Structural and biochemical characterization of FabK from Thermotoga maritima.

B. Ha,S. Shin,J. Moon,G. Keum,Chan‐Wha Kim,E. Kim

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrc.2016.11.141

2017-01-22

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Long term hormone therapy for perimenopausal and postmenopausal women

Jane Marjoribanks,Cindy Farquhar,Helen Roberts,Anne Lethaby

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004143.pub4

2012-07-11

Abstract:Background: Hormone therapy (HT) is widely used for controlling menopausal symptoms and has also been used for the management and prevention of cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis and dementia in older women. This is an updated version of a Cochrane review first published in 2005. Objectives: To assess the effects of long term HT on mortality, cardiovascular outcomes, cancer, gallbladder disease, fractures, cognition and quality of life in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women, both during HT use and after cessation of HT use. Search methods: We searched the following databases to February 2012: Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO. Selection criteria: We included randomised double-blind studies of HT versus placebo, taken for at least one year by perimenopausal or postmenopausal women. HT included oestrogens, with or without progestogens, via oral, transdermal, subcutaneous or intranasal routes. Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. We calculated risk ratios (RRS) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Where findings were statistically significant, we calculated the absolute risk (AR) in the intervention group (the overall risk of an event in women taking HT). Main results: Twenty-three studies involving 42,830 women were included. Seventy per cent of the data were derived from two studies (WHI 1998 and HERS 1998). Most participants were postmenopausal American women with at least some degree of co-morbidity, and the mean participant age in most studies was over 60 years. None of the studies focused on perimenopausal women. In relatively healthy postmenopausal women (that is generally fit, without overt disease) combined continuous HT significantly increased the risk of a coronary event (after one year's use: AR 4 per 1000, 95% CI 3 to 7), venous thrombo-embolism (after one year's use: AR 7 per 1000, 95% CI 4 to 11), stroke (after three years' use: AR 18 per 1000, 95% CI 14 to 23), breast cancer (after 5.6 years' use: AR 23 per 1000, 95% CI 19 to 29), gallbladder disease (after 5.6 years' use: AR 27 per 1000, 95% CI 21 to 34) and death from lung cancer (after 5.6 years' use plus 2.4 years' additional follow-up: AR 9 per 1000, 95% CI 6 to 13). Oestrogen-only HT significantly increased the risk of venous thrombo-embolism (after one to two years' use: AR 5 per 1000, 95% CI 2 to 10; after 7 years' use: AR 21 per 1000, 95% CI 16 to 28), stroke (after 7 years' use: AR 32 per 1000, 95% CI 25 to 40) and gallbladder disease (after seven years' use: AR 45 per 1000, 95% CI 36 to 57) but did not significantly increase the risk of breast cancer. Among women aged over 65 years who were relatively healthy and taking continuous combined HT, there was a statistically significant increase in the incidence of dementia (after 4 years' use: AR 18 per 1000, 95% CI 11 to 30). Among women with cardiovascular disease, long term use of combined continuous HT significantly increased the risk of venous thrombo-embolism (at one year: AR 9 per 1000, 95% CI 3 to 29). Women taking HT had a significantly decreased incidence of fractures with long term use (after 5.6 years of combined HT: AR 86 per 1000, 95% CI 79 to 84; after 7.1 years' use of oestrogen-only HT: AR 102 per 1000, 95% CI 91 to 112). Risk of fracture was the only outcome for which there was strong evidence of clinical benefit from HT. There was no strong evidence that HT has a clinically meaningful impact on the incidence of colorectal cancer.One trial analysed subgroups of 2839 relatively healthy 50 to 59 year old women taking combined continuous HT and 1637 taking oestrogen-only HT versus similar-sized placebo groups. The only significantly increased risk reported was for venous thrombo-embolism in women taking combined continuous HT: their absolute risk remained low, at less than 1/500. However, other differences in risk cannot be excluded as this study was not designed to have the power to detect differences between groups of women within 10 years of the menopause. Authors' conclusions: HT is not indicated for primary or secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease or dementia, nor for preventing deterioration of cognitive function in postmenopausal women. Although HT is considered effective for the prevention of postmenopausal osteoporosis, it is generally recommended as an option only for women at significant risk, for whom non-oestrogen therapies are unsuitable. There are insufficient data to assess the risk of long term HT use in perimenopausal women or postmenopausal women younger than 50 years of age.
Risk of Stroke in Healthy Postmenopausal Women During and after Hormone Therapy: a Meta-Analysis.

Haifeng Gu,Xiaohong Zhao,Xiaoping Zhao,Yunmei Yang,Xueying Lv

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/gme.0000000000000227

2014-01-01

Abstract:OBJECTIVE:This meta-analysis aims to examine the risk of stroke in healthy postmenopausal women during and after hormone therapy (HT).METHODS:Medline, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Google Scholar were searched for randomized controlled trials involving healthy postmenopausal women who received HT and were followed up for at least 3 years after starting treatment. The primary outcome measures were stroke hazard ratio (HR) for the intervention phase, stroke HR for the postintervention phase, and overall stroke HR.RESULTS:Four studies, involving 15,423 participants who received HT and 14,582 participants who received placebo, met the criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis. The mean age of participants ranged from approximately 50 to 64 years. HT was given as conjugated equine estrogens in three studies and as 17β-estradiol in one study. The duration of HT ranged from 3.0 to 10.1 years. The length of follow-up after the start of HT ranged from 3.0 to 15.8 years. Meta-analysis revealed that the stroke HR during the intervention phase and the overall stroke HR were significantly increased among women who received HT (intervention phase: pooled HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.12-1.56; P = 0.001; overall: pooled HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.03-1.28; P = 0.017). The stroke HR during the postintervention phase was not increased among women who received HT (pooled HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.85-1.16; P = 0.958). Sensitivity analysis confirmed the reliability of the meta-analysis for both outcomes.CONCLUSIONS:These findings suggest that HT may increase the risk of stroke during, but not after, HT in healthy postmenopausal women.
Update on hormone therapy for the management of postmenopausal women

Meijun Pan,Xinyao Pan,Jing Zhou,Jing Wang,Qing Qi,Ling Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5582/bst.2021.01418

2022-03-11

Abstract:Hormone therapy (HT) has been used in postmenopausal women for decades in clinical practice. With further analysis and newer studies, the benefits and risks of HT have been repeatedly verified and discussed. HT is recommended for the treatment of vasomotor symptoms (VMS), genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) and the prevention of osteoporosis. However, the precise association between HT and the risks of cardiovascular diseases, venous thromboembolism, neurodegenerative diseases, breast cancer, and endometrial cancer remains controversial. Therefore, determining how to take advantage of and control the risks of HT by adjusting the initiation time, regimen, and duration is crucial. Recent studies have indicated that HT is not related to the risk of all-cause, cardiovascular, or breast cancer mortality although it might increase the incidence of some chronic diseases. For symptomatic postmenopausal women under the age of 60 without contraindications, early initiation of HT is safe and probably has a mortality benefit over the long term. Initiating HT close to menopause at the lowest effective dose is more likely to have maximal benefits and the lowest risks. Transdermal and vaginal HT may have a lower risk, but recent evidence suggests additional clinical benefits of oral HT formulations in relieving VMS and preventing osteoporosis. The pooled cohort risk equation for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and the free app named Menopro can be used to perform individual risk assessments. In addition, Chinese herbal medicines have benefits in alleviating hot flashes, depression, and menopausal symptoms, although further data are needed to strongly support their efficacy. Acupuncture and electroacupuncture have definite efficacy in the treatment of postmenopausal symptoms with few adverse effects, so they are a reasonable option as an alternative therapy for high-risk women. This review discusses the history of, guidelines on, and strategies for HT in order to make suggestions based on the most up-to-date evidence for the management of postmenopausal women.
Hormone replacement therapy for women previously treated for endometrial cancer

Katharine A Edey,Stuart Rundle,Martha Hickey

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008830.pub3

2018-05-15

Abstract:Background: Endometrial cancer is the sixth most common cancer in women worldwide and most commonly occurs after the menopause (75%) (globocan.iarc.fr). About 319,000 new cases were diagnosed worldwide in 2012. Endometrial cancer is commonly considered as a potentially 'curable cancer,' as approximately 75% of cases are diagnosed before disease has spread outside the uterus (FIGO (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics) stage I). The overall five-year survival for all stages is about 86%, and, if the cancer is confined to the uterus, the five-year survival rate may increase to 97%. The majority of women diagnosed with endometrial cancer have early-stage disease, leading to a good prognosis after hysterectomy and removal of the ovaries (oophorectomy), with or without radiotherapy. However, women may have early physiological and psychological postmenopausal changes, either pre-existing or as a result of oophorectomy, depending on age and menopausal status at the time of diagnosis. Lack of oestrogen can cause hot flushes, night sweats, genital tract atrophy and longer-term adverse effects, such as osteoporosis and cardiovascular disease. These changes may be temporarily managed by using oestrogens, in the form of hormone replacement therapy (HRT). However, there is a theoretical risk of promoting residual tumour cell growth and increasing cancer recurrence. Therefore, this is a potential survival disadvantage in a woman who has a potentially curable cancer. In premenopausal women with endometrial cancer, treatment induces early menopause and this may adversely affect overall survival. Additionally, most women with early-stage disease will be cured of their cancer, making longer-term quality of life (QoL) issues more pertinent. Following bilateral oophorectomy, premenopausal women may develop significant and debilitating menopausal symptoms, so there is a need for information about the risk and benefits of taking HRT, enabling women to make an informed decision, weighing the advantages and disadvantages of using HRT for their individual circumstances. Objectives: To assess the risks and benefits of HRT (oestrogen alone or oestrogen with progestogen) for women previously treated for endometrial cancer. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2017, Issue 5), MEDLINE (1946 to April, week 4, 2017) and Embase (1980 to 2017, week 18). We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings and reference lists of review articles. Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), in all languages, that examined the efficacy of symptom relief and the safety of using HRT in women treated for endometrial cancer, where safety in this situation was considered as not increasing the risk of recurrence of endometrial cancer above that of women not taking HRT. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently assessed whether potentially relevant studies met the inclusion criteria. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Main results: We identified 2190 unique records, evaluated the full text of seven studies and included one study with 1236 participants. This study reported tumour recurrence in 2.3% of women in the oestrogen arm versus 1.9% of women receiving placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 2.50; very low-certainty evidence). The study reported one woman in the HRT arm (0.16%) and three women in the placebo arm (0.49%) who developed breast cancer (new malignancy) during follow-up (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.01; 1236 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not report on symptom relief, overall survival or progression-free survival for HRT versus placebo. However, they did report the percentage of women alive with no evidence of disease (94.3% in the HRT group and 95.6% in the placebo group) and the percentage of women alive irrespective of disease progression (95.8% in the HRT group and 96.9% in the placebo group) at the end of the 36 months' follow-up. The study did not report time to recurrence and it was underpowered due to closing early. The authors closed it as a result of the publication of the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) study, which, at that time, suggested that risks of exogenous hormone therapy outweighed benefits and had an impact on study recruitment. No assessment of efficacy was reported. Authors' conclusions: Currently, there is insufficient high-quality evidence to inform women considering HRT after treatment for endometrial cancer. The available evidence (both the single RCT and non-randomised evidence) does not suggest significant harm, if HRT is used after surgical treatment for early-stage endometrial cancer. There is no information available regarding use of HRT in higher-stage endometrial cancer (FIGO stage II and above). The use of HRT after endometrial cancer treatment should be individualised, taking account of the woman's symptoms and preferences, and the uncertainty of evidence for and against HRT use.
Menopausal hormone therapy and women’s health: An umbrella review

Guo-Qiang Zhang,Jin-Liang Chen,Ying Luo,Maya B. Mathur,Panagiotis Anagnostis,Ulugbek Nurmatov,Madar Talibov,Jing Zhang,Catherine M. Hawrylowicz,Mary Ann Lumsden,Hilary Critchley,Aziz Sheikh,Bo Lundbäck,Cecilia Lässer,Hannu Kankaanranta,Siew Hwa Lee,Bright I. Nwaru

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003731

2021-08-02

PLoS Medicine

Abstract:Background There remains uncertainty about the impact of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) on women’s health. A systematic, comprehensive assessment of the effects on multiple outcomes is lacking. We conducted an umbrella review to comprehensively summarize evidence on the benefits and harms of MHT across diverse health outcomes. Methods and findings We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and 10 other databases from inception to November 26, 2017, updated on December 17, 2020, to identify systematic reviews or meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies investigating effects of MHT, including estrogen-alone therapy (ET) and estrogen plus progestin therapy (EPT), in perimenopausal or postmenopausal women in all countries and settings. All health outcomes in previous systematic reviews were included, including menopausal symptoms, surrogate endpoints, biomarkers, various morbidity outcomes, and mortality. Two investigators independently extracted data and assessed methodological quality of systematic reviews using the updated 16-item AMSTAR 2 instrument. Random-effects robust variance estimation was used to combine effect estimates, and 95% prediction intervals (PIs) were calculated whenever possible. We used the term MHT to encompass ET and EPT, and results are presented for MHT for each outcome, unless otherwise indicated. Sixty systematic reviews were included, involving 102 meta-analyses of RCTs and 38 of observational studies, with 102 unique outcomes. The overall quality of included systematic reviews was moderate to poor. In meta-analyses of RCTs, MHT was beneficial for vasomotor symptoms (frequency: 9 trials, 1,104 women, risk ratio [RR] 0.43, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.57, p < 0.001; severity: 7 trials, 503 women, RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.50, p = 0.002) and all fracture (30 trials, 43,188 women, RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.84, p = 0.002, 95% PI 0.58 to 0.87), as well as vaginal atrophy (intravaginal ET), sexual function, vertebral and nonvertebral fracture, diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular mortality (ET), and colorectal cancer (EPT), but harmful for stroke (17 trials, 37,272 women, RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.29, p = 0.027) and venous thromboembolism (23 trials, 42,292 women, RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.58, p = 0.052, 95% PI 1.03 to 2.99), as well as cardiovascular disease incidence and recurrence, cerebrovascular disease, nonfatal stroke, deep vein thrombosis, gallbladder disease requiring surgery, and lung cancer mortality (EPT). In meta-analyses of observational studies, MHT was associated with decreased risks of cataract, glioma, and esophageal, gastric, and colorectal cancer, but increased risks of pulmonary embolism, cholelithiasis, asthma, meningioma, and thyroid, breast, and ovarian cancer. ET and EPT had opposite effects for endometrial cancer, endometrial hyperplasia, and Alzheimer disease. The major limitations include the inability to address the varying effects of MHT by type, dose, formulation, duration of use, route of administration, and age of initiation and to take into account the quality of individual studies included in the systematic reviews. The study protocol is publicly available on PROSPERO (CRD42017083412). Conclusions MHT has a complex balance of benefits and harms on multiple health outcomes. Some effects differ qualitatively between ET and EPT. The quality of available evidence is only moderate to poor.

medicine, general & internal
Prevention and management of osteoporosis: consensus statements from the Scientific Advisory Board of the Osteoporosis Society of Canada. 3. Effects of ovarian hormone therapy on skeletal and extraskeletal tissues in women

R G Josse

1996-10-01

CMAJ

Abstract:Objective: To present recent evidence on the use of ovarian hormone therapy (OHT) for osteoporosis and outline safe and effective regimens. Options: Estrogen alone, estrogen and progestins, progestins alone; various treatment regimens. Outcomes: Fracture and loss of bone mineral density in osteoporosis; increased bone mass, prevention of fractures and improved quality of life associated with OHT. Evidence: Relevant clinical studies and reports, including the Nurses' Health Study and the Post-menopausal Estrogen/Progestin Interventions (PEPI) Trial, were studied with emphasis on recent prospective, randomized, controlled trials. Current clinical practice was determined by survey. Values: Reducing fractures, increasing bone mineral density and minimizing side effects of treatment were given a high value. Benefits, harms and costs: Proper management of osteoporosis minimizes injury and disability, improves quality of life and reduces the personal and social costs associated with the condition. OHT is the front-line pharmaceutical therapy for prevention and treatment of osteoporosis in post-menopausal women. In those who are able and willing to comply with therapy, OHT prevents bone loss and fractures. Hormone therapy may also decrease risk of coronary artery disease. Cyclic progestin protects against endometrial cancer in patients receiving estrogen. Potential harms include breast cancer and endometrial cancer related to dosage and duration of therapy. Mastalgia and especially resumption of menstrual bleeding affect compliance. Recommendations: Use of OHT should be considered as early as possible in the perimenopausal period for women at increased risk of osteoporosis. Guidelines are provided for assessment of osteoporosis risk. Physicians and their patients should take into account the absolute and relative contraindications to OHT. Women with a uterus should be given estrogen in combination with a progestin. Ideally, therapy would be continued for a minimum of 10 years beyond menopause for maximum bone protection. Women using OHT should be carefully monitored and evaluated for possible adverse events. This should include regular screening mammography, breast examination and, for some, endometrial surveillance. Specific dosages and treatment regimens are outlined.
Long-term menopausal hormone therapy and health consequences – how to choose sides?

A. Pines,S. Shapiro

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/13697137.2015.1041756

2015-05-11

Climacteric

Abstract:There is no debate any more on the good safety profile of postmenopausal hormone therapy (HT) in healthy perimenopausal and early postmenopausal women, but there are still many open issues related to the consequences of long-term HT, especially in older women. A recent Cochrane meta-analysis showed that women who started HT less than 10 years after the menopause had lower mortality and coronary heart disease (CHD), but more venous thromboembolism (DVT). However, in those who started treatment more than 10 years after the menopause, there was high-quality evidence that it had little effect on death or CHD between HT and placebo groups but there was an increased risk of stroke and DVT. In contrast, many large, observational studies such as a recent one from Finland (3.3 million years of HT exposure) have shown that the risk of CHD or stroke death and all-cause mortality was significantly reduced, both in those who initiated HT below or above age 60 years. Because of conflicting data concerning long-term HT use, it seems that every health-care provider chooses as reference those studies that can support his/her individual views and therapeutic approach.

obstetrics & gynecology
Safety and benefit considerations for menopausal hormone therapy

James H Pickar,David F Archer,Risa Kagan,JoAnn V Pinkerton,Hugh S Taylor

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14740338.2017.1343298

2017-06-30

Expert Opinion on Drug Safety

Abstract:INTRODUCTION: While benefits and risks of hormone therapy (HT) have been shown in rigorous randomized, controlled trials, clinical use and further study have discovered effects of age, time of HT initiation, and differential effects of various regimens and administration routes on its safety profile. Areas covered: The safety of HT with regard to cardiovascular disease, thrombosis, the endometrium, the breast, and cognition was reviewed. Differential safety effects of estradiol versus conjugated equine estrogens, and progesterone versus synthetic progestins are reported. Expert opinion: Perceived safety of HT has evolved based on data from observational studies, the Women's Health Initiative and its subsequent analyses, more recent randomized, controlled trials, and studies examining the differences between different estrogens and between different progestogens. Unexpected safety concerns with HT became apparent with release of the first results from WHI. Differences between estrogen-alone versus estrogen-progestogen therapies, estradiol versus conjugated equine estrogens, and progesterone versus progestins were found in subsequent WHI analyses and studies examining components of various regimens. The decision to use HT depends on balancing risks and benefits for each individual and determining the most appropriate choice of therapy, dosing, and route of administration, while also considering the safety evidence of different estrogens and progestogens.

pharmacology & pharmacy
[Hormone therapy in menopause. A current update]

V Seifert-Klauss,P-M Schumm-Draeger

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00108-003-1080-8

Abstract:While the use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) for prophylactic indications such as cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, and Alzheimer's disease was increasingly propagated during the 1990s, recent studies have reported no risk reduction for women after myocardial infarction (HERS) or women from a mixed population with an average age of 63 years (Women's Health Initiative [WHI] Study). The results of the latter study even suggest an increased risk for cardiovascular events and breast cancer with previous or ongoing combined oral estrogen plus progestin. A final risk-benefit assessment for estrogen monotherapy will only be possible after the ongoing part of the WHI Study has been evaluated, expected in 2005. As effects, side effects, and contraindications for HRT in postmenopausal women are better known, the need for individualized risk assessment and the definition of therapeutic goals increases. Since the WHI Study did not address the risk-benefit ratio for women with perimenopausal complaints or osteoporosis or with lower dose hormone preparations commonly used in Germany, there is an urgent need to answer these open questions with large confirmative studies.
A Review of Hormone and Non-Hormonal Therapy Options for the Treatment of Menopause

Tracy E Madsen,Talia Sobel,Seraphina Negash,Tara Shrout Allen,Marcia L Stefanick,JoAnn E Manson,Matthew Allison

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/IJWH.S379808

2023-05-25

Abstract:Tracy E Madsen, 1, 2 Talia Sobel, 3 Seraphina Negash, 2 Tara Shrout Allen, 4 Marcia L Stefanick, 5 JoAnn E Manson, 6 Matthew Allison 7 1 Department of Emergency Medicine, Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI, USA; 2 Department of Epidemiology, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, RI, USA; 3 Division of Women's Health Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Scottsdale, AZ, USA; 4 Division of Preventive Medicine, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA; 5 Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA; 6 Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; 7 Department of Family Medicine, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA Correspondence: Tracy E Madsen, Email Understanding the role of both menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) along with non-hormonal options for the treatment of vasomotor symptoms, sleep disruption, and genitourinary symptoms after menopause is critical to the health of women during middle and later life. Recent updates to the evidence for the treatment of menopausal symptoms pertaining to both hormonal and non-hormonal therapies as well as updated guidance from specialty societies can help guide clinicians in their treatment of women going through natural menopause or with estrogen deficiencies due to primary ovarian insufficiency or induced menopause from surgery or medications. The objective of this narrative review is to provide clinicians with an overview of MHT for the use of menopausal symptoms in women, incorporating updated primary evidence for risk versus benefit profiles, recent specialty society recommendations, and alternative, non-hormonal options. In this review, we summarize literature on the use of MHT for menopause-related symptomatology including options for formulations and dosages of MHT, non-hormonal treatment options, and the risk–benefit profile of MHT including long-term health consequences (eg, cardiovascular disease, cognitive decline, venous thromboembolism, and fracture risk). Finally, we highlight areas in which future research is needed to advance care of women after menopause. In summary, both hormonal (MHT) and non-hormonal options exist to treat symptoms of menopause. There is strong evidence for safety and effectiveness of MHT for the treatment of vasomotor symptoms among women who are less than 60 years of age, less than 10 years since menopause, and without significant cardiometabolic comorbidities. For others, treatment with hormonal versus non-hormonal therapies can be considered based on individual risk profiles, as well as other factors such as drug formulation, therapeutic goals, and symptom severity. Keywords: menopause, hormone therapy, cardiovascular disease, stroke Understanding the use of exogenous hormones for the treatment of menopausal symptoms (ie, menopausal hormone therapy (MHT)) 1 is of critical importance to the health of women, especially given that women spend approximately 40% of their lives post-menopause. 2 Postmenopausal symptoms that can be treated with MHT include vasomotor symptoms (VMS) (eg, hot flashes, night sweats), sleep disturbances, sexual dysfunction, and genitourinary tract symptoms (eg, vulvovaginal atrophy, dyspareunia, urinary frequency). 2 In addition to the treatment of menopausal symptoms, MHT may improve bone health among women after menopause, especially those with osteopenia or elevated risk of fracture. 3 Notably, the temporal patterns of utilization of MHT have changed. Specifically, between the late 1980s and early 2000s, the rate of MHT use decreased precipitously following the publication of results from the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) hormone clinical trials demonstrating an increased risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) and stroke among those randomized to MHT. 4,5 Consequently, the rates of MHT use decreased from approximately 22% in 1999 to 5% in 2010 among women 40 years or older in the United States, 6 while other studies cite rates as low was 3%. 6,7 Despite the rapid decline in utilization of MHT after the turn of the century, more recent recommendations 3,8 based on additional evidence have further clarified the subgroups of women in whom the benefits of MHT for VMS and bone health exceed the risks. Given the current evidence base on the likely benefit of MHT in specific subgroups of women, a recent increased focus on outcomes such as cognitive function, and the continued emergence of non-hormonal options for treating symptoms of menopause, the objective of this narrative review is to provide clinicians with an overview of MHT and alte -Abstract Truncated-

obstetrics & gynecology
Estrogen therapy for osteoporosis in the modern era

V. A. Levin,X. Jiang,R. Kagan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-018-4414-z

2018-03-08

Osteoporosis International

Abstract:Menopause predisposes women to osteoporosis due to declining estrogen levels. This results in a decrease in bone mineral density (BMD) and an increase in fractures. Osteoporotic fractures lead to substantial morbidity and mortality, and are considered one of the largest public health priorities by the World Health Organization (WHO). It is therefore essential for menopausal women to receive appropriate guidance for the prevention and management of osteoporosis. The Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) randomized controlled trial first proved hormonal therapy (HT) reduces the incidence of all osteoporosis-related fractures in postmenopausal women. However, the study concluded that the adverse effects outweighed the potential benefits on bone, leading to a significant decrease in HT use for menopausal symptoms. Additionally, HT was not used as first-line therapy for osteoporosis and fractures. Subsequent studies have challenged these initial conclusions and have shown significant efficacy of HT in various doses, durations, regimens, and routes of administration. These studies support that HT improves BMD and reduces fracture risk in women with and without osteoporosis. Furthermore, the studies suggest that low-dose and transdermal HT are less likely associated with the adverse effects of breast cancer, endometrial hyperplasia, coronary artery disease (CAD), and venous thromboembolism (VTE) previously observed in standard-dose oral HT regimens. Given the need for estrogen in menopausal women and evidence supporting the cost effectiveness, safety, and efficacy of HT, we propose that HT should be considered for the primary prevention and treatment of osteoporosis in appropriate candidates. HT should be individualized and the once “lowest dose for shortest period of time” concept should no longer be used. This review will focus on the prior and current studies for various HT formulations used for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis, exploring the safety profile of low-dose and transdermal HT that have been shown to be safer than oral standard-dose HT.

endocrinology & metabolism
Menopausal hormone therapy and coronary heart disease: the roller-coaster history

M Nudy,J Buerger,S Dreibelbis,X Jiang,H N Hodis,P F Schnatz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13697137.2023.2282690

Climacteric

Abstract:In the USA it is estimated that more than one million women become menopausal each year. Coronary heart disease (CHD) is the leading cause of mortality in menopausal woman globally. The majority of perimenopausal to postmenopausal women experience bothersome symptoms including hot flashes, night sweats, mood liability, sleep disturbances, irregular bleeding and sexual dysfunction. While menopausal hormone therapy (HT) effectively treats most of these symptoms, use of HT has become confusing, especially related to CHD risk. Despite years of observational and retrospective studies supporting a CHD benefit and improved survival among HT users, the Heart and Estrogen/Progestin Replacement Study (HERS) and the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) raised doubts about this long-held premise. The timing hypothesis has since emerged and states that when HT is initiated in younger women, soon after menopause onset, there may be cardiovascular benefit. The following review discusses the roller-coaster history of HT use as it pertains to CHD in postmenopausal women. Studies that highlight HT's CHD benefit are reviewed and provide reassurance that HT utilized in appropriately selected younger postmenopausal women close to the onset of menopause is safe from a cardiovascular perspective, in line with consensus recommendations.
Hormone replacement therapy and the association with coronary heart disease and overall mortality: clinical application of the timing hypothesis

Howard N Hodis,Wendy J Mack

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsbmb.2013.06.011

Abstract:Conclusions from randomized controlled trial (RCT) data over the past 10 years has spanned from presumed harm to consistency with observational data that hormone replacement therapy (HRT) decreases the risk for coronary heart disease (CHD) as well as overall mortality in women who are recently postmenopausal. Multiple clinical studies including randomized trials and observational studies converge with animal experimentation to show a consistency that HRT decreases CHD risk and overall mortality in primary prevention when HRT is started at the time of or soon after menopause. The totality of data supports the "timing" hypothesis that posits that HRT effects are dependent on when HRT is started in relation to age and/or time-since-menopause. The totality of data shows that HRT decreases CHD and overall morality when started in women who are less than 60 years old and/or less than 10 years postmenopausal, providing a "window-of-opportunity". Further evidence shows that women who start HRT when in their 50s and continued for 5-30 years that there is an increase of 1.5 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Additionally, HRT is highly cost-effective at $2438 per QALY gained. The totality of data converges to show a consistency between randomized trials and observational studies that when started in women at or near menopause and continued long-term, HRT decreases CHD and overall mortality compared with women who do not use HRT. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled 'Menopause'.
Risks, Benefits, and Treatment Modalities of Menopausal Hormone Therapy: Current Concepts

Jaya Mehta,Juliana M. Kling,JoAnn E. Manson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2021.564781

IF: 6.055

2021-03-26

Frontiers in Endocrinology

Abstract:Menopausal hormone therapy (HT) prescribing practices have evolved over the last few decades guided by the changing understanding of the treatment’s risks and benefits. Since the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) trial results in 2002, including post-intervention analysis and cumulative 18-year follow up, it has become clear that the risks of HT are low for healthy women less than age 60 or within ten years from menopause. For those who are experiencing bothersome vasomotor symptoms, the benefits are likely to outweigh the risks in view of HT’s efficacy for symptom management. HT also has a role in preventing osteoporosis in appropriate candidates for treatment. A comprehensive overview of the types, routes, and formulations of currently available HT, as well as HT’s benefits and risks by outcomes of interest are provided to facilitate clinical decision making.

endocrinology & metabolism
"I’m going to stay young": Belief in anti-aging efficacy of menopausal hormone therapy drives prolonged use despite medical risks

Mary M. Hunter,Alison J. Huang,Margaret I. Wallhagen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233703

IF: 3.7

2020-05-29

PLoS ONE

Abstract:BACKGROUND: Over a third of menopausal hormone therapy (HT) prescriptions in the US are written for women over age 60. Use of HT more than 5 years is associated with increased risk for cardiovascular disease; breast, ovarian, and endometrial cancers; thromboembolic stroke; gallbladder disease; dementia; and incontinence.OBJECTIVES: To explore older women's perceptions of the benefits and risks of long-term HT and examine factors influencing their decisions to use HT > 5 years despite medical risks.METHODS: A qualitative approach was selected to broadly explore thought processes and social phenomena underlying long-term users' decisions not to discontinue HT. Interviews were conducted with 30 women over age 60 reporting use of systemic HT more than 5 years recruited from an urban area in California and a small city in the Rocky Mountain region. Transcripts of interviews were analyzed using conventional grounded theory methods.RESULTS: Women reported using HT to preserve youthful physical and mental function and prevent disease. Gynecologists had reassured participants regarding risk, about which all 30 expressed little concern. Participants, rather than providers, were the principal drivers of long-term use.CONCLUSIONS: Participants perceived estrogen to have anti-aging efficacy, and using HT imparted a sense of control over various aspects of aging. Maintaining this sense of control was prioritized over potential risk from prolonged use. Our findings provide an additional perspective on previous work suggesting the pharmaceutical industry has leveraged older women's self-esteem, vanity, and fear of aging to sell hormones through marketing practices designed to shape the beliefs of both clinicians and patients. Efforts are needed to: 1) address misconceptions among patients and providers about medically supported uses and risks of prolonged HT, and 2) examine commercial influences, such as medical ghostwriting, that may lead to distorted views of HT efficacy and risk.

multidisciplinary sciences
Contemporary menopausal hormone therapy and risk of cardiovascular disease: Swedish nationwide register based emulated target trial

Therese Johansson,Torgny Karlsson,Dana Bliuc,Daniel Schmitz,Weronica E Ek,Alkistis Skalkidou,Jacqueline R Center,Asa Johansson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-078784

2024-11-28

BMJ

Abstract:ObjectiveTo assess the effect of contemporary menopausal hormone therapy on the risk of cardiovascular disease according to the route of administration and combination of hormones.DesignNationwide register based emulated target trial.SettingSwedish national registries.Participants919 614 women aged 50-58 between 2007 and 2020 without hormone therapy use in the previous two years, identified from the Swedish population.Interventions138 nested trials were designed, starting each month from July 2007 until December 2018. Using the prescription registry data for that specific month, women who had not used hormone therapy in the previous two years were assigned to one of eight treatment groups: oral combined continuous, oral combined sequential, oral unopposed oestrogen, oral oestrogen with local progestin, tibolone, transdermal combined, transdermal unopposed oestrogen, or non-initiators of menopausal hormone therapy.Main outcome measuresHazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals were estimated for venous thromboembolism, as well as for ischaemic heart disease, cerebral infarction, and myocardial infarction separately and as a composite cardiovascular disease outcome. Treatment effects were estimated by contrasting initiators and non-initiators in observational analogues to "intention-to-treat" analyses and continuous users versus never users in "per protocol" analyses.ResultsA total of 77 512 women were initiators of any menopausal hormone therapy and 842 102 women were non-initiators. 24 089 women had an event recorded during the follow-up: 10 360 (43.0%) had an ischaemic heart disease event, 4098 (17.0%) had a cerebral infarction event, 4312 (17.9%) had a myocardial infarction event, and 9196 (38.2%) had a venous thromboembolic event. In intention-to-treat analyses, tibolone was associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (hazard ratio 1.52, 95% confidence interval 1.11 to 2.08) compared with non-initiators. Initiators of tibolone or oral oestrogen-progestin therapy had a higher risk of ischaemic heart disease (1.46 (1.00 to 2.14) and 1.21 (1.00 to 1.46), respectively). A higher risk of venous thromboembolism was observed for oral continuous oestrogen-progestin therapy (1.61, 1.35 to 1.92), sequential therapy (2.00, 1.61 to 2.49), and oestrogen-only therapy (1.57, 1.02 to 2.44). Additional results in per protocol analyses showed that use of tibolone was associated with a higher risk of cerebral infarction (1.97, 1.02 to 3.78) and myocardial infarction (1.94, 1.01 to 3.73).ConclusionsUse of oral oestrogen-progestin therapy was associated with an increased risk of heart disease and venous thromboembolism, whereas the use of tibolone was associated with an increased risk of ischaemic heart disease, cerebral infarction, and myocardial infarction but not venous thromboembolism. These findings highlight the diverse effects of different hormone combinations and administration methods on the risk of cardiovascular disease.

medicine, general & internal
Prevention of Postmenopausal Osteoporosis in Chinese Women: a 5-Year, Double-Blind, Randomized, Parallel Placebo-Controlled Study

S. Y. Ran,Q. Yu,Y. Chen,S. Q. Lin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13697137.2017.1325459

IF: 5.11

2017-01-01

Maturitas

Abstract:Objectives: To observe the effectiveness and safety of menopause-related hormone therapy (MHT) to prevent bone loss in Chinese women during the menopausal transition and early menopause, as well as to evaluate the effects of 5-year MHT on overall health to add Level I evidence for the prevention of osteoporosis using MHT.Design: This clinical study was a prospective, double-blind, randomized, parallel placebo-controlled study. Chinese women in the menopausal transition and early menopause were randomly allocated to the MHT group or the placebo group. All subjects received a 5-year intervention. The effectiveness of MHT for bone mineral density (BMD) and bone metabolism and the safety of MHT in relation to glycolipid metabolism, breast cancer, and cardiovascular disease were studied.Results: In the MHT group, women in both transition and early menopause showed a significant increase in lumbar and femoral neck BMD after the 1st year of therapy; BMD tended to decrease in the 3rd year but ultimately was sustained at stable levels that were near the baseline levels. In the placebo group, BMD decreased at both sites. Metabolism indexes and breast ultrasound examination findings did not differ significantly between the MHT and placebo groups. Three cases of breast cancer and three cases of cardiovascular disease were diagnosed during follow-up. One breast cancer case and two cardiovascular disease cases occurred in the MHT group.Conclusions: Five-year sequential therapy with estrogen and progesterone can increase or maintain the BMD of women in their menopausal transition and early menopause. This regimen had no negative effect on glycolipid metabolism and did not increase the risk of breast cancer or cardiovascular events.
Is there a role for menopausal hormone therapy in the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis?

S. Rozenberg,N. Al-Daghri,M. Aubertin-Leheudre,M.-L. Brandi,A. Cano,P. Collins,C. Cooper,A. R. Genazzani,T. Hillard,J.A. Kanis,J.-M. Kaufman,I. Lambrinoudaki,A. Laslop,E. McCloskey,S. Palacios,D. Prieto-Alhambra,J.-Y. Reginster,R. Rizzoli,G. Rosano,F. Trémollieres,N.C. Harvey

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-020-05497-8

2020-07-08

Osteoporosis International

Abstract:We provide an evidence base and guidance for the use of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) for the maintenance of skeletal health and prevention of future fractures in recently menopausal women. Despite controversy over associated side effects, which has limited its use in recent decades, the potential role for MHT soon after menopause in the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis is increasingly recognized. We present a narrative review of the benefits versus risks of using MHT in the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Current literature suggests robust anti-fracture efficacy of MHT in patients unselected for low BMD, regardless of concomitant use with progestogens, but with limited evidence of persisting skeletal benefits following cessation of therapy. Side effects include cardiovascular events, thromboembolic disease, stroke and breast cancer, but the benefit-risk profile differs according to the use of opposed versus unopposed oestrogens, type of oestrogen/progestogen, dose and route of delivery and, for cardiovascular events, timing of MHT use. Overall, the benefit-risk profile supports MHT treatment in women who have recently (< 10 years) become menopausal, who have menopausal symptoms and who are less than 60 years old, with a low baseline risk for adverse events. MHT should be considered as an option for the maintenance of skeletal health in women, specifically as an additional benefit in the context of treatment of menopausal symptoms, when commenced at the menopause, or shortly thereafter, in the context of a personalized benefit-risk evaluation.

endocrinology & metabolism

Structural and biochemical characterization of FabK from Thermotoga maritima.

Long term hormone therapy for perimenopausal and postmenopausal women

Risk of Stroke in Healthy Postmenopausal Women During and after Hormone Therapy: a Meta-Analysis.

Update on hormone therapy for the management of postmenopausal women

Hormone replacement therapy for women previously treated for endometrial cancer

Menopausal hormone therapy and women’s health: An umbrella review

Prevention and management of osteoporosis: consensus statements from the Scientific Advisory Board of the Osteoporosis Society of Canada. 3. Effects of ovarian hormone therapy on skeletal and extraskeletal tissues in women

Long-term menopausal hormone therapy and health consequences – how to choose sides?

Safety and benefit considerations for menopausal hormone therapy

[Hormone therapy in menopause. A current update]

A Review of Hormone and Non-Hormonal Therapy Options for the Treatment of Menopause

Estrogen therapy for osteoporosis in the modern era

Menopausal hormone therapy and coronary heart disease: the roller-coaster history

Hormone replacement therapy and the association with coronary heart disease and overall mortality: clinical application of the timing hypothesis

Risks, Benefits, and Treatment Modalities of Menopausal Hormone Therapy: Current Concepts

"I’m going to stay young": Belief in anti-aging efficacy of menopausal hormone therapy drives prolonged use despite medical risks

Contemporary menopausal hormone therapy and risk of cardiovascular disease: Swedish nationwide register based emulated target trial

Prevention of Postmenopausal Osteoporosis in Chinese Women: a 5-Year, Double-Blind, Randomized, Parallel Placebo-Controlled Study

Is there a role for menopausal hormone therapy in the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis?