Skip to main content

'Change the Conversation' About Hormone Therapy in Menopause

PHILADELPHIA — The new position statement on hormone therapy from the North American Menopause Society is in the public eye here at the 2017 annual meeting, where fears about treatment are being discussed and women and healthcare providers are being reassured that hormone therapy is safe and effective for menopausal symptoms that disrupt a woman's quality of life (Menopause2017;24:728-753).
"Fear has been driving the conversation about hormone therapy," said JoAnn Pinkerton, MD, from the Midlife Health Center at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, who is executive director of NAMS and chair of the 20-member position statement advisory panel.
But "hormone therapy remains the most effective treatment for vasomotor symptoms and the genitourinary syndrome of menopause, and has been shown to prevent bone loss and fracture," she said.
Hormone therapy is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for vasomotor symptoms in women without contraindications; the prevention of bone loss and fractures in postmenopausal women at high risk for osteoporosis or fracture; and premature surgical menopause, hypogonadism, and primary ovarian insufficiency until average menopausal age is reached (as long as there are no contraindications). And for women experiencing only genitourinary menopausal symptoms, low-dose vaginal estrogen therapy is first-line, rather than systemic, therapy.
Since the 2002 publication of findings from the Women's Health Initiative (WHI), anxiety about risk for breast cancer, heart disease, and dementia have dominated clinical discussions about hormone therapy. However, follow-up data from the WHI, including a study published this year, as reported by Medscape Medical News, show no increase in cardiovascular, cancer, or all-cause mortality.
Fear has been driving the conversation about hormone therapy.
"We really want clinicians to change the conversation with women," Dr Pinkerton told Medscape Medical News. "We want them to feel very comfortable that if a woman is having bothersome menopausal systems — hot flashes, night sweats, sleep disturbances — hormone therapy is safe and effective, primarily for women who are starting hormone therapy if they are under 60 and within 10 years of menopause, where there are more benefits than risks."
Dr Pinkerton emphasized the differences in risk between estrogen therapy and estrogen with progestin. Estrogen-only therapy, for example, appears to have a better safety profile for longer use.
This position statement will likely reduce some of the fears women and their clinicians still harbor about hormone therapy, said Mache Seibel, MD, menopause expert and resident trainer at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.
The pendulum is swinging back in favor of hormone therapy.
"The pendulum is swinging back in favor of hormone therapy," he told Medscape Medical News. And "it helps clear the air in terms of removing fear and confusion about menopause and the appropriateness of considering hormone therapy."
It typically takes about an hour to consult with patients about menopause because it requires additional time to allay women's fear about hormone therapy, said Dr Seibel, author of The Estrogen Fix, a new book about hormone therapy.
"The hormone therapy benefits versus risks have been so confusing that the majority of women and many of their doctors still don't accept that the risks are much less than the benefits," he said.

Benefits and Risks of Therapy

The effects of hormone therapy vary with a woman's age and time since menopause.
For cardiovascular disease, there does not appear to be an elevation in risk for women who begin hormone therapy more than 10 or 20 years after menopause, but some data show a reduced cardiovascular risk for younger women.
A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies showed that for women who start hormone therapy less than 10 years after the onset of menopause, there is a 48% reduction in the risk for coronary heart disease (relative risk [RR], 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.29 - 0.96) and a 30% reduction in the risk for cardiovascular death (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.52 - 0.95) (Cochrane Database Syst Rev2015;3:CD002229).
However, the risk for venous thromboembolism was elevated (RR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.11 - 2.73). And as women age, the meta-analysis showed a gradual increase in the risk for stroke, venous thromboembolism, and pulmonary embolism.
The risk for breast cancer related to hormone therapy is more complex, Dr Pinkerton explained. Data are conflicting, and the risk might depend on the type of therapy a woman uses (estrogen alone appears to have a lower risk), dose, duration of use, route of administration, regimen, previous exposure to hormone therapy, and her individual characteristics and risk history.
In addition, evidence shows that the risk for lung cancer is neutral and the risk for ovarian cancer might be slightly elevated after long-term use. For colon cancer, hormone therapy might protective, although data are limited and observational.
The position statement addresses special populations: survivors of breast or endometrial cancer, women being treated for endometrial cancer, women older than 65 years, and women who experience early menopause, primary ovarian insufficiency, or who have undergone oophorectomy because of a BRCA mutation.
The statement also lays out the evidence for hormone therapy related to specific vasomotor symptoms, sleep, endometrial health and protection, sexual function, bone and joint protection, cognition, mood, type 2 diabetes, gallbladder and liver health, and overall quality of life. Systemic therapy reduces night-time awakenings and sleep disruptions and improves sleep duration and cycles, particularly in women experiencing hot flashes.
In women taking estrogen — alone or with progesterone — there is a 33% reduction in the risk for hip fracture, and less joint pain and stiffness.
Hormone therapy is also associated with a decreased risk for type 2 diabetes and a potential attenuation of menopausal weight gain. The increase in the risk for gallstones, cholecystitis, and cholecystectomy seen with oral estrogen and estrogen-plus-progesterone therapy is reduced with transdermal hormone therapy.
Although some trials have suggested improvement in depressive symptoms in perimenopausal women taking hormone therapy, the overall evidence is not sufficient to recommend systemic therapy for the treatment of depression.
But even if hormone therapy does lead to improvements in mood, women are "more likely to experience a worsening of mood after estrogen withdrawal," Dr Pinkerton pointed out. Similarly, hormone therapy is not recommended for the treatment of dementia or cognitive decline at any age.
Despite the complexity of the data, women and clinicians have more options than ever when it comes to the type of hormone therapy they receive, the route of administration, and the dosing, Dr Pinkerton pointed out.
"This therapy can be individualized, and women who take it should not have to have a hard stop," Dr Pinkerton told Medscape Medical News. Older women and their providers should annually revisit whether to continue therapy. "Look at the woman, her risks, and what therapies are out there to determine how long to continue and what's safest for her to take."
Dr Pinkerton reports receiving research funds through the University of Virginia from TherapeuticsMD for clinical research. Dr Seibel has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
North American Menopause Society (NAMS) 2017 Annual Meeting. Presented October 11, 2017.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Missing Data Lead FDA Panel to Vote Against Rivaroxaban for ACS May 23, 2012 (Updated May 24, 2012) (Silver Spring, Maryland) — The missing data issues plaguing the ATLAS ACS 2 TIMI 51 trial of the factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Bayer Healthcare/Janssen Pharmaceuticals) have prevented the drug from earning the endorsement of the FDA Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee. At its May 23 meeting, the panel voted six to four (with one abstention) against recommending that the FDA approve rivaroxaban for reducing the risk of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome or unstable angina in combination with aspirin, aspirin plus clopidogrel, or ticlopidine. Janssen's application is based on the results of the ATLAS ACS 2 phase 3 and the ATLAS ACS TIMI 46 phase 2 trial. The placebo-controlled ATLAS ACS 2 showed rivaroxaban reduced the risk of both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality while increasing the risk of bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage, but the studies were hindered by early patient withdrawals and missing data. We Don't Know What We're Missing Based on the ATLAS ACS 2 results, FDA reviewer Dr Karen Hicks recommended approval of rivaroxaban for the requested indications except all-cause mortality. However, another FDA reviewer, Dr Thomas Marciniak, was adamant that the trial results are not interpretable because about 12% of the patients had incomplete follow-up, far higher than the 1% to 1.5% differences in the end-point rates between rivaroxaban and placebo. A total of 1294 subjects discontinued the trial prematurely, and the company was only able to contact 183, of which 177 were confirmed to be alive. Because of the patient dropouts, the company adopted a "modified intention-to-treat analysis," whereby patients were observed for 30 days after randomization or the global end date for the trial, instead of observing all the patients until the end of the trial as the FDA originally suggested. Marciniak criticized the sponsor's efforts to follow the patients and said that three patient deaths not counted in the modified intention-to-treat analysis may just be the "tip of the iceberg." Because the percentage of patients whose ultimate vital status remains unknown is much greater than the reported differences in mortality rates, the claimed mortality benefits are not reliable. The majority of the panel sided with Marciniak. For example, Dr Sanjay Kaul (University of California, Los Angeles) voted "no" because "there was enough uncertainty in the quality and robustness of the data that dissuaded me from voting yes. . . . The 'missingness' of the data doesn't invalidate it, but it certainly makes it hard to infer [the conclusion]." Dr Steven Nissen (Cleveland Clinic, OH) said that the decision to use the modified intention-to-treat analysis had a "profound impact" on the interpretability of the data. "It's saying we don't care what happens after 30 days, [and] that colored the trial in ways we couldn't recover from." Given the risk of major bleeding, "I want to see better evidence that this strategy of adding an Xa inhibitor or a direct thrombin inhibitor or something else to a good antiplatelet agent is robustly better for the patient," Nissen said. He recommends that the companies run a new trial of the 2.5 twice-daily dose of rivaroxaban using a strict intention-to-treat approach, but, he said, "I don't expect the death benefit to be too robust." Several panelists said they were concerned that the patients who dropped out of the trial were disproportionately likely to have a bleeding event, which led them to quit the trial, or a "protopathic" event, as statistician Dr Scott Emerson (University of Washington, Seattle) put it. "We're worried that an impending event is what is changing their behavior. We see that all the time in clinical trials--that regularly measured end points do not pick up [all of] the events," he said. He said that since the company was only able to contact 183 of the over 1200 patients who dropped out, it is possible that the dropouts skew the outcomes comparison of the trial. "Differential event rates after dropout are the number-one thing we're afraid of, so you have to explore it" in a statistical sensitivity analysis of the potential impact of these unknown outcomes. "It would not surprise me if, at the end of the day, these data did not hold up under a proper sensitivity analysis," he said. "What I want to know is, among the people who had events, how differential was the follow-up, but I can tell you by just looking at it, there was a very slightly different amount of follow-up of the people in the treatment arm. But I don't know whether everyone in the treatment arm was cured and they were trekking in the Himalayas and everyone in the placebo arm went home to die. I don't know that that's not the case." Dr Maury Krantz (University of Colorado, Denver) voted in favor of approval but said he does not know how rivaroxaban would perform in general clinical practice, especially when used with aspirin and clopidogrel. "I felt very much torn by this. This isn't a simple paradigm shift. It means going to triple therapy, which is really a three-headed monster in many ways. I think that what you're going to see in practice, if this is not done carefully with the proper labeling and secondary studies, is really dramatic magnification of bleeding and perhaps minimization of the efficacy benefit."

May 23, 2012   (Updated May 24, 2012)  (Silver Spring, Maryland)  —  The missing data issues plaguing the  ATLAS ACS 2 TIMI 51   trial of the factor Xa inhibitor  rivaroxaban  (Xarelto, Bayer Healthcare/Janssen Pharmaceuticals) have prevented the drug from earning the endorsement of the  FDA  Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee. At its May 23 meeting , the panel voted six to four (with one abstention) against recommending that the FDA approve rivaroxaban for reducing the risk of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome or unstable angina in combination with aspirin, aspirin plus  clopidogrel , or  ticlopidine . Janssen's application is based on the results of the ATLAS ACS 2 phase 3 and the  ATLAS ACS TIMI 46   phase 2 trial. The placebo-controlled ATLAS ACS 2 showed rivaroxaban reduced the risk of both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality while increasing the ri...

Antidepressants Linked to Higher Diabetes Risk in Kids

Pediatric patients who use antidepressants may have an elevated risk for type 2 diabetes, the authors of a new study report. In a retrospective cohort study of more than 119,000 youths 5 to 20 years of age, the risk for incident type 2 diabetes was nearly twice as high among current users of certain types of antidepressants as among former users, Mehmet Burcu, PhD, and colleagues report in an article  published online October 16 in  JAMA Pediatrics . The risk intensified with increasing duration of use, greater cumulative doses, and higher daily doses of these antidepressants. The findings point to a growing need for closer monitoring of these products, including greater balancing of risks and benefits, in the pediatric population, the authors caution. They undertook the study because, despite growing evidence of an association between antidepressant use and an increased risk for type 2 diabetes in adults, similar research in pediatric patients was scarce. "To our know...

Contact Precautions May Have Unintended Consequences

Contact precautions, including gloves, gowns, and isolated rooms, have helped stem the transmission of hospital pathogens but have also had some negative consequences, according to findings from a new study. Healthcare worker (HCWs) visited patients on contact precautions less frequently than other patients and spent less time with those patients when they did visit, report Daniel J. Morgan, MD, from the University of Maryland School of Medicine and the Veterans Affairs (VA) Maryland Health Care System, Baltimore, and colleagues. Moreover, patients on contact precautions also received fewer outside visitors. "Less contact with HCWs suggests that other unintended consequences of contact precautions still exist," Dr. Morgan and coauthors write. "The resulting decrease in HCW contact may lead to increased adverse events and a lower quality of patient care due to less consistent patient monitoring and poorer adherence to standard adverse event prevention methods (such...