Danger! Danger! HRT prescribing lagging behind recommendations
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RG0ochx16Dg]
Here’s a disturbing piece of news:
Stanford University School of Medicine researchers are reporting that when it comes to prescribing practices, physicians across the country continue to lag behind recommendations from FDA and other organizations cautioning that hormone replacement therapy (HRT) should be used at the lowest dose and shortest period of time possible or only as a last resort. This, despite accruing evidence warning of the dangers of hormone therapy.
While use of hormonal therapy has gradually declined ,some 6 million women continue to place themselves at risk annually. This risk appears to be somewhat exacerbated by the fact that that their doctors, especially ob/gyns, have not changed their prescribing habits very much. Indeed, less than a third of hormone therapy users surveyed in the IMS National Disease and Therapeutic index (which formed the basis for this latest bit of information) were given prescriptions for lower-dose hormone pills, vaginal suppositories or patches. Especially at risk are women old than 60 years in whom the risk/benefit of HRT is very unbalanced, more than a third of whom continue to use hormonal therapy to address symptoms. Thankfully, however, women younger than 50 and up to age 59 appear to be paying attention to the headlines and giving up hormones altogether.
Although the reasons that doctors aren’t paying attention are unclear, the researchers suggest that perhaps clinical practice has not caught up with data or that older women in particular, are satisfied with symptom control and don’t want to rock the boat. Or perhaps many women in this age group remain unaware of the increased risk of heart disease and breast cancer (among others) associated with menopausal hormonal therapy. Regardless, the message isn’t getting through.
How do you change prescribing habits when there’s a breakdown in communications or when study investigators suggest that “it takes a huge event to change clinical practice?” A huge event? I don’t know about you but I think that increases in heart disease and cancer risks are pretty big events. Ladies – it’s time to take this matter into your own hands. Speak up. Work with your doctor, discuss the treatment strategy he or she is recommending and especially when it comes to HRT, ask the hard questions.
Right now, like Robot from ‘Lost in Space,’ I don’t think that we can accept any other course of action other than to take action.
Read MoreTransition:one pill makes you…
I love it when I run across vintage advertising. I featured this ad over a year ago and am reprising today, namely because it speaks to the one-size-fits-all mentality of hormone replacement therapy and addressing the symptoms of menopause and aging.
The rub? We may be women but we have unique needs. Do yourselves a favour: take the time to not only explore but also understand your symptoms. Speak to a practitioner you trust before accepting any prescriptions. And the transition? While it certainly isn’t a picnic, it’s also not all about tears.
Just a few musings for a Monday….
Read MoreWednesday Bubble: Playing Russian Roulette – Hormone Replacement & Ovarian Cancer
Do we really need to burst another hormone therapy bubble? Or have you heard enough yet? If you are anything like me, I remain puzzled by those in the pro-HRT camp that keep on insisting that the data are incorrect and that hormone replacement therapy (HRT) is safe. Just last week I received a press release stating the following:
“Medical Experts Report Reduced Risk of Life-Threatening Diseases in Women Who Undergo Menopause Hormone Therapy…Menopause experts Drs. Lovera W. Miller and David C. Miller, claim in their new book, Womenopause: Stop Pausing and Start Living (O Books 2010), that Menopausal Hormone Therapy, or MHT, can help reduce the risk of serious health conditions such as heart disease, stroke, breast cancer, diabetes, and even depression and dementia. The Millers present new evidence that puts to rest the controversial statement by the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) in 2002 that declared MHT (formerly known as Hormone Replacement Therapy, or HRT) was harmful and could lead to the same health risks that the doctors say it now helps prevent.”
The Miller present new evidence that puts to rest the contention that HRT is harmful. Really?!
Ironically, the very same day, I received word of data presented at the American Association for Cancer Research Frontiers in Cancer Prevention Research Conference this week demonstrating that both combination hormone replacement therapy (estrogen plus progestin) and estrogen-only hormone therapy increases the risk for developing ovarian cancer. Previous studies have linked the use of estrogen only hormone therapy to ovarian cancer so these findings are important.
This latest bit of information comes out of a European study of almost 127,000 women, 424 of whom developed ovarian cancer after 9 years of followup. Among current users of hormones during the start of the study, 69% used combination HRT and 18%, estrogen-only hormone therapy. Key findings included:
- Increasing duration of use of any hormones was linked to an increased risk for ovarian cancer; women who used hormone therapy for 5 years or more had a 45% increased risk compared to women who had never used any hormones.
- Current use of any types of hormones was associated with an overall 29% increased risk for ovarian cancer.
- Type of hormone (combination versus estrogen only, regimens, how administered, as well as body-mass-index, smoking, oral contraceptive use and pregnancy history did not significantly affect risk.
In an accompanying news release, the lead investigator is quoted as suggesting that the link to ovarian cancer is consistent with recommendations that if women are going to choose to take hormones, that they take them for the shortest period of time possible.
This study joins the evolving database of evidence demonstrating that hormone replacement therapy, whether it’s combination estrogen/progestin or estrogen-only, can be a risky proposition in certain women. Want to read more trigger pulling data?
- HRT & Breast Cancer… more and even more and don’t forget
- HRT & Death from Lung Cancer… and more
- HRT & Heart Disease… and more
I don’t know about you but this woman is staying clear of HRT, hot flashes or not.
Read MoreHRT – Put up your dukes
Ladies (and gents)…in this corner, weighing in with fear, loathing and disease-mongering, hormone replacement therapy (HRT). And in the other – weighing in as ‘snake oil,’ everything that “doesn’t work,” remains “unproven,” is “unsafe,” hasn’t been approved by the Food & Drug Administration, alternative strategies. Put up your dukes!
Sounds like a boxing match without a referee, eh?
Adding to the controversy are recent study findings showing that Pfizer’s Preempro (estrogen plus progestin) HRT may increase the risk of aggressive, invasive breast cancer and deaths from breast cancer in some women. In fact, the lines continue to be drawn between those who will fight for their hormones no matter what and individuals who believe that either greater regulation is needed or that hormones should be taken off the market altogether. It reminds me of the controversy over mammography, which has been not been proven to decrease breast cancer rates or improve survival. That’s a post for another day, although I encourage you to check out the posts that my friend Marya has written.
The argument against using the Women’s Health Initiative Study (WHI) data to demonstrate the dangers of HRT focuses on the small percentage of women enrolled in the original study who were in the age group (5o to 54 years) when women would be starting hormone therapy. Indeed, research shows that in addition to the type of progesterone added to estrogen, the time on hormone therapy can significantly influence health risks. Moreover, in the WHI, women who took estrogen only were not shown to have increased breast cancer risk (but a heck of a lot other increased risks – just look at the data). And yet, after the WHI hormone study was halted in 2002, substantial declines in the rates of breast cancer were noted in numerous countries, including Canada and the United States. Adding fodder, many pro-HRT experts argue that the alternatives – bioidenticals or complementary medicine – are unproven and downright unsafe.
In case you’ve not been reading this blog regularly, I believe the following and wrote it to a very passionate reader of HealthNewsReview Blog who felt that I was marginalizing women’s suffering:
For decades, women have been duped into believing that menopause is a disease that requires medical treatment, but at the same time, researchers have been unable to differentiate many of its symptoms from those of aging. Consequently, it’s imperative not only to ask what we are treating but why and how.
By all means, if you are comfortable with HRT and other treatments, go for it. But use them with eyes wide open and always examine the risks versus benefits. You might be surprised by what you learn. And how much we still don’t know.
I recently ran across the following statement with regards to the confusion:
“Some things don’t need to be healed; they just need to progress naturally.”
When you’re down for the count, sweating and flashing and swinging without a referee, the call about HRT can be a tough call to make. The good news? Menopause won’t kill you and symptoms do eventually go away. It is just one more of life’s transitions that we have to navigate. Just try to steer yourself towards informed choices and decisions and always, ask the hard questions. There are always those who ‘do,’ and those who ‘don’t.’ Just be sure you’re doing or not for the right reasons.
HRT and breast cancer – more red flags
More bad news from the Women’s Health Initiative study and hormone replacement therapy (HRT, combined estrogen and progestin) front: not only does combined HRT appear to double the risk for breast cancer in some women, but these cancers are more invasive/agressive and more likely to lead to death.
The WHI findings have been repeatedly criticized by HRT advocates, who claim that the the women who were studied were not representative of the typical menopausal population, e.g. they were older and well past menopause at enrollment. So it is true that the potential benefits of HRT that might have been experienced by younger women were not explored. Indeed, time on hormones and the relationship between hormone use and how far into menopause a woman is can influence risk, as can the progestagen component. (If you want to read more about these specific factors, click on the links.) Nevertheless, what is also clear is that following the 2002 findings and the significant decline in HRT prescriptions, a substantial decrease in breast cancer rates were observed in both the US and Canada, so much so that the Canadian Cancer Society recently recommended that HRT be taken only as a last resort.
And the latest study findings?
In their continuing quest to determine insights into the risk-benefit ratio of HRT, researchers continued to follow and evaluate data from 83% (12,788) original trial participants. They found that HRT increased the incidence of invasive breast cancers by as much as 8% (compared with placebo), and that these cancers were also likelier to spread to the lymph nodes (24% of women taking HRT were found to have lymph node tumors compared to 16% of women taking placebo). Moreover, twice as many women on HRT died as the result of their cancer.
In an accompanying editorial, Dr. Peter Bach, a health outcomes researcher from Sloan-Kettering Medical Center in New York City, suggests that the latest study findings may only be the tip of the iceberg and that “it is possible that the increase in breast cancer deaths due to hormone therapy has been underestimated in the current study and that with longer follow-up, the deleterious effect will appear larger.” Additionally, he notes that “available data dictate caution in the current approach to hormone therapy, particularly because one of the lessons from the WHI is that physicians are ill-equipped to anticipate the effects of hormone therapy on long-term health.” Nor, have short-term approaches to hormone therapy been proven in clinical trials. As Dr. Bach points out, how can practitioners help patients make informed decisions if they are ill-informed themselves and the information, “speculative.” Nevertheless, the North American Menopause Society is taking the opposite stance, stating that ” clinicians can help women put the breast cancer risk into perspective by informing them that the increased risk of breast cancer using estrogen plus progestogen for 5 years is very similar to the increased risk of breast cancer associated with having menopause 5 years later. This increased risk of breast cancer occurs with a woman’s own internal, natural estrogen and progesterone.”
If this study and its accompanying editorial don’t raise a few flags, nothing will. And despite the pro-HRT stance of the North American Menopause Society, I encourage all women to start educating themselves before making the HRT leap. What’s more, be aware that once you start taking hormones, your practitioner might not be able to provide evidenced-based information on how to stop them, should you decide that they are not for you.
Ask yourselves, what is the trade-off here?
(Reuters Health, as usual, has a few more gems from this study that are required reading. You can find them here.)
Read MoreArchives
Tags
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.