year — that twice that of women who had never used hormones (.31%).
• Current users of estrogen also demonstrated increased breast cancer rates (.43%) who started hormones within or less than 5 years after menopause started.
• The risk of developing breast cancer was roughly 1.5 times higher among women on combination hormone therapy who started within 5 years than women who started 5 year or more from menopause.
• The risk of developing breast cancer among past users of hormonal therapy tended to decline over time after use of hormones stopped, and within 14 years, were almost equivalent to never users.

Mind you, the study is not without fault and may be criticized on the basis of the fact that it relied on observational information rather than randomized controlled results. In other words, data were collected and then analyzed based on what they inferred.  The research might also be questioned due to the fact that information about use of hormones was reported over a year before cancer was diagnosed, thereby possibly leading to mischaracterization of hormone users/non users and estimates of the risk for developing breast cancer. Nevertheless, the researchers say that taking these factors into account, breast cancer risk among hormone users regardless of type, would have increased by a factor of at least 1.2.

The key take-away message from this new study is that it’s may be impossible to define the safest parameter for using hormone therapy. For certain women, HRT may never be safe. For others who are willing to risk life-threatening conditions for fewer hot flashes, HRT may be worth the gamble. As always, ask the hard questions.

Timing is everything, right? Maybe not when it comes to hormone replacement.

Estrogen only? Fanning the flames of the HRT debate

Posted by Liz on Dec 13, 2010 in breast cancer | 6 comments

A study presented at the esteemed San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium last week has fanned the flames about the benefits versus risks of hormone replacement for menopausal symptoms. In this study, which ironically was pulled from the site press release highlights after experts questioned its merit, researchers did a reanalysis of data from the Women’s Health Initiative trial, the infamous 2002 study that was halted after Preempro was shown to increase breast cancer risk. Their findings? That women who had participated in the estrogen only arm of the study, had had benign breast disease, had had hysterectomies and had family histories of no breast cancer actually had significant reductions in breast cancer incidence. What’s more, 75% of women who did not have benign breast disease at the study’s start also had a reduced risk of developing breast cancer.

So, this is good news, right?

Well, estrogen alone can only be used by women who have had hysterectomies; estrogen plus progestin is used in women with intact uteri in order to avoid uterine cancer. This means that only a subset of women with menopausal symptoms are eligible to use estrogen alone. Moreover, as a physician blogger points out, the findings run counter to most data that show that estrogen use is actually associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. He also notes that abstracts that are accepted as posters at major medical meetings often have flawed or spotty data; in fact, in my years as a medical writer, I’ve often run across abstracts that ultimately disagree with published works.

The bottom line here is that despite the news, using estrogen alone to treat menopausal symptoms might only be an option for a very small percentage of women and may still place them at risk for cancer. At the end of the day, prescribing hormone replacement therapy continues to challenge the Hippocratic Oath: first do no harm.

Musings: Menopause ain’t nothing but a…

Posted by Liz on Dec 10, 2010 in menopause, musings | 2 comments

Number?

Sometimes it is just that. And sometimes it’s not.

I’m reposting this piece, which first ran in June 2009, because a reader recently challenged me on my consistent opinion that menopause is not a disease.

“Menopause is truly a disease. There are many so called true diseases that cause far less damage to a womens body.”

Actually, the conditions that wreak the most havoc on a woman’s body as she grows older appear to more closely associated with aging than with menopause. Theoretically, this would mean that our best strategy to address prevention or risk reduction, right?

Here are the facts:

Australian researchers suggest that many of the more common complaints of menopause may be possibly related to aging in general and not specifically the transition. In fact, in a study presented during last month’s 8th European Congress on Menopause, they reported that menopause is strongly associated with some but not other common complaints.

So what about the other symptoms? After reviewing data from 58,724 women (ages 45 to 50) participating in the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s Health, the strongest associations were seen between menopause and hot flashes/night sweats. These findings remained after adjusting for age during the study, age at menopause, smoking history, body mass index, sociodemographics (i.e. education, income, marital status and geographic location) and other factors that might influence outcomes. Other symptoms, including difficulty sleeping, stiff/painful joints and poor or fair self-reported health were also associated with menopause but to a much lesser extent. Headaches, migraines and incontinence appeared to be more strongly related to the aging process.

The researchers say that treatment (in this case, HRT) should be geared primarily towards alleviating vasomotor symptoms. Less clear, however, is how long therapy should be continued, since some symptoms can last for more than seven years. This study is scheduled to appear in Menopause.

Last September, I wrote a post about a survey being reported at the North American Menopause Society’s Annual meeting suggesting that women can actually discern the symptoms of menopause from those of aging.  Interestingly, many of the symptoms overlapped; in fact, 84%, 72%, and 77% of respondents associated vaginal dryness, urinary stress incontinence and weight gain, respectively, strictly with menopause, even though they can also be caused by aging as well.

So, what’s the primary point? It can be difficult to tease apart the effects of aging and the effects of menopause. Clearly, these new Australian data add a bit more to the confusion, and reinforce the point that more research and funding is needed in this particular area.

When I write that “menopause is not a disease and should not be treated like one,” what I am really saying is that disease, especially when it’s chronic can stigmatize, frighten and even create self-loathing. By offering up hormone replacement therapy as the only viable “solution” to preventing and ameliorating the symptoms of menopause and outrightly dismissing gentler alternative strategies, the medical community takes on the stance that Author Louise Foxcroft has written about:  “fear of the menopause is something we have learned, and it has grown out of a general, male and medical distaste for the idea of the menopause perceived as an end to viability, fertility, beauty, desirability and worth. Since the French physician de Gardanne coined the new term ‘ménépausie’ in the early nineteenth century, an onslaught of opinion, etiology, treatments, and not least and lest we forget, profit has followed. Women need to unlearn their dread and recognize that menopause is not, of itself, dread-full; that we are merely the victims of our biological process.”

So which comes first? Menopause and disease or aging and disease? Regardless, we can go out fighting or we can give in.

in all, a good thing, right?