Menopause

The emergence of the coronavirus severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (COVID-19) in December 2019, has resulted in a global pandemic that has challenged the medical community and will continue to represent a public health emergency for the next several months.¹ It has rapidly spread globally, infecting many individuals in an unprecedented rate of infection and worldwide reach. On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization designated COVID-19 as a pandemic. While the majority of infected individuals are asymptomatic or develop only mild symptoms, some have an unfortunate clinical course resulting in multi-organ failure and death.²

It is accepted that the virus mainly spreads during close contact and via respiratory droplets.³ The average time from infection to onset of symptoms ranges from 2 to 14 days, with an average of 5 days.⁴ Recommended measures to prevent the spread of the infection include social distancing (at least 6 feet from others), meticulous hand hygiene, and wearing a mask covering the mouth and nose when in public.⁵ Aiming to mitigate the risk of viral dissemination for patients and health care providers, and to preserve hospital resources, all nonessential medical interventions were initially suspended. Recently, the American College of Surgeons in a joint statement with 9 women’s health care societies have provided recommendations on how to resume clinical activities as we recover from the pandemic.⁶

As we reinitiate clinical activities, gynecologists have been alerted of the potential risk of viral dissemination during gynecologic minimally invasive surgical procedures due to the presence of the virus in blood, stool, and the potential risk of aerosolization of the virus, especially when using smoke-generating devices.^7,8 This risk is not limited to intubation and extubation of the airway during anesthesia; the risk also presents itself during other aerosol-generating procedures, such as laparoscopy or robotic surgery.^9,10

Hysteroscopy is considered the gold standard procedure for the diagnosis and management of intrauterine pathologies.¹¹ It is frequently performed in an office setting without the use of anesthesia.^11,12 It is usually well tolerated, with only a few patients reporting discomfort.¹² It allows for immediate treatment (using the “see and treat” approach) while avoiding not only the risk of anesthesia, as stated, but also the need for intubation—which has a high risk of droplet contamination in COVID-19–infected individuals.¹³

Is there risk of viral dissemination during hysteroscopic procedures?

The novel and rapidly changing nature of the COVID-19 pandemic present many challenges to the gynecologist. Significant concerns have been raised regarding potential risk of viral dissemination during laparoscopic surgery due to aerosolization of viral particles and the presence of the virus in blood and the gastrointestinal tract of infected patients.⁷ Diagnostic, and some simple, hysteroscopic procedures are commonly performed in an outpatient setting, with the patient awake. Complex hysteroscopic interventions, however, are generally performed in the operating room, typically with the use of general anesthesia. Hysteroscopy has the theoretical risks of viral dissemination when performed in COVID-19–positive patients. Two important questions must be addressed to better understand the potential risk of COVID-19 viral dissemination during hysteroscopic procedures.

Continue to: 1. Is the virus present in the vaginal fluid of women infected with COVID-19?...

1. Is the virus present in the vaginal fluid of women infected with COVID-19?

Recent studies have confirmed the presence of viral particles in urine, feces, blood, and tears in addition to the respiratory tract in patients infected with COVID-19.^3,14,15 The presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the female genital system is currently unknown. Previous studies, of other epidemic viral infections, have demonstrated the presence of the virus in the female genital tract in affected patients of Zika virus and Ebola.^16,17 However, 2 recent studies have failed to demonstrate the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the vaginal fluid of pregnant¹⁴ and not pregnant¹⁸ women with severe COVID-19 infection.

2. Is there risk of viral dissemination during hysteroscopy if using electrosurgery?

There are significant concerns with possible risk of COVID-19 transmission to health care providers in direct contact with infected patients during minimally invasive gynecologic procedures due to direct contamination and aerosolization of the virus.^10,19 Current data on COVID-19 transmission during surgery are limited. However, it is important to recognize that viral aerosolization has been documented with other viral diseases, such as human papillomavirus and hepatitis B.²⁰ A recent report called for awareness in the surgical community about the potential risks of COVID-19 viral dissemination during laparoscopic surgery. Among other recommendations, international experts advised minimizing the use of electrosurgery to reduce the creation of surgical plume, decreasing the pneumoperitoneum pressure to minimum levels, and using suction devices in a closed system.²¹ Although these preventive measures apply to laparoscopic surgery, it is important to consider that hysteroscopy is performed in a unique environment.

During hysteroscopy the uterine cavity is distended with a liquid medium (normal saline or electrolyte-free solutions); this is opposed to gynecologic laparoscopy, in which the peritoneal cavity is distended with carbon dioxide.²² The smoke produced with the use of hysteroscopic electrosurgical instruments generates bubbles that are immediately cooled down to the temperature of the distention media and subsequently dissolve into it. Therefore, there are no bubbles generated during hysteroscopic surgery that are subsequently released into the air. This results in a low risk for viral dissemination during hysteroscopic procedures. Nevertheless, the necessary precautions to minimize the risk of COVID-19 transmission during hysteroscopic intervention are extremely important.

Recommendations for hysteroscopic procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic

We provide our overall recommendations for hysteroscopy, as well as those specific to the office and hospital setting.

Recommendations: General

Limit hysteroscopic procedures to COVID-19–negative patients and to those patients in whom delaying the procedure could result in adverse clinical outcomes.²³

Universally screen for potential COVID-19 infection. When possible, a phone interview to triage patients based on their symptoms and infection exposure status should take place before the patient arrives to the health care center. Patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection who require immediate evaluation should be directed to COVID-19–designated emergency areas.

Universally test for SARS-CoV-2 before procedures performed in the operating room (OR). Using nasopharyngeal swabs for the detection of viral RNA, employing molecular methods such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR), within 48 to 72 hours prior to all OR hysteroscopic procedures is strongly recommended. Adopting this testing strategy will aid to identify asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2‒infected patients, allowing to defer the procedure, if possible, among patients testing positive. If tests are limited, testing only patients scheduled for hysteroscopic procedures in which general or regional anesthesia will be required is acceptable.

Universal SARS-CoV-2 testing of patients undergoing in-office hysteroscopic diagnostic or minor operative procedures without the use of anesthesia is not required.

Limit the presence of a companion. It is understood that visitor policies may vary at the discretion of each institution’s guidelines. Children and individuals over the age of 60 years should not be granted access to the center. Companions will be subjected to the same screening criteria as patients.

Provide for social distancing and other precautionary measures. If more than one patient is scheduled to be at the facility at the same time, ensure that the facility provides adequate space to allow the appropriate social distancing recommendations between patients. Hand sanitizers and facemasks should be available for patients and companions.

Provide PPE for clinicians. All health care providers in close contact with the patient must wear personal protective equipment (PPE), which includes an apron and gown, a surgical mask, eye protection, and gloves. Health care providers should wear PPE deemed appropriate by their regulatory institutions following their local and national guidelines during clinical patient interactions.

Restrict surgical attendees to vital personnel. The participation of learners by physical presence in the office or operating room should be restricted.

Continue to: Recommendations: Office setting...

Preprocedural recommendations

• Advise patients to come to the office alone. If the patient requires a companion, a maximum of one adult companion under the age of 60 should be accepted.
• Limit the number of health care team members present in the procedure room.

Intraprocedural recommendations

• Choose the appropriate device(s) that will allow for an effective and fast procedure.
• Use the recommended PPE for all clinicians.
• Limit the movement of staff members in and out of the procedure room.

Postprocedure recommendations

• When more than one case is scheduled to be performed in the same procedure room, allow enough time in between cases to grant a thorough OR decontamination.
• Allow for patients to recover from the procedure in the same room as the procedure took place in order to avoid potential contamination of multiple rooms.
• Expedite patient discharge.
• Follow up after the procedure by phone or telemedicine.
• Use standard endoscope disinfection procedures, as they are effective and should not be modified.

Continue to: Recommendations: Operating room setting...

Preprocedural recommendations

• Perform adequate patient screening for potential COVID-19 infection. (Screening should be independent of symptoms and not be limited to those with clinical symptoms.)
• Limit the number of health care team members in the operating procedure room.
• To minimize unnecessary staff exposure, have surgeons and staff not needed for intubation remain outside the OR until intubation is completed and leave the OR before extubation.

Intraprocedure recommendations

• Limit personnel in the OR to a minimum.
• Staff should not enter or leave the room during the procedure.
• When possible, use conscious sedation or regional anesthesia to avoid the risk of viral dissemination at the time of intubation/extubation.
• Choose the device that will allow an effective and fast procedure.
• Favor non–smoke-generating devices, such as hysteroscopic scissors, graspers, and tissue retrieval systems.
• Connect active suction to the outflow, especially when using smoke-generating instruments, to facilitate the extraction of surgical smoke.

Postprocedure recommendations

• When more than one case is scheduled to be performed in the same room, allow enough time in between cases to grant a thorough OR decontamination.
• Expedite postprocedure recovery and patient discharge.
• After completion of the procedure, staff should remove scrubs and change into clean clothing.
• Use standard endoscope disinfection procedures, as they are effective and should not be modified.

Conclusions

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a global health emergency. Our knowledge of this devastating virus is constantly evolving as we continue to fight this overwhelming disease. Theoretical risk of “viral” dissemination is considered extremely low, or negligible, during hysterosocopy. Hysteroscopic procedures in COVID-19–positive patients with life-threatening conditions or in patients in whom delaying the procedure could worsen outcomes should be performed taking appropriate measures. Patients who test negative for COVID-19 (confirmed by PCR) and require hysteroscopic procedures, should be treated using universal precautions. ●

The emergence of the coronavirus severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (COVID-19) in December 2019, has resulted in a global pandemic that has challenged the medical community and will continue to represent a public health emergency for the next several months.¹ It has rapidly spread globally, infecting many individuals in an unprecedented rate of infection and worldwide reach. On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization designated COVID-19 as a pandemic. While the majority of infected individuals are asymptomatic or develop only mild symptoms, some have an unfortunate clinical course resulting in multi-organ failure and death.²

It is accepted that the virus mainly spreads during close contact and via respiratory droplets.³ The average time from infection to onset of symptoms ranges from 2 to 14 days, with an average of 5 days.⁴ Recommended measures to prevent the spread of the infection include social distancing (at least 6 feet from others), meticulous hand hygiene, and wearing a mask covering the mouth and nose when in public.⁵ Aiming to mitigate the risk of viral dissemination for patients and health care providers, and to preserve hospital resources, all nonessential medical interventions were initially suspended. Recently, the American College of Surgeons in a joint statement with 9 women’s health care societies have provided recommendations on how to resume clinical activities as we recover from the pandemic.⁶

As we reinitiate clinical activities, gynecologists have been alerted of the potential risk of viral dissemination during gynecologic minimally invasive surgical procedures due to the presence of the virus in blood, stool, and the potential risk of aerosolization of the virus, especially when using smoke-generating devices.^7,8 This risk is not limited to intubation and extubation of the airway during anesthesia; the risk also presents itself during other aerosol-generating procedures, such as laparoscopy or robotic surgery.^9,10

Hysteroscopy is considered the gold standard procedure for the diagnosis and management of intrauterine pathologies.¹¹ It is frequently performed in an office setting without the use of anesthesia.^11,12 It is usually well tolerated, with only a few patients reporting discomfort.¹² It allows for immediate treatment (using the “see and treat” approach) while avoiding not only the risk of anesthesia, as stated, but also the need for intubation—which has a high risk of droplet contamination in COVID-19–infected individuals.¹³

Is there risk of viral dissemination during hysteroscopic procedures?

The novel and rapidly changing nature of the COVID-19 pandemic present many challenges to the gynecologist. Significant concerns have been raised regarding potential risk of viral dissemination during laparoscopic surgery due to aerosolization of viral particles and the presence of the virus in blood and the gastrointestinal tract of infected patients.⁷ Diagnostic, and some simple, hysteroscopic procedures are commonly performed in an outpatient setting, with the patient awake. Complex hysteroscopic interventions, however, are generally performed in the operating room, typically with the use of general anesthesia. Hysteroscopy has the theoretical risks of viral dissemination when performed in COVID-19–positive patients. Two important questions must be addressed to better understand the potential risk of COVID-19 viral dissemination during hysteroscopic procedures.

Continue to: 1. Is the virus present in the vaginal fluid of women infected with COVID-19?...

1. Is the virus present in the vaginal fluid of women infected with COVID-19?

Recent studies have confirmed the presence of viral particles in urine, feces, blood, and tears in addition to the respiratory tract in patients infected with COVID-19.^3,14,15 The presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the female genital system is currently unknown. Previous studies, of other epidemic viral infections, have demonstrated the presence of the virus in the female genital tract in affected patients of Zika virus and Ebola.^16,17 However, 2 recent studies have failed to demonstrate the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the vaginal fluid of pregnant¹⁴ and not pregnant¹⁸ women with severe COVID-19 infection.

2. Is there risk of viral dissemination during hysteroscopy if using electrosurgery?

There are significant concerns with possible risk of COVID-19 transmission to health care providers in direct contact with infected patients during minimally invasive gynecologic procedures due to direct contamination and aerosolization of the virus.^10,19 Current data on COVID-19 transmission during surgery are limited. However, it is important to recognize that viral aerosolization has been documented with other viral diseases, such as human papillomavirus and hepatitis B.²⁰ A recent report called for awareness in the surgical community about the potential risks of COVID-19 viral dissemination during laparoscopic surgery. Among other recommendations, international experts advised minimizing the use of electrosurgery to reduce the creation of surgical plume, decreasing the pneumoperitoneum pressure to minimum levels, and using suction devices in a closed system.²¹ Although these preventive measures apply to laparoscopic surgery, it is important to consider that hysteroscopy is performed in a unique environment.

During hysteroscopy the uterine cavity is distended with a liquid medium (normal saline or electrolyte-free solutions); this is opposed to gynecologic laparoscopy, in which the peritoneal cavity is distended with carbon dioxide.²² The smoke produced with the use of hysteroscopic electrosurgical instruments generates bubbles that are immediately cooled down to the temperature of the distention media and subsequently dissolve into it. Therefore, there are no bubbles generated during hysteroscopic surgery that are subsequently released into the air. This results in a low risk for viral dissemination during hysteroscopic procedures. Nevertheless, the necessary precautions to minimize the risk of COVID-19 transmission during hysteroscopic intervention are extremely important.

Recommendations for hysteroscopic procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic

We provide our overall recommendations for hysteroscopy, as well as those specific to the office and hospital setting.

Recommendations: General

Limit hysteroscopic procedures to COVID-19–negative patients and to those patients in whom delaying the procedure could result in adverse clinical outcomes.²³

Universally screen for potential COVID-19 infection. When possible, a phone interview to triage patients based on their symptoms and infection exposure status should take place before the patient arrives to the health care center. Patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection who require immediate evaluation should be directed to COVID-19–designated emergency areas.

Universally test for SARS-CoV-2 before procedures performed in the operating room (OR). Using nasopharyngeal swabs for the detection of viral RNA, employing molecular methods such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR), within 48 to 72 hours prior to all OR hysteroscopic procedures is strongly recommended. Adopting this testing strategy will aid to identify asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2‒infected patients, allowing to defer the procedure, if possible, among patients testing positive. If tests are limited, testing only patients scheduled for hysteroscopic procedures in which general or regional anesthesia will be required is acceptable.

Universal SARS-CoV-2 testing of patients undergoing in-office hysteroscopic diagnostic or minor operative procedures without the use of anesthesia is not required.

Limit the presence of a companion. It is understood that visitor policies may vary at the discretion of each institution’s guidelines. Children and individuals over the age of 60 years should not be granted access to the center. Companions will be subjected to the same screening criteria as patients.

Provide for social distancing and other precautionary measures. If more than one patient is scheduled to be at the facility at the same time, ensure that the facility provides adequate space to allow the appropriate social distancing recommendations between patients. Hand sanitizers and facemasks should be available for patients and companions.

Provide PPE for clinicians. All health care providers in close contact with the patient must wear personal protective equipment (PPE), which includes an apron and gown, a surgical mask, eye protection, and gloves. Health care providers should wear PPE deemed appropriate by their regulatory institutions following their local and national guidelines during clinical patient interactions.

Restrict surgical attendees to vital personnel. The participation of learners by physical presence in the office or operating room should be restricted.

Continue to: Recommendations: Office setting...

Preprocedural recommendations

• Advise patients to come to the office alone. If the patient requires a companion, a maximum of one adult companion under the age of 60 should be accepted.
• Limit the number of health care team members present in the procedure room.

Intraprocedural recommendations

• Choose the appropriate device(s) that will allow for an effective and fast procedure.
• Use the recommended PPE for all clinicians.
• Limit the movement of staff members in and out of the procedure room.

Postprocedure recommendations

• When more than one case is scheduled to be performed in the same procedure room, allow enough time in between cases to grant a thorough OR decontamination.
• Allow for patients to recover from the procedure in the same room as the procedure took place in order to avoid potential contamination of multiple rooms.
• Expedite patient discharge.
• Follow up after the procedure by phone or telemedicine.
• Use standard endoscope disinfection procedures, as they are effective and should not be modified.

Continue to: Recommendations: Operating room setting...

Preprocedural recommendations

• Perform adequate patient screening for potential COVID-19 infection. (Screening should be independent of symptoms and not be limited to those with clinical symptoms.)
• Limit the number of health care team members in the operating procedure room.
• To minimize unnecessary staff exposure, have surgeons and staff not needed for intubation remain outside the OR until intubation is completed and leave the OR before extubation.

Intraprocedure recommendations

• Limit personnel in the OR to a minimum.
• Staff should not enter or leave the room during the procedure.
• When possible, use conscious sedation or regional anesthesia to avoid the risk of viral dissemination at the time of intubation/extubation.
• Choose the device that will allow an effective and fast procedure.
• Favor non–smoke-generating devices, such as hysteroscopic scissors, graspers, and tissue retrieval systems.
• Connect active suction to the outflow, especially when using smoke-generating instruments, to facilitate the extraction of surgical smoke.

Postprocedure recommendations

• When more than one case is scheduled to be performed in the same room, allow enough time in between cases to grant a thorough OR decontamination.
• Expedite postprocedure recovery and patient discharge.
• After completion of the procedure, staff should remove scrubs and change into clean clothing.
• Use standard endoscope disinfection procedures, as they are effective and should not be modified.

Conclusions

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a global health emergency. Our knowledge of this devastating virus is constantly evolving as we continue to fight this overwhelming disease. Theoretical risk of “viral” dissemination is considered extremely low, or negligible, during hysterosocopy. Hysteroscopic procedures in COVID-19–positive patients with life-threatening conditions or in patients in whom delaying the procedure could worsen outcomes should be performed taking appropriate measures. Patients who test negative for COVID-19 (confirmed by PCR) and require hysteroscopic procedures, should be treated using universal precautions. ●

The emergence of the coronavirus severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (COVID-19) in December 2019, has resulted in a global pandemic that has challenged the medical community and will continue to represent a public health emergency for the next several months.¹ It has rapidly spread globally, infecting many individuals in an unprecedented rate of infection and worldwide reach. On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization designated COVID-19 as a pandemic. While the majority of infected individuals are asymptomatic or develop only mild symptoms, some have an unfortunate clinical course resulting in multi-organ failure and death.²

It is accepted that the virus mainly spreads during close contact and via respiratory droplets.³ The average time from infection to onset of symptoms ranges from 2 to 14 days, with an average of 5 days.⁴ Recommended measures to prevent the spread of the infection include social distancing (at least 6 feet from others), meticulous hand hygiene, and wearing a mask covering the mouth and nose when in public.⁵ Aiming to mitigate the risk of viral dissemination for patients and health care providers, and to preserve hospital resources, all nonessential medical interventions were initially suspended. Recently, the American College of Surgeons in a joint statement with 9 women’s health care societies have provided recommendations on how to resume clinical activities as we recover from the pandemic.⁶

As we reinitiate clinical activities, gynecologists have been alerted of the potential risk of viral dissemination during gynecologic minimally invasive surgical procedures due to the presence of the virus in blood, stool, and the potential risk of aerosolization of the virus, especially when using smoke-generating devices.^7,8 This risk is not limited to intubation and extubation of the airway during anesthesia; the risk also presents itself during other aerosol-generating procedures, such as laparoscopy or robotic surgery.^9,10

Hysteroscopy is considered the gold standard procedure for the diagnosis and management of intrauterine pathologies.¹¹ It is frequently performed in an office setting without the use of anesthesia.^11,12 It is usually well tolerated, with only a few patients reporting discomfort.¹² It allows for immediate treatment (using the “see and treat” approach) while avoiding not only the risk of anesthesia, as stated, but also the need for intubation—which has a high risk of droplet contamination in COVID-19–infected individuals.¹³

Is there risk of viral dissemination during hysteroscopic procedures?

The novel and rapidly changing nature of the COVID-19 pandemic present many challenges to the gynecologist. Significant concerns have been raised regarding potential risk of viral dissemination during laparoscopic surgery due to aerosolization of viral particles and the presence of the virus in blood and the gastrointestinal tract of infected patients.⁷ Diagnostic, and some simple, hysteroscopic procedures are commonly performed in an outpatient setting, with the patient awake. Complex hysteroscopic interventions, however, are generally performed in the operating room, typically with the use of general anesthesia. Hysteroscopy has the theoretical risks of viral dissemination when performed in COVID-19–positive patients. Two important questions must be addressed to better understand the potential risk of COVID-19 viral dissemination during hysteroscopic procedures.

Continue to: 1. Is the virus present in the vaginal fluid of women infected with COVID-19?...

1. Is the virus present in the vaginal fluid of women infected with COVID-19?

Recent studies have confirmed the presence of viral particles in urine, feces, blood, and tears in addition to the respiratory tract in patients infected with COVID-19.^3,14,15 The presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the female genital system is currently unknown. Previous studies, of other epidemic viral infections, have demonstrated the presence of the virus in the female genital tract in affected patients of Zika virus and Ebola.^16,17 However, 2 recent studies have failed to demonstrate the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the vaginal fluid of pregnant¹⁴ and not pregnant¹⁸ women with severe COVID-19 infection.

2. Is there risk of viral dissemination during hysteroscopy if using electrosurgery?

There are significant concerns with possible risk of COVID-19 transmission to health care providers in direct contact with infected patients during minimally invasive gynecologic procedures due to direct contamination and aerosolization of the virus.^10,19 Current data on COVID-19 transmission during surgery are limited. However, it is important to recognize that viral aerosolization has been documented with other viral diseases, such as human papillomavirus and hepatitis B.²⁰ A recent report called for awareness in the surgical community about the potential risks of COVID-19 viral dissemination during laparoscopic surgery. Among other recommendations, international experts advised minimizing the use of electrosurgery to reduce the creation of surgical plume, decreasing the pneumoperitoneum pressure to minimum levels, and using suction devices in a closed system.²¹ Although these preventive measures apply to laparoscopic surgery, it is important to consider that hysteroscopy is performed in a unique environment.

During hysteroscopy the uterine cavity is distended with a liquid medium (normal saline or electrolyte-free solutions); this is opposed to gynecologic laparoscopy, in which the peritoneal cavity is distended with carbon dioxide.²² The smoke produced with the use of hysteroscopic electrosurgical instruments generates bubbles that are immediately cooled down to the temperature of the distention media and subsequently dissolve into it. Therefore, there are no bubbles generated during hysteroscopic surgery that are subsequently released into the air. This results in a low risk for viral dissemination during hysteroscopic procedures. Nevertheless, the necessary precautions to minimize the risk of COVID-19 transmission during hysteroscopic intervention are extremely important.

Recommendations for hysteroscopic procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic

We provide our overall recommendations for hysteroscopy, as well as those specific to the office and hospital setting.

Recommendations: General

Limit hysteroscopic procedures to COVID-19–negative patients and to those patients in whom delaying the procedure could result in adverse clinical outcomes.²³

Universally screen for potential COVID-19 infection. When possible, a phone interview to triage patients based on their symptoms and infection exposure status should take place before the patient arrives to the health care center. Patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection who require immediate evaluation should be directed to COVID-19–designated emergency areas.

Universally test for SARS-CoV-2 before procedures performed in the operating room (OR). Using nasopharyngeal swabs for the detection of viral RNA, employing molecular methods such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR), within 48 to 72 hours prior to all OR hysteroscopic procedures is strongly recommended. Adopting this testing strategy will aid to identify asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2‒infected patients, allowing to defer the procedure, if possible, among patients testing positive. If tests are limited, testing only patients scheduled for hysteroscopic procedures in which general or regional anesthesia will be required is acceptable.

Universal SARS-CoV-2 testing of patients undergoing in-office hysteroscopic diagnostic or minor operative procedures without the use of anesthesia is not required.

Limit the presence of a companion. It is understood that visitor policies may vary at the discretion of each institution’s guidelines. Children and individuals over the age of 60 years should not be granted access to the center. Companions will be subjected to the same screening criteria as patients.

Provide for social distancing and other precautionary measures. If more than one patient is scheduled to be at the facility at the same time, ensure that the facility provides adequate space to allow the appropriate social distancing recommendations between patients. Hand sanitizers and facemasks should be available for patients and companions.

Provide PPE for clinicians. All health care providers in close contact with the patient must wear personal protective equipment (PPE), which includes an apron and gown, a surgical mask, eye protection, and gloves. Health care providers should wear PPE deemed appropriate by their regulatory institutions following their local and national guidelines during clinical patient interactions.

Restrict surgical attendees to vital personnel. The participation of learners by physical presence in the office or operating room should be restricted.

Continue to: Recommendations: Office setting...

Preprocedural recommendations

• Advise patients to come to the office alone. If the patient requires a companion, a maximum of one adult companion under the age of 60 should be accepted.
• Limit the number of health care team members present in the procedure room.

Intraprocedural recommendations

• Choose the appropriate device(s) that will allow for an effective and fast procedure.
• Use the recommended PPE for all clinicians.
• Limit the movement of staff members in and out of the procedure room.

Postprocedure recommendations

• When more than one case is scheduled to be performed in the same procedure room, allow enough time in between cases to grant a thorough OR decontamination.
• Allow for patients to recover from the procedure in the same room as the procedure took place in order to avoid potential contamination of multiple rooms.
• Expedite patient discharge.
• Follow up after the procedure by phone or telemedicine.
• Use standard endoscope disinfection procedures, as they are effective and should not be modified.

Continue to: Recommendations: Operating room setting...

Preprocedural recommendations

• Perform adequate patient screening for potential COVID-19 infection. (Screening should be independent of symptoms and not be limited to those with clinical symptoms.)
• Limit the number of health care team members in the operating procedure room.
• To minimize unnecessary staff exposure, have surgeons and staff not needed for intubation remain outside the OR until intubation is completed and leave the OR before extubation.

Intraprocedure recommendations

• Limit personnel in the OR to a minimum.
• Staff should not enter or leave the room during the procedure.
• When possible, use conscious sedation or regional anesthesia to avoid the risk of viral dissemination at the time of intubation/extubation.
• Choose the device that will allow an effective and fast procedure.
• Favor non–smoke-generating devices, such as hysteroscopic scissors, graspers, and tissue retrieval systems.
• Connect active suction to the outflow, especially when using smoke-generating instruments, to facilitate the extraction of surgical smoke.

Postprocedure recommendations

• When more than one case is scheduled to be performed in the same room, allow enough time in between cases to grant a thorough OR decontamination.
• Expedite postprocedure recovery and patient discharge.
• After completion of the procedure, staff should remove scrubs and change into clean clothing.
• Use standard endoscope disinfection procedures, as they are effective and should not be modified.

Conclusions

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a global health emergency. Our knowledge of this devastating virus is constantly evolving as we continue to fight this overwhelming disease. Theoretical risk of “viral” dissemination is considered extremely low, or negligible, during hysterosocopy. Hysteroscopic procedures in COVID-19–positive patients with life-threatening conditions or in patients in whom delaying the procedure could worsen outcomes should be performed taking appropriate measures. Patients who test negative for COVID-19 (confirmed by PCR) and require hysteroscopic procedures, should be treated using universal precautions. ●

Women facing issues related to perimenopause and menopause can consult their primary care physicians or ob.gyns. through telemedicine visits, but a new online portal, the Cusp, offers an alternative model with a focus on menopause and access to experts for a monthly membership fee.

The Cusp doesn’t claim to replace routine gynecologic care. Rather, it focuses on perimenopause and menopause symptoms specifically, and states that its physicians, some of whom are certified by the North American Menopause Society, provide expertise in menopause beyond what patients might receive as part of a typical ob.gyn. visit.

The Cusp is a for-profit organization, a group of physicians, nurse practitioners, and technologists who focus on integrated care for women in perimenopause and beyond. The aim is to leverage technology as a way to connect women to the care platform to book physician and nurse practitioner visits virtually and to have all of the information about their care centralized in one place.

According to the website, most patients who sign up for a care plan check in with their providers at least once a month to monitor their symptoms and tweak treatment strategies. Patients who sign up are prompted to download an app, which then becomes the main tool for scheduling future visits, tracking symptoms, and communicating with providers.

The Cusp launched in early 2019, before the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, but the pandemic has accelerated the acceptance across medical specialties, suggesting that telemedicine is here to stay, according to Mindy Goldman, MD, professor of gynecology and gynecologic surgery at the University of California, San Francisco, and director of the Gynecology Center for Cancer Survivors and At-Risk Women at UCSF, who also serves as a medical adviser to the Cusp.

Partnering with technology companies allows opportunities to provide care in areas where there are gaps, such as menopause management, she said. Many clinicians in primary care and ob.gyn. care don’t have the time or training to discuss menopause management in depth with patients, and patient interviews conducted by the Cusp before launching the site showed that this was an area of need.

“One thing that is really unique about the Cusp is that we brought together experts to provide care in both in an evidence-based and holistic fashion,” Dr. Goldman emphasized.

The Cusp’s medical team includes physician and nurse practitioner menopause experts with backgrounds including not only ob.gyn. but also psychiatry, integrative medicine, and naturopathic medicine, with plans to add endocrinology and dermatology as well. This holistic approach allows the Cusp to tailor care based on what each woman is looking for, with evidence-based expertise to support treatment decisions, said Dr. Goldman, whose advisory role includes helping to develop patient treatment protocols and services.

If a woman wants to begin treating symptoms with a naturopathic approach, the team will provide protocols that take current guidelines into account. Regular visits, approximately once a month or as needed, allow for collaboration with the Cusp’s specialists to provide consistent care that is very comprehensive, she said.

One of the benefits of the Cusp is the opportunity for “frequent touchpoints” in which providers reach out to patients via text, email, or video. Although a traditional medical visit may include some initial discussion of menopause and treatment plans, the Cusp offers “a more seamless way to address needs on an ongoing basis,” to provide more complete patient care, Dr. Goldman said.

“We are constantly asking women what they are looking for in menopause care,” and a recurring question was about hormone testing, she said. Nontraditional practitioners may offer hormone testing as a way of individualizing care that also involves compounded formulations, and other treatments that are not standard of care. “In all of our protocols we follow what is recommended by standard organizations such as ACOG [American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists] and NAMS.”

The Cusp’s newest service is an at-home hormone test currently for women in New York and California, but the company plans to expand this service. The hormone test, while not essential, is another tool to guide menopause management, and having a sense of when menopause will occur “gives us a chance to talk to people about behavioral changes and time to personalize a treatment protocol,” Dr. Goldman said.

The test is based in part on the anti-Müllerian hormone, which recent studies have shown is useful in predicting time to menopause. This, in combination with other hormone tests and other clinical information, will allow the Cusp’s menopause specialists to help women in perimenopause gain perspective on their symptoms and design a treatment plan that can evolve as their needs change, she explained.

“The more information you know about when menopause is going to be happening, you can tailor your treatment plan,” Dr. Goldman said. For example, a woman who may be 2 years away from menopause might consider a naturopathic approach at first, and switch to a different therapy as menopause occurs. “We know that the risks of cardiovascular disease and bone loss increase after menopause, and knowing the time to menopause gives us more guidance when educating patients about healthy lifestyle habits such as exercise and dietary changes that can help reduce these risks.”

The Cusp allows patients to use money in flexible spending accounts or health savings accounts to pay for the program. If doctors require lab tests or other procedures, these are covered through the patients’ regular health insurance as they would be if requested by a primary care physician or other health care professional.

Lubna Pal, MBBS, director of the menopause program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., commented that part of the value in a telehealth site such as the Cusp is to serve as “a resource for reproductively aging women to understand what is happening to them.”

Any way to improve education on the topic of menopause is empowering to women, said Dr. Pal, professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at Yale. “This is an opportunity for patients to have access to a directed evaluation” of menopause-related symptoms. Then, when women visit their regular health care provider in person, they are well-equipped with knowledge to ask more informed questions and discuss a wide range of treatment options.

Dr. Pal noted that the hormone test is less valuable than the interaction between physicians and patients, whether online or in person.

“Menopause is a Monday morning quarterback diagnosis,” she said, emphasizing that, not only is a year without menses part of the diagnosis of menopause, many women in perimenopause can have wide fluctuations in hormone levels, so a test is more of a snapshot than a diagnostic tool, and that the results might cause unnecessary angst and concerns for patients.

However, part of the value of a telehealth site that focuses on menopause is that it gives women a place to learn more about their biology and to clarify their questions about symptoms and become aware of a range of treatment options. Telehealth consultations also can help women recognize how other factors such as lifestyle modifications can play a role in menopause symptoms, and how modifying these factors may provide some relief, she said.

Dr. Pal said she would be cautious about the idea of prescribing without seeing the patient in person, but noted that telehealth sites such as the Cusp can be a win-win to enhance women’s health when used in combination with regular in-person visits to an ob.gyn. The added value in patients’ being able to discuss their concerns and to learn more about their symptoms means that they will be better informed to develop a menopause management strategy in partnership with their providers, said Dr. Pal, who is not associated with the Cusp.

Dr. Goldman disclosed receiving compensation from the Cusp for her advisory work. She also holds stock options in the company. Dr. Pal, who is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board, had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Women facing issues related to perimenopause and menopause can consult their primary care physicians or ob.gyns. through telemedicine visits, but a new online portal, the Cusp, offers an alternative model with a focus on menopause and access to experts for a monthly membership fee.

The Cusp doesn’t claim to replace routine gynecologic care. Rather, it focuses on perimenopause and menopause symptoms specifically, and states that its physicians, some of whom are certified by the North American Menopause Society, provide expertise in menopause beyond what patients might receive as part of a typical ob.gyn. visit.

The Cusp is a for-profit organization, a group of physicians, nurse practitioners, and technologists who focus on integrated care for women in perimenopause and beyond. The aim is to leverage technology as a way to connect women to the care platform to book physician and nurse practitioner visits virtually and to have all of the information about their care centralized in one place.

According to the website, most patients who sign up for a care plan check in with their providers at least once a month to monitor their symptoms and tweak treatment strategies. Patients who sign up are prompted to download an app, which then becomes the main tool for scheduling future visits, tracking symptoms, and communicating with providers.

The Cusp launched in early 2019, before the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, but the pandemic has accelerated the acceptance across medical specialties, suggesting that telemedicine is here to stay, according to Mindy Goldman, MD, professor of gynecology and gynecologic surgery at the University of California, San Francisco, and director of the Gynecology Center for Cancer Survivors and At-Risk Women at UCSF, who also serves as a medical adviser to the Cusp.

Partnering with technology companies allows opportunities to provide care in areas where there are gaps, such as menopause management, she said. Many clinicians in primary care and ob.gyn. care don’t have the time or training to discuss menopause management in depth with patients, and patient interviews conducted by the Cusp before launching the site showed that this was an area of need.

“One thing that is really unique about the Cusp is that we brought together experts to provide care in both in an evidence-based and holistic fashion,” Dr. Goldman emphasized.

The Cusp’s medical team includes physician and nurse practitioner menopause experts with backgrounds including not only ob.gyn. but also psychiatry, integrative medicine, and naturopathic medicine, with plans to add endocrinology and dermatology as well. This holistic approach allows the Cusp to tailor care based on what each woman is looking for, with evidence-based expertise to support treatment decisions, said Dr. Goldman, whose advisory role includes helping to develop patient treatment protocols and services.

If a woman wants to begin treating symptoms with a naturopathic approach, the team will provide protocols that take current guidelines into account. Regular visits, approximately once a month or as needed, allow for collaboration with the Cusp’s specialists to provide consistent care that is very comprehensive, she said.

One of the benefits of the Cusp is the opportunity for “frequent touchpoints” in which providers reach out to patients via text, email, or video. Although a traditional medical visit may include some initial discussion of menopause and treatment plans, the Cusp offers “a more seamless way to address needs on an ongoing basis,” to provide more complete patient care, Dr. Goldman said.

“We are constantly asking women what they are looking for in menopause care,” and a recurring question was about hormone testing, she said. Nontraditional practitioners may offer hormone testing as a way of individualizing care that also involves compounded formulations, and other treatments that are not standard of care. “In all of our protocols we follow what is recommended by standard organizations such as ACOG [American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists] and NAMS.”

The Cusp’s newest service is an at-home hormone test currently for women in New York and California, but the company plans to expand this service. The hormone test, while not essential, is another tool to guide menopause management, and having a sense of when menopause will occur “gives us a chance to talk to people about behavioral changes and time to personalize a treatment protocol,” Dr. Goldman said.

The test is based in part on the anti-Müllerian hormone, which recent studies have shown is useful in predicting time to menopause. This, in combination with other hormone tests and other clinical information, will allow the Cusp’s menopause specialists to help women in perimenopause gain perspective on their symptoms and design a treatment plan that can evolve as their needs change, she explained.

“The more information you know about when menopause is going to be happening, you can tailor your treatment plan,” Dr. Goldman said. For example, a woman who may be 2 years away from menopause might consider a naturopathic approach at first, and switch to a different therapy as menopause occurs. “We know that the risks of cardiovascular disease and bone loss increase after menopause, and knowing the time to menopause gives us more guidance when educating patients about healthy lifestyle habits such as exercise and dietary changes that can help reduce these risks.”

The Cusp allows patients to use money in flexible spending accounts or health savings accounts to pay for the program. If doctors require lab tests or other procedures, these are covered through the patients’ regular health insurance as they would be if requested by a primary care physician or other health care professional.

Lubna Pal, MBBS, director of the menopause program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., commented that part of the value in a telehealth site such as the Cusp is to serve as “a resource for reproductively aging women to understand what is happening to them.”

Any way to improve education on the topic of menopause is empowering to women, said Dr. Pal, professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at Yale. “This is an opportunity for patients to have access to a directed evaluation” of menopause-related symptoms. Then, when women visit their regular health care provider in person, they are well-equipped with knowledge to ask more informed questions and discuss a wide range of treatment options.

Dr. Pal noted that the hormone test is less valuable than the interaction between physicians and patients, whether online or in person.

“Menopause is a Monday morning quarterback diagnosis,” she said, emphasizing that, not only is a year without menses part of the diagnosis of menopause, many women in perimenopause can have wide fluctuations in hormone levels, so a test is more of a snapshot than a diagnostic tool, and that the results might cause unnecessary angst and concerns for patients.

However, part of the value of a telehealth site that focuses on menopause is that it gives women a place to learn more about their biology and to clarify their questions about symptoms and become aware of a range of treatment options. Telehealth consultations also can help women recognize how other factors such as lifestyle modifications can play a role in menopause symptoms, and how modifying these factors may provide some relief, she said.

Dr. Pal said she would be cautious about the idea of prescribing without seeing the patient in person, but noted that telehealth sites such as the Cusp can be a win-win to enhance women’s health when used in combination with regular in-person visits to an ob.gyn. The added value in patients’ being able to discuss their concerns and to learn more about their symptoms means that they will be better informed to develop a menopause management strategy in partnership with their providers, said Dr. Pal, who is not associated with the Cusp.

Dr. Goldman disclosed receiving compensation from the Cusp for her advisory work. She also holds stock options in the company. Dr. Pal, who is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board, had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Women facing issues related to perimenopause and menopause can consult their primary care physicians or ob.gyns. through telemedicine visits, but a new online portal, the Cusp, offers an alternative model with a focus on menopause and access to experts for a monthly membership fee.

The Cusp doesn’t claim to replace routine gynecologic care. Rather, it focuses on perimenopause and menopause symptoms specifically, and states that its physicians, some of whom are certified by the North American Menopause Society, provide expertise in menopause beyond what patients might receive as part of a typical ob.gyn. visit.

The Cusp is a for-profit organization, a group of physicians, nurse practitioners, and technologists who focus on integrated care for women in perimenopause and beyond. The aim is to leverage technology as a way to connect women to the care platform to book physician and nurse practitioner visits virtually and to have all of the information about their care centralized in one place.

According to the website, most patients who sign up for a care plan check in with their providers at least once a month to monitor their symptoms and tweak treatment strategies. Patients who sign up are prompted to download an app, which then becomes the main tool for scheduling future visits, tracking symptoms, and communicating with providers.

The Cusp launched in early 2019, before the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, but the pandemic has accelerated the acceptance across medical specialties, suggesting that telemedicine is here to stay, according to Mindy Goldman, MD, professor of gynecology and gynecologic surgery at the University of California, San Francisco, and director of the Gynecology Center for Cancer Survivors and At-Risk Women at UCSF, who also serves as a medical adviser to the Cusp.

Partnering with technology companies allows opportunities to provide care in areas where there are gaps, such as menopause management, she said. Many clinicians in primary care and ob.gyn. care don’t have the time or training to discuss menopause management in depth with patients, and patient interviews conducted by the Cusp before launching the site showed that this was an area of need.

“One thing that is really unique about the Cusp is that we brought together experts to provide care in both in an evidence-based and holistic fashion,” Dr. Goldman emphasized.

The Cusp’s medical team includes physician and nurse practitioner menopause experts with backgrounds including not only ob.gyn. but also psychiatry, integrative medicine, and naturopathic medicine, with plans to add endocrinology and dermatology as well. This holistic approach allows the Cusp to tailor care based on what each woman is looking for, with evidence-based expertise to support treatment decisions, said Dr. Goldman, whose advisory role includes helping to develop patient treatment protocols and services.

If a woman wants to begin treating symptoms with a naturopathic approach, the team will provide protocols that take current guidelines into account. Regular visits, approximately once a month or as needed, allow for collaboration with the Cusp’s specialists to provide consistent care that is very comprehensive, she said.

One of the benefits of the Cusp is the opportunity for “frequent touchpoints” in which providers reach out to patients via text, email, or video. Although a traditional medical visit may include some initial discussion of menopause and treatment plans, the Cusp offers “a more seamless way to address needs on an ongoing basis,” to provide more complete patient care, Dr. Goldman said.

“We are constantly asking women what they are looking for in menopause care,” and a recurring question was about hormone testing, she said. Nontraditional practitioners may offer hormone testing as a way of individualizing care that also involves compounded formulations, and other treatments that are not standard of care. “In all of our protocols we follow what is recommended by standard organizations such as ACOG [American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists] and NAMS.”

The Cusp’s newest service is an at-home hormone test currently for women in New York and California, but the company plans to expand this service. The hormone test, while not essential, is another tool to guide menopause management, and having a sense of when menopause will occur “gives us a chance to talk to people about behavioral changes and time to personalize a treatment protocol,” Dr. Goldman said.

The test is based in part on the anti-Müllerian hormone, which recent studies have shown is useful in predicting time to menopause. This, in combination with other hormone tests and other clinical information, will allow the Cusp’s menopause specialists to help women in perimenopause gain perspective on their symptoms and design a treatment plan that can evolve as their needs change, she explained.

“The more information you know about when menopause is going to be happening, you can tailor your treatment plan,” Dr. Goldman said. For example, a woman who may be 2 years away from menopause might consider a naturopathic approach at first, and switch to a different therapy as menopause occurs. “We know that the risks of cardiovascular disease and bone loss increase after menopause, and knowing the time to menopause gives us more guidance when educating patients about healthy lifestyle habits such as exercise and dietary changes that can help reduce these risks.”

The Cusp allows patients to use money in flexible spending accounts or health savings accounts to pay for the program. If doctors require lab tests or other procedures, these are covered through the patients’ regular health insurance as they would be if requested by a primary care physician or other health care professional.

Lubna Pal, MBBS, director of the menopause program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., commented that part of the value in a telehealth site such as the Cusp is to serve as “a resource for reproductively aging women to understand what is happening to them.”

Any way to improve education on the topic of menopause is empowering to women, said Dr. Pal, professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at Yale. “This is an opportunity for patients to have access to a directed evaluation” of menopause-related symptoms. Then, when women visit their regular health care provider in person, they are well-equipped with knowledge to ask more informed questions and discuss a wide range of treatment options.

Dr. Pal noted that the hormone test is less valuable than the interaction between physicians and patients, whether online or in person.

“Menopause is a Monday morning quarterback diagnosis,” she said, emphasizing that, not only is a year without menses part of the diagnosis of menopause, many women in perimenopause can have wide fluctuations in hormone levels, so a test is more of a snapshot than a diagnostic tool, and that the results might cause unnecessary angst and concerns for patients.

However, part of the value of a telehealth site that focuses on menopause is that it gives women a place to learn more about their biology and to clarify their questions about symptoms and become aware of a range of treatment options. Telehealth consultations also can help women recognize how other factors such as lifestyle modifications can play a role in menopause symptoms, and how modifying these factors may provide some relief, she said.

Dr. Pal said she would be cautious about the idea of prescribing without seeing the patient in person, but noted that telehealth sites such as the Cusp can be a win-win to enhance women’s health when used in combination with regular in-person visits to an ob.gyn. The added value in patients’ being able to discuss their concerns and to learn more about their symptoms means that they will be better informed to develop a menopause management strategy in partnership with their providers, said Dr. Pal, who is not associated with the Cusp.

Dr. Goldman disclosed receiving compensation from the Cusp for her advisory work. She also holds stock options in the company. Dr. Pal, who is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board, had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A new follow-up study of menopausal hormone therapy found that prior use of conjugated equine estrogen (CEE) decreased both breast cancer incidence and mortality, while prior use of CEE plus medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) was associated with an increase in incidence.

“Prior use of CEE alone is, to our knowledge, the first pharmacologic intervention demonstrated to be associated with a statistically significantly reduction in deaths from breast cancer,” wrote Rowan T. Chlebowski, MD, PhD, of the Lundquist Institute for Biomedical Innovation in Torrance, Calif., and his coauthors. The study was published July 28 in JAMA.

To further investigate the outcomes of the Women’s Health Initiative in regard to hormone therapy and breast cancer risk, the researchers analyzed the long-term follow-up of two randomized trials that included 27,347 postmenopausal women with no prior breast cancer and negative mammograms at baseline. Their mean (SD) age was 63.4 (7.2) years. Enrollment took place from 1993 to 1998; participants were contacted for follow-up every 6 months through 2005 and annually from then on. Mortality data were gathered from follow-up and the National Death Index.

The first trial included 16,608 women with a uterus. Among these women, 8,506 received 0.625 mg/day of CEE plus 2.5 mg/day of MPA, and 8,102 received placebo. The second trial included 10,739 women who’d gotten a hysterectomy, 5,310 of whom received 0.625 mg/day of CEE alone and 5,429 of whom received placebo. The first trial ended in 2002 after a median intervention period of 5.6 years, and the second trial ended in 2004 after a period of 7.2 years.

An analysis in 2015 found that CEE alone was associated with lower risk of breast cancer and CEE plus MPA was associated with increased risk.

The current analysis confirmed that, after a median of 20.3 years of follow-up, and with mortality data now available for more than 98% of participants, CEE alone was associated with fewer cases of breast cancer (238 cases, annualized rate 0.30%), compared with placebo (296 cases, annualized rate 0.37%; hazard ratio 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-0.93; P = .005).

Furthermore, CEE alone was also associated with lower mortality (30 deaths, annualized mortality rate 0.031%), compared with placebo (46 deaths, annualized mortality rate 0.046%; HR 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37-0.97; P = .04).

By comparison, CEE plus MPA was linked with more cases of breast cancer (584 cases, annualized rate 0.45%) than placebo (447 cases, annualized rate 0.36%; HR 1.28; 95% CI, 1.13-1.45; P < .001). In regard to mortality, there was no statistically significant difference between CEE plus MPA (71 deaths, annualized mortality rate 0.045%) and placebo (53 deaths, annualized mortality rate 0.035%; HR 1.35; 95% CI, 0.94-1.95; P = .11).

“The big thing to think about is estrogen alone reducing breast cancer mortality by 40%,” said Dr. Chlebowski in an interview. “None of the other interventions, including tamoxifen, had any change on mortality. This should change the way we look at breast cancer prevention, though we might have to be a little creative about it. I think you have to be a little away from menopause for it to reduce breast cancer. But we wanted to start that debate.

“On the other hand,” he said, “a woman takes estrogen plus progestin and when you look at that curve, it’s staying about 25% increased. You take it for 5.6 years and the increase continues through 20 years, so you’re maybe buying a lifetime of increase in breast cancer by taking estrogen plus progestin for 5 years.”

He also highlighted the comprehensiveness of the mortality data, noting that “when you hook up to the National Death Index, they find 98% of all deaths in the United States. That’s really remarkable; you retain the whole power of the randomization. It means our data, between the death index and our follow-up of participants, is essentially complete.”

Use of hormone therapy, and decoding the outcomes, remains ‘complex’

Decades after the data were gathered from the Women’s Health Initiative clinical trials, they continue to assist researchers and patients alike, wrote Christina A. Minami, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and Rachel A. Freedman, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, in an accompanying editorial.

That said, in regard to the findings of this latest analysis, “many questions still remain on whether (and how) a hormone therapy intervention that occurred many years earlier may continue to affect breast cancer risk and mortality at 20 years,” they wrote. They noted that it’s “impossible” to isolate how exposure to certain therapies can impact long-term outcomes, and that a high percentage of patients who discontinued the drugs during each trial muddy the waters even further.

“Decisions to initiate these medications remain complex,” they added, emphasizing that breast cancer risk is just one of many factors that physicians must consider when considering hormone therapy for their patients.

Dr. Chlebowski and his coauthors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the use of very specifically administered and formulated dosages making their findings “not necessarily generalizable to other preparations.” In addition, they noted the significant percentage of patients – 54% with CEE alone and 42% with CEE plus MPA – who discontinued drug usage during their respective trials.

The Women’s Health Initiative is supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Health and Human Services. The authors reported numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving personal fees and grants from various government organizations, foundations, and pharmaceutical companies. The editorial’s authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Chlebowski RT et al. JAMA. 2020 Jul 28. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.9482.

A new follow-up study of menopausal hormone therapy found that prior use of conjugated equine estrogen (CEE) decreased both breast cancer incidence and mortality, while prior use of CEE plus medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) was associated with an increase in incidence.

“Prior use of CEE alone is, to our knowledge, the first pharmacologic intervention demonstrated to be associated with a statistically significantly reduction in deaths from breast cancer,” wrote Rowan T. Chlebowski, MD, PhD, of the Lundquist Institute for Biomedical Innovation in Torrance, Calif., and his coauthors. The study was published July 28 in JAMA.

To further investigate the outcomes of the Women’s Health Initiative in regard to hormone therapy and breast cancer risk, the researchers analyzed the long-term follow-up of two randomized trials that included 27,347 postmenopausal women with no prior breast cancer and negative mammograms at baseline. Their mean (SD) age was 63.4 (7.2) years. Enrollment took place from 1993 to 1998; participants were contacted for follow-up every 6 months through 2005 and annually from then on. Mortality data were gathered from follow-up and the National Death Index.

The first trial included 16,608 women with a uterus. Among these women, 8,506 received 0.625 mg/day of CEE plus 2.5 mg/day of MPA, and 8,102 received placebo. The second trial included 10,739 women who’d gotten a hysterectomy, 5,310 of whom received 0.625 mg/day of CEE alone and 5,429 of whom received placebo. The first trial ended in 2002 after a median intervention period of 5.6 years, and the second trial ended in 2004 after a period of 7.2 years.

An analysis in 2015 found that CEE alone was associated with lower risk of breast cancer and CEE plus MPA was associated with increased risk.

The current analysis confirmed that, after a median of 20.3 years of follow-up, and with mortality data now available for more than 98% of participants, CEE alone was associated with fewer cases of breast cancer (238 cases, annualized rate 0.30%), compared with placebo (296 cases, annualized rate 0.37%; hazard ratio 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-0.93; P = .005).

Furthermore, CEE alone was also associated with lower mortality (30 deaths, annualized mortality rate 0.031%), compared with placebo (46 deaths, annualized mortality rate 0.046%; HR 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37-0.97; P = .04).

By comparison, CEE plus MPA was linked with more cases of breast cancer (584 cases, annualized rate 0.45%) than placebo (447 cases, annualized rate 0.36%; HR 1.28; 95% CI, 1.13-1.45; P < .001). In regard to mortality, there was no statistically significant difference between CEE plus MPA (71 deaths, annualized mortality rate 0.045%) and placebo (53 deaths, annualized mortality rate 0.035%; HR 1.35; 95% CI, 0.94-1.95; P = .11).

“The big thing to think about is estrogen alone reducing breast cancer mortality by 40%,” said Dr. Chlebowski in an interview. “None of the other interventions, including tamoxifen, had any change on mortality. This should change the way we look at breast cancer prevention, though we might have to be a little creative about it. I think you have to be a little away from menopause for it to reduce breast cancer. But we wanted to start that debate.

“On the other hand,” he said, “a woman takes estrogen plus progestin and when you look at that curve, it’s staying about 25% increased. You take it for 5.6 years and the increase continues through 20 years, so you’re maybe buying a lifetime of increase in breast cancer by taking estrogen plus progestin for 5 years.”

He also highlighted the comprehensiveness of the mortality data, noting that “when you hook up to the National Death Index, they find 98% of all deaths in the United States. That’s really remarkable; you retain the whole power of the randomization. It means our data, between the death index and our follow-up of participants, is essentially complete.”

Use of hormone therapy, and decoding the outcomes, remains ‘complex’

Decades after the data were gathered from the Women’s Health Initiative clinical trials, they continue to assist researchers and patients alike, wrote Christina A. Minami, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and Rachel A. Freedman, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, in an accompanying editorial.

That said, in regard to the findings of this latest analysis, “many questions still remain on whether (and how) a hormone therapy intervention that occurred many years earlier may continue to affect breast cancer risk and mortality at 20 years,” they wrote. They noted that it’s “impossible” to isolate how exposure to certain therapies can impact long-term outcomes, and that a high percentage of patients who discontinued the drugs during each trial muddy the waters even further.

“Decisions to initiate these medications remain complex,” they added, emphasizing that breast cancer risk is just one of many factors that physicians must consider when considering hormone therapy for their patients.

Dr. Chlebowski and his coauthors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the use of very specifically administered and formulated dosages making their findings “not necessarily generalizable to other preparations.” In addition, they noted the significant percentage of patients – 54% with CEE alone and 42% with CEE plus MPA – who discontinued drug usage during their respective trials.

The Women’s Health Initiative is supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Health and Human Services. The authors reported numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving personal fees and grants from various government organizations, foundations, and pharmaceutical companies. The editorial’s authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Chlebowski RT et al. JAMA. 2020 Jul 28. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.9482.

A new follow-up study of menopausal hormone therapy found that prior use of conjugated equine estrogen (CEE) decreased both breast cancer incidence and mortality, while prior use of CEE plus medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) was associated with an increase in incidence.

“Prior use of CEE alone is, to our knowledge, the first pharmacologic intervention demonstrated to be associated with a statistically significantly reduction in deaths from breast cancer,” wrote Rowan T. Chlebowski, MD, PhD, of the Lundquist Institute for Biomedical Innovation in Torrance, Calif., and his coauthors. The study was published July 28 in JAMA.

To further investigate the outcomes of the Women’s Health Initiative in regard to hormone therapy and breast cancer risk, the researchers analyzed the long-term follow-up of two randomized trials that included 27,347 postmenopausal women with no prior breast cancer and negative mammograms at baseline. Their mean (SD) age was 63.4 (7.2) years. Enrollment took place from 1993 to 1998; participants were contacted for follow-up every 6 months through 2005 and annually from then on. Mortality data were gathered from follow-up and the National Death Index.

The first trial included 16,608 women with a uterus. Among these women, 8,506 received 0.625 mg/day of CEE plus 2.5 mg/day of MPA, and 8,102 received placebo. The second trial included 10,739 women who’d gotten a hysterectomy, 5,310 of whom received 0.625 mg/day of CEE alone and 5,429 of whom received placebo. The first trial ended in 2002 after a median intervention period of 5.6 years, and the second trial ended in 2004 after a period of 7.2 years.

An analysis in 2015 found that CEE alone was associated with lower risk of breast cancer and CEE plus MPA was associated with increased risk.

The current analysis confirmed that, after a median of 20.3 years of follow-up, and with mortality data now available for more than 98% of participants, CEE alone was associated with fewer cases of breast cancer (238 cases, annualized rate 0.30%), compared with placebo (296 cases, annualized rate 0.37%; hazard ratio 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-0.93; P = .005).

Furthermore, CEE alone was also associated with lower mortality (30 deaths, annualized mortality rate 0.031%), compared with placebo (46 deaths, annualized mortality rate 0.046%; HR 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37-0.97; P = .04).

By comparison, CEE plus MPA was linked with more cases of breast cancer (584 cases, annualized rate 0.45%) than placebo (447 cases, annualized rate 0.36%; HR 1.28; 95% CI, 1.13-1.45; P < .001). In regard to mortality, there was no statistically significant difference between CEE plus MPA (71 deaths, annualized mortality rate 0.045%) and placebo (53 deaths, annualized mortality rate 0.035%; HR 1.35; 95% CI, 0.94-1.95; P = .11).

“The big thing to think about is estrogen alone reducing breast cancer mortality by 40%,” said Dr. Chlebowski in an interview. “None of the other interventions, including tamoxifen, had any change on mortality. This should change the way we look at breast cancer prevention, though we might have to be a little creative about it. I think you have to be a little away from menopause for it to reduce breast cancer. But we wanted to start that debate.

“On the other hand,” he said, “a woman takes estrogen plus progestin and when you look at that curve, it’s staying about 25% increased. You take it for 5.6 years and the increase continues through 20 years, so you’re maybe buying a lifetime of increase in breast cancer by taking estrogen plus progestin for 5 years.”

He also highlighted the comprehensiveness of the mortality data, noting that “when you hook up to the National Death Index, they find 98% of all deaths in the United States. That’s really remarkable; you retain the whole power of the randomization. It means our data, between the death index and our follow-up of participants, is essentially complete.”

Use of hormone therapy, and decoding the outcomes, remains ‘complex’

Decades after the data were gathered from the Women’s Health Initiative clinical trials, they continue to assist researchers and patients alike, wrote Christina A. Minami, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and Rachel A. Freedman, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, in an accompanying editorial.

That said, in regard to the findings of this latest analysis, “many questions still remain on whether (and how) a hormone therapy intervention that occurred many years earlier may continue to affect breast cancer risk and mortality at 20 years,” they wrote. They noted that it’s “impossible” to isolate how exposure to certain therapies can impact long-term outcomes, and that a high percentage of patients who discontinued the drugs during each trial muddy the waters even further.

“Decisions to initiate these medications remain complex,” they added, emphasizing that breast cancer risk is just one of many factors that physicians must consider when considering hormone therapy for their patients.

Dr. Chlebowski and his coauthors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the use of very specifically administered and formulated dosages making their findings “not necessarily generalizable to other preparations.” In addition, they noted the significant percentage of patients – 54% with CEE alone and 42% with CEE plus MPA – who discontinued drug usage during their respective trials.

The Women’s Health Initiative is supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Health and Human Services. The authors reported numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving personal fees and grants from various government organizations, foundations, and pharmaceutical companies. The editorial’s authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Chlebowski RT et al. JAMA. 2020 Jul 28. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.9482.

Use of weight-promoting medications may contribute to postmenopausal abdominal weight gain in women, based on data from more than 76,000 individuals in the Women’s Health Initiative.

“Many of the medications prescribed to treat obesity-related comorbidities such as hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and depression have been linked to weight gain,” but the impact of such medications in relation to changes in body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference in postmenopausal women in particular has not been studied, wrote Fatima Cody Stanford, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.

“Postmenopausal women are of significant interest as those who have obesity and normal weight central obesity are at increased risk for conditions such as invasive breast cancer, sleep disturbances, and type 2 diabetes, as well as mortality,” they wrote.

In a study published in the journal Menopause, the researchers identified 76,252 postmenopausal women aged 50-79 years and measured body mass index at baseline and after 3 years. Medication use was determined by a medication inventory of pill bottles brought to baseline and year-3 visits.

During a 3-year follow-up period, the average BMI increase was 0.37 kg/m² in women taking at least one weight-promoting medication, compared with an average increase of 0.27 kg/m² in women not taking such medications (P = .0045). Weight-promoting medications in the study included antidepressants, beta-blockers, insulin, and/or glucocorticosteroids. The researchers used generalized linear models to assess the impact of these medications on increased BMI and waist circumference.

In addition, the average increase in waist circumference was 1.10 cm in women taking at least one weight-promoting medication, compared with 0.89 cm (P = .0077) for women not on such medications.

“Type of medication, dosage, and race/ethnicity may have important interrelationships,” in postmenopausal weight gain, as do individual susceptibility and genetics, the researchers noted. “Options to mitigate the weight gain may include proactive lifestyle modifications, reduction in dose, change to another agent, or discontinuation of the medication altogether. If alternative medications are not an option, lifestyle factors such as diet quality, physical activity level, and sleep quality and duration warrant emphasis.”

The study findings were limited by several factors, including a lack of data on indications and underlying health conditions surrounding the prescription of various medications, notably psychotropics and antipsychotics, the researchers wrote.

However, the data “may help to inform clinical decision-making and support increased attention to lifestyle modifications and other strategies” to mitigate the potential for weight gain in a population already at risk for overweight and obesity over time, they concluded.

“Given the obesity epidemic, addressing factors contributing to weight gain in midlife [a time associated with weight gain] women is critical,” Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., said in an interview. Dr. Faubion said that the study findings were not surprising given the widespread use of known weight-promoting medications by midlife women for such as hypertension, diabetes, and depression.

“Clinicians need to ensure that they prescribe medications that are truly needed and utilize the lowest dose required to achieve treatment goals,” Dr. Faubion said. “When possible, alternative therapies that do not cause weight gain should be considered. In addition, patients should be warned of the potential for weight gain, and clinicians should advocate for lifestyle measures aimed at mitigating these effects.”

The findings do not encourage the use of alternative therapies for menopausal symptoms per se, added Dr. Faubion, who is also medical director of the North American Menopause Society. “Hormone therapy is not associated with weight gain, and if anything, it is weight favorable and associated with less weight around the midsection. It is the alternative strategies for management of hot flashes that are associated with weight gain, such as antidepressants and gabapentin.

“We need to focus efforts on strategies to prevent weight gain in midlife to avoid the development of conditions that necessitate initiation of many of these weight-promoting medications,” Dr. Faubion said.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and Massachusetts General Hospital Executive Committee on Research, the National Institutes of Health National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Faubion had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Stanford FC et al. Menopause. 2020 Jul 13. doi: 10.1097/GME.0000000000001589.

Use of weight-promoting medications may contribute to postmenopausal abdominal weight gain in women, based on data from more than 76,000 individuals in the Women’s Health Initiative.

“Many of the medications prescribed to treat obesity-related comorbidities such as hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and depression have been linked to weight gain,” but the impact of such medications in relation to changes in body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference in postmenopausal women in particular has not been studied, wrote Fatima Cody Stanford, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.

“Postmenopausal women are of significant interest as those who have obesity and normal weight central obesity are at increased risk for conditions such as invasive breast cancer, sleep disturbances, and type 2 diabetes, as well as mortality,” they wrote.

In a study published in the journal Menopause, the researchers identified 76,252 postmenopausal women aged 50-79 years and measured body mass index at baseline and after 3 years. Medication use was determined by a medication inventory of pill bottles brought to baseline and year-3 visits.

During a 3-year follow-up period, the average BMI increase was 0.37 kg/m² in women taking at least one weight-promoting medication, compared with an average increase of 0.27 kg/m² in women not taking such medications (P = .0045). Weight-promoting medications in the study included antidepressants, beta-blockers, insulin, and/or glucocorticosteroids. The researchers used generalized linear models to assess the impact of these medications on increased BMI and waist circumference.

In addition, the average increase in waist circumference was 1.10 cm in women taking at least one weight-promoting medication, compared with 0.89 cm (P = .0077) for women not on such medications.

“Type of medication, dosage, and race/ethnicity may have important interrelationships,” in postmenopausal weight gain, as do individual susceptibility and genetics, the researchers noted. “Options to mitigate the weight gain may include proactive lifestyle modifications, reduction in dose, change to another agent, or discontinuation of the medication altogether. If alternative medications are not an option, lifestyle factors such as diet quality, physical activity level, and sleep quality and duration warrant emphasis.”

The study findings were limited by several factors, including a lack of data on indications and underlying health conditions surrounding the prescription of various medications, notably psychotropics and antipsychotics, the researchers wrote.

However, the data “may help to inform clinical decision-making and support increased attention to lifestyle modifications and other strategies” to mitigate the potential for weight gain in a population already at risk for overweight and obesity over time, they concluded.

“Given the obesity epidemic, addressing factors contributing to weight gain in midlife [a time associated with weight gain] women is critical,” Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., said in an interview. Dr. Faubion said that the study findings were not surprising given the widespread use of known weight-promoting medications by midlife women for such as hypertension, diabetes, and depression.

“Clinicians need to ensure that they prescribe medications that are truly needed and utilize the lowest dose required to achieve treatment goals,” Dr. Faubion said. “When possible, alternative therapies that do not cause weight gain should be considered. In addition, patients should be warned of the potential for weight gain, and clinicians should advocate for lifestyle measures aimed at mitigating these effects.”

The findings do not encourage the use of alternative therapies for menopausal symptoms per se, added Dr. Faubion, who is also medical director of the North American Menopause Society. “Hormone therapy is not associated with weight gain, and if anything, it is weight favorable and associated with less weight around the midsection. It is the alternative strategies for management of hot flashes that are associated with weight gain, such as antidepressants and gabapentin.

“We need to focus efforts on strategies to prevent weight gain in midlife to avoid the development of conditions that necessitate initiation of many of these weight-promoting medications,” Dr. Faubion said.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and Massachusetts General Hospital Executive Committee on Research, the National Institutes of Health National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Faubion had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Stanford FC et al. Menopause. 2020 Jul 13. doi: 10.1097/GME.0000000000001589.

Use of weight-promoting medications may contribute to postmenopausal abdominal weight gain in women, based on data from more than 76,000 individuals in the Women’s Health Initiative.

“Many of the medications prescribed to treat obesity-related comorbidities such as hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and depression have been linked to weight gain,” but the impact of such medications in relation to changes in body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference in postmenopausal women in particular has not been studied, wrote Fatima Cody Stanford, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.

“Postmenopausal women are of significant interest as those who have obesity and normal weight central obesity are at increased risk for conditions such as invasive breast cancer, sleep disturbances, and type 2 diabetes, as well as mortality,” they wrote.

In a study published in the journal Menopause, the researchers identified 76,252 postmenopausal women aged 50-79 years and measured body mass index at baseline and after 3 years. Medication use was determined by a medication inventory of pill bottles brought to baseline and year-3 visits.

During a 3-year follow-up period, the average BMI increase was 0.37 kg/m² in women taking at least one weight-promoting medication, compared with an average increase of 0.27 kg/m² in women not taking such medications (P = .0045). Weight-promoting medications in the study included antidepressants, beta-blockers, insulin, and/or glucocorticosteroids. The researchers used generalized linear models to assess the impact of these medications on increased BMI and waist circumference.

In addition, the average increase in waist circumference was 1.10 cm in women taking at least one weight-promoting medication, compared with 0.89 cm (P = .0077) for women not on such medications.

“Type of medication, dosage, and race/ethnicity may have important interrelationships,” in postmenopausal weight gain, as do individual susceptibility and genetics, the researchers noted. “Options to mitigate the weight gain may include proactive lifestyle modifications, reduction in dose, change to another agent, or discontinuation of the medication altogether. If alternative medications are not an option, lifestyle factors such as diet quality, physical activity level, and sleep quality and duration warrant emphasis.”

The study findings were limited by several factors, including a lack of data on indications and underlying health conditions surrounding the prescription of various medications, notably psychotropics and antipsychotics, the researchers wrote.

However, the data “may help to inform clinical decision-making and support increased attention to lifestyle modifications and other strategies” to mitigate the potential for weight gain in a population already at risk for overweight and obesity over time, they concluded.

“Given the obesity epidemic, addressing factors contributing to weight gain in midlife [a time associated with weight gain] women is critical,” Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., said in an interview. Dr. Faubion said that the study findings were not surprising given the widespread use of known weight-promoting medications by midlife women for such as hypertension, diabetes, and depression.

“Clinicians need to ensure that they prescribe medications that are truly needed and utilize the lowest dose required to achieve treatment goals,” Dr. Faubion said. “When possible, alternative therapies that do not cause weight gain should be considered. In addition, patients should be warned of the potential for weight gain, and clinicians should advocate for lifestyle measures aimed at mitigating these effects.”

The findings do not encourage the use of alternative therapies for menopausal symptoms per se, added Dr. Faubion, who is also medical director of the North American Menopause Society. “Hormone therapy is not associated with weight gain, and if anything, it is weight favorable and associated with less weight around the midsection. It is the alternative strategies for management of hot flashes that are associated with weight gain, such as antidepressants and gabapentin.

“We need to focus efforts on strategies to prevent weight gain in midlife to avoid the development of conditions that necessitate initiation of many of these weight-promoting medications,” Dr. Faubion said.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and Massachusetts General Hospital Executive Committee on Research, the National Institutes of Health National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Faubion had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Stanford FC et al. Menopause. 2020 Jul 13. doi: 10.1097/GME.0000000000001589.

The use of compounded bioidentical hormone therapies should be limited to patients who are not able to use a hormone therapy product approved by the Food and Drug Administration for reasons of allergy or dosage, according to a new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

yacobchuk/Getty Images

In recent years, compounded bioidentical hormone therapies (cBHTs) have been “marketed as a personalized and natural approach to enhanced wellness using tailored preparations that address a myriad of symptoms, including those associated with menopause and aging,” wrote Donald R. Mattison, MD, of the University of Ottawa, and chair of the committee charged with producing the report, and colleagues.

Although both cBHTs and bioidentical hormone therapies (BHTs) contain hormones that are structurally and chemically identical to those in the human body, cBHTs have not undergone the safety, efficacy, and quality control tests of approved FDA products, according to the report.

In addition, cBHTs have no standardization when it comes to medication doses, and the products often are available in topicals such as creams or ointments, as well as pills or pellets. The lack of standards in dosing or form can contribute to the risk of overdose, the report emphasized.

Various cBTH products continue to be marketed to the public for age-related hormone symptoms including hot flashes associated with menopause and decreased muscle mass associated with decreased testosterone. However, cBHTs are not approved by the FDA in part because the individually mixed products are not tested to verify the amount of hormone that may be absorbed.

In response to the increased use of cBHTs, the National Academies convened a Committee on the Clinical Utility of Treating Patients with Compounded Bioidentical Hormone Replacement Therapy and commissioned a report.

The two typical reasons to prescribe cBHT are either to provide a medication in an alternate dose not available in approved products or to omit components of a medication to which a patient is allergic, according to the report.

The report includes an algorithm to help guide clinicians in prescribing FDA-approved products, including off-label use of approved products, before cBHT products. “There is a dearth of high-quality evidence ... available to establish whether cBHT preparations are safe or efficacious for their prescribed uses,” the report states.

Of note, the committee also found no guidelines to recommend the use of cBHT products as a substitute for off-label use of FDA-approved BHT products for patients with female sexual dysfunction or gender dysphoria, two conditions for which no FDA-approved BHT products exist.

“The North American Menopause Society applauds the efforts of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) and endorses their recommendations on compounded bioidentical hormone therapy,” Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, medical director of The North American Menopause Society, wrote in a statement. “As a society, we remain committed to improving the care of midlife women through the promotion of evidence-based research, education, and clinical care.”

A report on the use of cBHTs was important at this time because of the widespread and largely unregulated use of these products with little data to support their safety and efficacy, Dr. Faubion said in an interview.

“There are no indications for use of custom compounded hormone therapy aside from an allergy to a component in the FDA-approved products or lack of availability of the needed dose, which would be exceedingly rare given the variety of forms and doses available with FDA-approved products,” she said.

Main concerns regarding the use of cBHTs are the lack of safety and efficacy data, Dr. Faubion emphasized. “Women believe these products are safer than FDA-approved products because they do not receive a package insert outlining potential risks as they do with FDA-approved products.” A lack of data and safety monitoring of cBHTs means that adverse effects are not monitored and reported, she said. Also, safety concerns persist regarding some forms of cBHTs such as pellets, which were specifically highlighted in the report.

Dr. Faubion said that she “absolutely” agrees with the report’s limited circumstances in which the used of cBHTs would be appropriate. “There are very few reasons why women would need to use compounded hormones instead of the FDA-approved versions, which are regulated for quality, efficacy and safety, readily available in the local pharmacy, and often covered by insurance.”

In terms of the future, “we need more education for women as consumers and for medical providers on this topic,” Dr. Faubion noted. Also, “clearly, there is a dearth of research on the true efficacy and safety of these compounded hormone therapy products.”

The statement from the National Academies crystallizes what experts have been saying for decades, according to Lubna Pal, MBBS, director of the menopause program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

The formal recommendations to limit the use of cBHTs “are not novel, but certainly needed,” and the statement “offers guidance regardless of your specialty,” Dr. Pal said in an interview.

There is often a disconnect between consumers’ understanding of compounding and the reality of safety concerns, she said. “We are in a tabloid era,” and education is key to guiding patients toward the FDA-approved treatments with safety data and demonstrated effectiveness, she said. “Safety should be the driving factor.” In compounded products, “there is no consistency that what you get today is the same as what you get tomorrow,” and the lack of standardization of cBHTs increases the risk for adverse events, she emphasized.

For patients with special needs such as allergies or other specialized dosing requirements, as noted in the National Academies statement, clinicians should discuss the options with patients and monitor them regularly to head off potential adverse events such as the development of uterine cancer, said Dr. Pal, who is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board.

The research involved in creating the report was supported by the Food and Drug Administration.

Dr. Faubion had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pal had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Mattison DR et al.; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The clinical utility of compounded bioidentical hormone therapy: A review of safety, effectiveness, and use. (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 2020.)

The use of compounded bioidentical hormone therapies should be limited to patients who are not able to use a hormone therapy product approved by the Food and Drug Administration for reasons of allergy or dosage, according to a new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

yacobchuk/Getty Images

In recent years, compounded bioidentical hormone therapies (cBHTs) have been “marketed as a personalized and natural approach to enhanced wellness using tailored preparations that address a myriad of symptoms, including those associated with menopause and aging,” wrote Donald R. Mattison, MD, of the University of Ottawa, and chair of the committee charged with producing the report, and colleagues.

Although both cBHTs and bioidentical hormone therapies (BHTs) contain hormones that are structurally and chemically identical to those in the human body, cBHTs have not undergone the safety, efficacy, and quality control tests of approved FDA products, according to the report.

In addition, cBHTs have no standardization when it comes to medication doses, and the products often are available in topicals such as creams or ointments, as well as pills or pellets. The lack of standards in dosing or form can contribute to the risk of overdose, the report emphasized.

Various cBTH products continue to be marketed to the public for age-related hormone symptoms including hot flashes associated with menopause and decreased muscle mass associated with decreased testosterone. However, cBHTs are not approved by the FDA in part because the individually mixed products are not tested to verify the amount of hormone that may be absorbed.

In response to the increased use of cBHTs, the National Academies convened a Committee on the Clinical Utility of Treating Patients with Compounded Bioidentical Hormone Replacement Therapy and commissioned a report.

The two typical reasons to prescribe cBHT are either to provide a medication in an alternate dose not available in approved products or to omit components of a medication to which a patient is allergic, according to the report.

The report includes an algorithm to help guide clinicians in prescribing FDA-approved products, including off-label use of approved products, before cBHT products. “There is a dearth of high-quality evidence ... available to establish whether cBHT preparations are safe or efficacious for their prescribed uses,” the report states.

Of note, the committee also found no guidelines to recommend the use of cBHT products as a substitute for off-label use of FDA-approved BHT products for patients with female sexual dysfunction or gender dysphoria, two conditions for which no FDA-approved BHT products exist.

“The North American Menopause Society applauds the efforts of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) and endorses their recommendations on compounded bioidentical hormone therapy,” Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, medical director of The North American Menopause Society, wrote in a statement. “As a society, we remain committed to improving the care of midlife women through the promotion of evidence-based research, education, and clinical care.”

A report on the use of cBHTs was important at this time because of the widespread and largely unregulated use of these products with little data to support their safety and efficacy, Dr. Faubion said in an interview.

“There are no indications for use of custom compounded hormone therapy aside from an allergy to a component in the FDA-approved products or lack of availability of the needed dose, which would be exceedingly rare given the variety of forms and doses available with FDA-approved products,” she said.

Main concerns regarding the use of cBHTs are the lack of safety and efficacy data, Dr. Faubion emphasized. “Women believe these products are safer than FDA-approved products because they do not receive a package insert outlining potential risks as they do with FDA-approved products.” A lack of data and safety monitoring of cBHTs means that adverse effects are not monitored and reported, she said. Also, safety concerns persist regarding some forms of cBHTs such as pellets, which were specifically highlighted in the report.

Dr. Faubion said that she “absolutely” agrees with the report’s limited circumstances in which the used of cBHTs would be appropriate. “There are very few reasons why women would need to use compounded hormones instead of the FDA-approved versions, which are regulated for quality, efficacy and safety, readily available in the local pharmacy, and often covered by insurance.”

In terms of the future, “we need more education for women as consumers and for medical providers on this topic,” Dr. Faubion noted. Also, “clearly, there is a dearth of research on the true efficacy and safety of these compounded hormone therapy products.”

The statement from the National Academies crystallizes what experts have been saying for decades, according to Lubna Pal, MBBS, director of the menopause program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

The formal recommendations to limit the use of cBHTs “are not novel, but certainly needed,” and the statement “offers guidance regardless of your specialty,” Dr. Pal said in an interview.

There is often a disconnect between consumers’ understanding of compounding and the reality of safety concerns, she said. “We are in a tabloid era,” and education is key to guiding patients toward the FDA-approved treatments with safety data and demonstrated effectiveness, she said. “Safety should be the driving factor.” In compounded products, “there is no consistency that what you get today is the same as what you get tomorrow,” and the lack of standardization of cBHTs increases the risk for adverse events, she emphasized.

For patients with special needs such as allergies or other specialized dosing requirements, as noted in the National Academies statement, clinicians should discuss the options with patients and monitor them regularly to head off potential adverse events such as the development of uterine cancer, said Dr. Pal, who is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board.

The research involved in creating the report was supported by the Food and Drug Administration.

Dr. Faubion had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pal had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Mattison DR et al.; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The clinical utility of compounded bioidentical hormone therapy: A review of safety, effectiveness, and use. (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 2020.)

The use of compounded bioidentical hormone therapies should be limited to patients who are not able to use a hormone therapy product approved by the Food and Drug Administration for reasons of allergy or dosage, according to a new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

yacobchuk/Getty Images

In recent years, compounded bioidentical hormone therapies (cBHTs) have been “marketed as a personalized and natural approach to enhanced wellness using tailored preparations that address a myriad of symptoms, including those associated with menopause and aging,” wrote Donald R. Mattison, MD, of the University of Ottawa, and chair of the committee charged with producing the report, and colleagues.

Although both cBHTs and bioidentical hormone therapies (BHTs) contain hormones that are structurally and chemically identical to those in the human body, cBHTs have not undergone the safety, efficacy, and quality control tests of approved FDA products, according to the report.

In addition, cBHTs have no standardization when it comes to medication doses, and the products often are available in topicals such as creams or ointments, as well as pills or pellets. The lack of standards in dosing or form can contribute to the risk of overdose, the report emphasized.

Various cBTH products continue to be marketed to the public for age-related hormone symptoms including hot flashes associated with menopause and decreased muscle mass associated with decreased testosterone. However, cBHTs are not approved by the FDA in part because the individually mixed products are not tested to verify the amount of hormone that may be absorbed.

In response to the increased use of cBHTs, the National Academies convened a Committee on the Clinical Utility of Treating Patients with Compounded Bioidentical Hormone Replacement Therapy and commissioned a report.

The two typical reasons to prescribe cBHT are either to provide a medication in an alternate dose not available in approved products or to omit components of a medication to which a patient is allergic, according to the report.

The report includes an algorithm to help guide clinicians in prescribing FDA-approved products, including off-label use of approved products, before cBHT products. “There is a dearth of high-quality evidence ... available to establish whether cBHT preparations are safe or efficacious for their prescribed uses,” the report states.

Of note, the committee also found no guidelines to recommend the use of cBHT products as a substitute for off-label use of FDA-approved BHT products for patients with female sexual dysfunction or gender dysphoria, two conditions for which no FDA-approved BHT products exist.

“The North American Menopause Society applauds the efforts of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) and endorses their recommendations on compounded bioidentical hormone therapy,” Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, medical director of The North American Menopause Society, wrote in a statement. “As a society, we remain committed to improving the care of midlife women through the promotion of evidence-based research, education, and clinical care.”

A report on the use of cBHTs was important at this time because of the widespread and largely unregulated use of these products with little data to support their safety and efficacy, Dr. Faubion said in an interview.

“There are no indications for use of custom compounded hormone therapy aside from an allergy to a component in the FDA-approved products or lack of availability of the needed dose, which would be exceedingly rare given the variety of forms and doses available with FDA-approved products,” she said.

Main concerns regarding the use of cBHTs are the lack of safety and efficacy data, Dr. Faubion emphasized. “Women believe these products are safer than FDA-approved products because they do not receive a package insert outlining potential risks as they do with FDA-approved products.” A lack of data and safety monitoring of cBHTs means that adverse effects are not monitored and reported, she said. Also, safety concerns persist regarding some forms of cBHTs such as pellets, which were specifically highlighted in the report.

Dr. Faubion said that she “absolutely” agrees with the report’s limited circumstances in which the used of cBHTs would be appropriate. “There are very few reasons why women would need to use compounded hormones instead of the FDA-approved versions, which are regulated for quality, efficacy and safety, readily available in the local pharmacy, and often covered by insurance.”

In terms of the future, “we need more education for women as consumers and for medical providers on this topic,” Dr. Faubion noted. Also, “clearly, there is a dearth of research on the true efficacy and safety of these compounded hormone therapy products.”

The statement from the National Academies crystallizes what experts have been saying for decades, according to Lubna Pal, MBBS, director of the menopause program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

The formal recommendations to limit the use of cBHTs “are not novel, but certainly needed,” and the statement “offers guidance regardless of your specialty,” Dr. Pal said in an interview.

There is often a disconnect between consumers’ understanding of compounding and the reality of safety concerns, she said. “We are in a tabloid era,” and education is key to guiding patients toward the FDA-approved treatments with safety data and demonstrated effectiveness, she said. “Safety should be the driving factor.” In compounded products, “there is no consistency that what you get today is the same as what you get tomorrow,” and the lack of standardization of cBHTs increases the risk for adverse events, she emphasized.

For patients with special needs such as allergies or other specialized dosing requirements, as noted in the National Academies statement, clinicians should discuss the options with patients and monitor them regularly to head off potential adverse events such as the development of uterine cancer, said Dr. Pal, who is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board.

The research involved in creating the report was supported by the Food and Drug Administration.

Dr. Faubion had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pal had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Mattison DR et al.; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The clinical utility of compounded bioidentical hormone therapy: A review of safety, effectiveness, and use. (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 2020.)

Dairy consumption does not improve bone mineral density (BMD) or reduce the risk of osteoporotic fracture in women starting menopause, a new analysis of the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation (SWAN) indicates.

copyright/Jupiterimages/Getty Images

And this was regardless of baseline menopausal status, say Taylor Wallace, PhD, of George Mason University, Fairfax, Va., and colleagues in their article published online in Menopause.

“Our previous work indicated a potential premenopausal critical window in regard to the effectiveness of calcium supplements,” they noted.

Clifford Rosen, MD, professor of medicine, Tufts University, Boston, said in an interview that he believes the study reinforces earlier work that dairy intake in women aged 45-55 years does not affect the rate of bone loss or fractures.

“The SWAN study is longitudinal and with sufficient numbers to support their conclusion,” Dr. Rosen said.
 

SWAN study: White women consume the most dairy

As dairy is known to be one of the foremost sources of calcium, along with other bone beneficial nutrients, Dr. Wallace and colleagues decided to examine intake of this food type with long-term bone health using the SWAN data.

The SWAN bone substudy started in 1996 and involved 3,302 pre- or early perimenopausal women aged 42-53 years. The sample size for the annualized rate of BMD loss and fracture analysis involved 1955 women.

A modified food frequency questionnaire was used at baseline, at visit 5, and again at visit 9 to record daily dairy consumption, among many other food items.

“Women were classified into four dairy groups based on this cumulative average dairy intake,” Wallace and colleagues note. Intake was grouped into < 0.5 servings/day; 0.5 to < 1.5 servings/day; 1.5 to < 2.5 servings/day, and ≥ 2.5 servings/day.

“Non-Hispanic white individuals were more likely to consume higher amounts of dairy compared to African American, Chinese, and Japanese individuals,” the authors noted.

They found no significant differences for baseline age, body mass index, femoral neck and lumbar spine BMD, calcium supplement use, or fracture history by dairy intake group.

There were also no differences in the hazard ratios or relative risk of nontraumatic fractures by frequency of daily dairy intake.
 

Findings on dairy and bone are inconsistent

The authors caution that several factors should be taken into account when considering these new findings.

“First, dairy intake was low [overall] among SWAN participants, with 65% reporting consumption of < 1.5 servings/day,” they point out.

Dairy intake was also “particularly low” among racial groups other than whites, which may be due to higher rates of lactose intolerance among ethnic minorities, they speculate.

They previously reported that the use of calcium dietary supplements in SWAN was associated with a lower annualized rate of femoral neck BMD loss as well as BMD loss at the lumbar spine over 10 years of follow-up, mainly in women who were premenopausal at baseline.

But no associations were observed in the risk of bone fracture in any women in that analysis, regardless of menopausal status.

In this new analysis, there were no significant differences in calcium supplement use across the dairy intake groups.

Dr. Wallace and colleagues also noted that the relevance of dairy product intake for bone health has been in question as some observational studies have even “suggested consumption to be associated with an increased risk of fractures.”

The lead author of one of these studies, Karl Michaelsson, MD, PhD, of Uppsala (Sweden) University, said in an interview that his study had looked only at milk intake, and the lack of benefit on bone health from high milk consumption may not apply to all dairy products.

We “may need to look at different types of dairy products,” he said.

Summing up, Stephanie Faubion, MD, MBA, medical director of the North American Menopause Society, said the new SWAN findings do add to the evidence base, “albeit inconsistent ... suggesting a lack of benefit from dairy intake on BMD and fracture risk.”
 

Vitamin D data were not available; dairy may help in this respect

Dr. Rosen also noted that no information was available on vitamin D levels in patients involved in SWAN, which he believes is a limitation of the study.

Nevertheless, “it is important to recognize that elderly individuals who increase their dairy intake may have health benefits as recognized in the Nurses’ Health Study, possibly due to increased protein intake, higher vitamin D levels, or greater calcium intake,” he observed.

A randomized trial of enhanced dairy intake in long-term care residents is currently underway, which should provide answers for a much more vulnerable population than those in the SWAN cohort, Dr. Rosen concluded.

Dr. Wallace has reported serving on the scientific advisory board of the Vitamin Shoppe and has received research support from the National Dairy Council and scientific consulting fees from several food companies. Dr. Rosen has reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Dairy consumption does not improve bone mineral density (BMD) or reduce the risk of osteoporotic fracture in women starting menopause, a new analysis of the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation (SWAN) indicates.

copyright/Jupiterimages/Getty Images

And this was regardless of baseline menopausal status, say Taylor Wallace, PhD, of George Mason University, Fairfax, Va., and colleagues in their article published online in Menopause.

“Our previous work indicated a potential premenopausal critical window in regard to the effectiveness of calcium supplements,” they noted.

Clifford Rosen, MD, professor of medicine, Tufts University, Boston, said in an interview that he believes the study reinforces earlier work that dairy intake in women aged 45-55 years does not affect the rate of bone loss or fractures.

“The SWAN study is longitudinal and with sufficient numbers to support their conclusion,” Dr. Rosen said.
 

SWAN study: White women consume the most dairy

As dairy is known to be one of the foremost sources of calcium, along with other bone beneficial nutrients, Dr. Wallace and colleagues decided to examine intake of this food type with long-term bone health using the SWAN data.

The SWAN bone substudy started in 1996 and involved 3,302 pre- or early perimenopausal women aged 42-53 years. The sample size for the annualized rate of BMD loss and fracture analysis involved 1955 women.

A modified food frequency questionnaire was used at baseline, at visit 5, and again at visit 9 to record daily dairy consumption, among many other food items.

“Women were classified into four dairy groups based on this cumulative average dairy intake,” Wallace and colleagues note. Intake was grouped into < 0.5 servings/day; 0.5 to < 1.5 servings/day; 1.5 to < 2.5 servings/day, and ≥ 2.5 servings/day.

“Non-Hispanic white individuals were more likely to consume higher amounts of dairy compared to African American, Chinese, and Japanese individuals,” the authors noted.

They found no significant differences for baseline age, body mass index, femoral neck and lumbar spine BMD, calcium supplement use, or fracture history by dairy intake group.

There were also no differences in the hazard ratios or relative risk of nontraumatic fractures by frequency of daily dairy intake.
 

Findings on dairy and bone are inconsistent

The authors caution that several factors should be taken into account when considering these new findings.

“First, dairy intake was low [overall] among SWAN participants, with 65% reporting consumption of < 1.5 servings/day,” they point out.

Dairy intake was also “particularly low” among racial groups other than whites, which may be due to higher rates of lactose intolerance among ethnic minorities, they speculate.

They previously reported that the use of calcium dietary supplements in SWAN was associated with a lower annualized rate of femoral neck BMD loss as well as BMD loss at the lumbar spine over 10 years of follow-up, mainly in women who were premenopausal at baseline.

But no associations were observed in the risk of bone fracture in any women in that analysis, regardless of menopausal status.

In this new analysis, there were no significant differences in calcium supplement use across the dairy intake groups.

Dr. Wallace and colleagues also noted that the relevance of dairy product intake for bone health has been in question as some observational studies have even “suggested consumption to be associated with an increased risk of fractures.”

The lead author of one of these studies, Karl Michaelsson, MD, PhD, of Uppsala (Sweden) University, said in an interview that his study had looked only at milk intake, and the lack of benefit on bone health from high milk consumption may not apply to all dairy products.

We “may need to look at different types of dairy products,” he said.

Summing up, Stephanie Faubion, MD, MBA, medical director of the North American Menopause Society, said the new SWAN findings do add to the evidence base, “albeit inconsistent ... suggesting a lack of benefit from dairy intake on BMD and fracture risk.”
 

Vitamin D data were not available; dairy may help in this respect

Dr. Rosen also noted that no information was available on vitamin D levels in patients involved in SWAN, which he believes is a limitation of the study.

Nevertheless, “it is important to recognize that elderly individuals who increase their dairy intake may have health benefits as recognized in the Nurses’ Health Study, possibly due to increased protein intake, higher vitamin D levels, or greater calcium intake,” he observed.

A randomized trial of enhanced dairy intake in long-term care residents is currently underway, which should provide answers for a much more vulnerable population than those in the SWAN cohort, Dr. Rosen concluded.

Dr. Wallace has reported serving on the scientific advisory board of the Vitamin Shoppe and has received research support from the National Dairy Council and scientific consulting fees from several food companies. Dr. Rosen has reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Dairy consumption does not improve bone mineral density (BMD) or reduce the risk of osteoporotic fracture in women starting menopause, a new analysis of the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation (SWAN) indicates.

copyright/Jupiterimages/Getty Images

And this was regardless of baseline menopausal status, say Taylor Wallace, PhD, of George Mason University, Fairfax, Va., and colleagues in their article published online in Menopause.

“Our previous work indicated a potential premenopausal critical window in regard to the effectiveness of calcium supplements,” they noted.

Clifford Rosen, MD, professor of medicine, Tufts University, Boston, said in an interview that he believes the study reinforces earlier work that dairy intake in women aged 45-55 years does not affect the rate of bone loss or fractures.

“The SWAN study is longitudinal and with sufficient numbers to support their conclusion,” Dr. Rosen said.
 

SWAN study: White women consume the most dairy

As dairy is known to be one of the foremost sources of calcium, along with other bone beneficial nutrients, Dr. Wallace and colleagues decided to examine intake of this food type with long-term bone health using the SWAN data.

The SWAN bone substudy started in 1996 and involved 3,302 pre- or early perimenopausal women aged 42-53 years. The sample size for the annualized rate of BMD loss and fracture analysis involved 1955 women.

A modified food frequency questionnaire was used at baseline, at visit 5, and again at visit 9 to record daily dairy consumption, among many other food items.

“Women were classified into four dairy groups based on this cumulative average dairy intake,” Wallace and colleagues note. Intake was grouped into < 0.5 servings/day; 0.5 to < 1.5 servings/day; 1.5 to < 2.5 servings/day, and ≥ 2.5 servings/day.

“Non-Hispanic white individuals were more likely to consume higher amounts of dairy compared to African American, Chinese, and Japanese individuals,” the authors noted.

They found no significant differences for baseline age, body mass index, femoral neck and lumbar spine BMD, calcium supplement use, or fracture history by dairy intake group.

There were also no differences in the hazard ratios or relative risk of nontraumatic fractures by frequency of daily dairy intake.
 

Findings on dairy and bone are inconsistent

The authors caution that several factors should be taken into account when considering these new findings.

“First, dairy intake was low [overall] among SWAN participants, with 65% reporting consumption of < 1.5 servings/day,” they point out.

Dairy intake was also “particularly low” among racial groups other than whites, which may be due to higher rates of lactose intolerance among ethnic minorities, they speculate.

They previously reported that the use of calcium dietary supplements in SWAN was associated with a lower annualized rate of femoral neck BMD loss as well as BMD loss at the lumbar spine over 10 years of follow-up, mainly in women who were premenopausal at baseline.

But no associations were observed in the risk of bone fracture in any women in that analysis, regardless of menopausal status.

In this new analysis, there were no significant differences in calcium supplement use across the dairy intake groups.

Dr. Wallace and colleagues also noted that the relevance of dairy product intake for bone health has been in question as some observational studies have even “suggested consumption to be associated with an increased risk of fractures.”

The lead author of one of these studies, Karl Michaelsson, MD, PhD, of Uppsala (Sweden) University, said in an interview that his study had looked only at milk intake, and the lack of benefit on bone health from high milk consumption may not apply to all dairy products.

We “may need to look at different types of dairy products,” he said.

Summing up, Stephanie Faubion, MD, MBA, medical director of the North American Menopause Society, said the new SWAN findings do add to the evidence base, “albeit inconsistent ... suggesting a lack of benefit from dairy intake on BMD and fracture risk.”
 

Vitamin D data were not available; dairy may help in this respect

Dr. Rosen also noted that no information was available on vitamin D levels in patients involved in SWAN, which he believes is a limitation of the study.

Nevertheless, “it is important to recognize that elderly individuals who increase their dairy intake may have health benefits as recognized in the Nurses’ Health Study, possibly due to increased protein intake, higher vitamin D levels, or greater calcium intake,” he observed.

A randomized trial of enhanced dairy intake in long-term care residents is currently underway, which should provide answers for a much more vulnerable population than those in the SWAN cohort, Dr. Rosen concluded.

Dr. Wallace has reported serving on the scientific advisory board of the Vitamin Shoppe and has received research support from the National Dairy Council and scientific consulting fees from several food companies. Dr. Rosen has reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

In a national sample of U.S. women in their mid-40s to mid-50s, those with high serum levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) were likely to enter menopause 2 years earlier than those with low levels of these chemicals.

That is, the median age of natural menopause was 52.8 years versus 50.8 years in women with high versus low serum levels of these chemicals in an analysis of data from more than 1,100 women in the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation (SWAN) Multi-Pollutant Study, which excluded women with premature menopause (before age 40) or early menopause (before age 45).

“This study suggests that select PFAS serum concentrations are associated with earlier natural menopause, a risk factor for adverse health outcomes in later life,” Ning Ding, PhD, MPH, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues concluded in their article, published online June 3 in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

“Even menopause a few years earlier than usual could have a significant impact on cardiovascular and bone health, quality of life, and overall health in general among women,” senior author Sung Kyun Park, ScD, MPH, from the same institution, added in a statement.

PFAS don’t break down in the body, build up with time

PFAS have been widely used in many consumer and industrial products such as nonstick cookware, stain-repellent carpets, waterproof rain gear, microwave popcorn bags, and firefighting foam, the authors explained.

These have been dubbed “forever chemicals” because they do not degrade. Household water for an estimated 110 million Americans (one in three) may be contaminated with these chemicals, according to an Endocrine Society press release.

“PFAS are everywhere. Once they enter the body, they don’t break down and [they] build up over time,” said Dr. Ding. “Because of their persistence in humans and potentially detrimental effects on ovarian function, it is important to raise awareness of this issue and reduce exposure to these chemicals.”

Environmental exposure and accelerated ovarian aging

Earlier menopause has been associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, and earlier cardiovascular and overall mortality, and environmental exposure may accelerate ovarian aging, the authors wrote.

PFAS, especially the most studied types – perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) – are plausible endocrine-disrupting chemicals, but findings so far have been inconsistent.

A study of people in Ohio exposed to contaminated water found that women with earlier natural menopause had higher serum PFOA and PFOS levels (J Clin Endocriniol Metab. 2011;96:1747-53).

But in research based on National Health and Nutrition Survey Examination data, higher PFOA, PFOS, or perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) levels were not linked to earlier menopause, although higher levels of perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) were (Environ Health Perspect. 2014;122:145-50).

There may have been reverse causation, where postmenopausal women had higher PFAS levels because they were not excreting these chemicals in menstrual blood.

In a third study, PFOA exposure was not linked with age at menopause onset, but this was based on recall from 10 years earlier (Environ Res. 2016;146:323-30).

The current analysis examined data from 1,120 premenopausal women who were aged 45-56 years from 1999 to 2000.

The women were seen at five sites (Boston; Detroit; Los Angeles; Oakland, Calif.; and Pittsburgh) and were ethnically diverse (577 white, 235 black, 142 Chinese, and 166 Japanese).

Baseline serum PFAS levels were measured using high performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. The women were followed up to 2017 and incident menopause (12 consecutive months with no menstruation) was determined from annual interviews.

Of the 1,120 women and 5,466 person-years of follow-up, 578 women had a known date of natural incident menopause and were included in the analysis. The remaining 542 women were excluded mainly because their date of final menstruation was unknown because of hormone therapy (451) or they had a hysterectomy, or did not enter menopause during the study.

Compared with women in the lowest tertile of PFOS levels, women in the highest tertile had a significant 26%-27% greater risk of incident menopause – after adjusting for age, body mass index, and prior hormone use, race/ethnicity, study site, education, physical activity, smoking status, and parity.

Higher PFOA and PFNA levels but not higher PFHxS levels were also associated with increased risk.

Compared with women with a low overall PFAS level, those with a high level had a 63% increased risk of incident menopause (hazard ratio, 1.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-2.45), equivalent to having menopause a median of 2 years earlier.

Although production and use of some types of PFAS in the United States are declining, Dr. Ding and colleagues wrote, exposure continues, along with associated potential hazards to human reproductive health.

“Due to PFAS widespread use and environmental persistence, their potential adverse effects remain a public health concern,” they concluded.

SWAN was supported by the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health & Human Services through the National Institute on Aging, National Institute of Nursing Research, NIH Office of Research on Women’s Health, and the SWAN repository. The current article was supported by the National Center for Research Resources and National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, NIH, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

In a national sample of U.S. women in their mid-40s to mid-50s, those with high serum levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) were likely to enter menopause 2 years earlier than those with low levels of these chemicals.

That is, the median age of natural menopause was 52.8 years versus 50.8 years in women with high versus low serum levels of these chemicals in an analysis of data from more than 1,100 women in the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation (SWAN) Multi-Pollutant Study, which excluded women with premature menopause (before age 40) or early menopause (before age 45).

“This study suggests that select PFAS serum concentrations are associated with earlier natural menopause, a risk factor for adverse health outcomes in later life,” Ning Ding, PhD, MPH, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues concluded in their article, published online June 3 in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

“Even menopause a few years earlier than usual could have a significant impact on cardiovascular and bone health, quality of life, and overall health in general among women,” senior author Sung Kyun Park, ScD, MPH, from the same institution, added in a statement.

PFAS don’t break down in the body, build up with time

PFAS have been widely used in many consumer and industrial products such as nonstick cookware, stain-repellent carpets, waterproof rain gear, microwave popcorn bags, and firefighting foam, the authors explained.

These have been dubbed “forever chemicals” because they do not degrade. Household water for an estimated 110 million Americans (one in three) may be contaminated with these chemicals, according to an Endocrine Society press release.

“PFAS are everywhere. Once they enter the body, they don’t break down and [they] build up over time,” said Dr. Ding. “Because of their persistence in humans and potentially detrimental effects on ovarian function, it is important to raise awareness of this issue and reduce exposure to these chemicals.”

Environmental exposure and accelerated ovarian aging

Earlier menopause has been associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, and earlier cardiovascular and overall mortality, and environmental exposure may accelerate ovarian aging, the authors wrote.

PFAS, especially the most studied types – perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) – are plausible endocrine-disrupting chemicals, but findings so far have been inconsistent.

A study of people in Ohio exposed to contaminated water found that women with earlier natural menopause had higher serum PFOA and PFOS levels (J Clin Endocriniol Metab. 2011;96:1747-53).

But in research based on National Health and Nutrition Survey Examination data, higher PFOA, PFOS, or perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) levels were not linked to earlier menopause, although higher levels of perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) were (Environ Health Perspect. 2014;122:145-50).

There may have been reverse causation, where postmenopausal women had higher PFAS levels because they were not excreting these chemicals in menstrual blood.

In a third study, PFOA exposure was not linked with age at menopause onset, but this was based on recall from 10 years earlier (Environ Res. 2016;146:323-30).

The current analysis examined data from 1,120 premenopausal women who were aged 45-56 years from 1999 to 2000.

The women were seen at five sites (Boston; Detroit; Los Angeles; Oakland, Calif.; and Pittsburgh) and were ethnically diverse (577 white, 235 black, 142 Chinese, and 166 Japanese).

Baseline serum PFAS levels were measured using high performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. The women were followed up to 2017 and incident menopause (12 consecutive months with no menstruation) was determined from annual interviews.

Of the 1,120 women and 5,466 person-years of follow-up, 578 women had a known date of natural incident menopause and were included in the analysis. The remaining 542 women were excluded mainly because their date of final menstruation was unknown because of hormone therapy (451) or they had a hysterectomy, or did not enter menopause during the study.

Compared with women in the lowest tertile of PFOS levels, women in the highest tertile had a significant 26%-27% greater risk of incident menopause – after adjusting for age, body mass index, and prior hormone use, race/ethnicity, study site, education, physical activity, smoking status, and parity.

Higher PFOA and PFNA levels but not higher PFHxS levels were also associated with increased risk.

Compared with women with a low overall PFAS level, those with a high level had a 63% increased risk of incident menopause (hazard ratio, 1.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-2.45), equivalent to having menopause a median of 2 years earlier.

Although production and use of some types of PFAS in the United States are declining, Dr. Ding and colleagues wrote, exposure continues, along with associated potential hazards to human reproductive health.

“Due to PFAS widespread use and environmental persistence, their potential adverse effects remain a public health concern,” they concluded.

SWAN was supported by the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health & Human Services through the National Institute on Aging, National Institute of Nursing Research, NIH Office of Research on Women’s Health, and the SWAN repository. The current article was supported by the National Center for Research Resources and National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, NIH, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

In a national sample of U.S. women in their mid-40s to mid-50s, those with high serum levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) were likely to enter menopause 2 years earlier than those with low levels of these chemicals.

That is, the median age of natural menopause was 52.8 years versus 50.8 years in women with high versus low serum levels of these chemicals in an analysis of data from more than 1,100 women in the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation (SWAN) Multi-Pollutant Study, which excluded women with premature menopause (before age 40) or early menopause (before age 45).

“This study suggests that select PFAS serum concentrations are associated with earlier natural menopause, a risk factor for adverse health outcomes in later life,” Ning Ding, PhD, MPH, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues concluded in their article, published online June 3 in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

“Even menopause a few years earlier than usual could have a significant impact on cardiovascular and bone health, quality of life, and overall health in general among women,” senior author Sung Kyun Park, ScD, MPH, from the same institution, added in a statement.

PFAS don’t break down in the body, build up with time

PFAS have been widely used in many consumer and industrial products such as nonstick cookware, stain-repellent carpets, waterproof rain gear, microwave popcorn bags, and firefighting foam, the authors explained.

These have been dubbed “forever chemicals” because they do not degrade. Household water for an estimated 110 million Americans (one in three) may be contaminated with these chemicals, according to an Endocrine Society press release.

“PFAS are everywhere. Once they enter the body, they don’t break down and [they] build up over time,” said Dr. Ding. “Because of their persistence in humans and potentially detrimental effects on ovarian function, it is important to raise awareness of this issue and reduce exposure to these chemicals.”

Environmental exposure and accelerated ovarian aging

Earlier menopause has been associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, and earlier cardiovascular and overall mortality, and environmental exposure may accelerate ovarian aging, the authors wrote.

PFAS, especially the most studied types – perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) – are plausible endocrine-disrupting chemicals, but findings so far have been inconsistent.

A study of people in Ohio exposed to contaminated water found that women with earlier natural menopause had higher serum PFOA and PFOS levels (J Clin Endocriniol Metab. 2011;96:1747-53).

But in research based on National Health and Nutrition Survey Examination data, higher PFOA, PFOS, or perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) levels were not linked to earlier menopause, although higher levels of perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) were (Environ Health Perspect. 2014;122:145-50).

There may have been reverse causation, where postmenopausal women had higher PFAS levels because they were not excreting these chemicals in menstrual blood.

In a third study, PFOA exposure was not linked with age at menopause onset, but this was based on recall from 10 years earlier (Environ Res. 2016;146:323-30).

The current analysis examined data from 1,120 premenopausal women who were aged 45-56 years from 1999 to 2000.

The women were seen at five sites (Boston; Detroit; Los Angeles; Oakland, Calif.; and Pittsburgh) and were ethnically diverse (577 white, 235 black, 142 Chinese, and 166 Japanese).

Baseline serum PFAS levels were measured using high performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. The women were followed up to 2017 and incident menopause (12 consecutive months with no menstruation) was determined from annual interviews.

Of the 1,120 women and 5,466 person-years of follow-up, 578 women had a known date of natural incident menopause and were included in the analysis. The remaining 542 women were excluded mainly because their date of final menstruation was unknown because of hormone therapy (451) or they had a hysterectomy, or did not enter menopause during the study.

Compared with women in the lowest tertile of PFOS levels, women in the highest tertile had a significant 26%-27% greater risk of incident menopause – after adjusting for age, body mass index, and prior hormone use, race/ethnicity, study site, education, physical activity, smoking status, and parity.

Higher PFOA and PFNA levels but not higher PFHxS levels were also associated with increased risk.

Compared with women with a low overall PFAS level, those with a high level had a 63% increased risk of incident menopause (hazard ratio, 1.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-2.45), equivalent to having menopause a median of 2 years earlier.

Although production and use of some types of PFAS in the United States are declining, Dr. Ding and colleagues wrote, exposure continues, along with associated potential hazards to human reproductive health.

“Due to PFAS widespread use and environmental persistence, their potential adverse effects remain a public health concern,” they concluded.

SWAN was supported by the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health & Human Services through the National Institute on Aging, National Institute of Nursing Research, NIH Office of Research on Women’s Health, and the SWAN repository. The current article was supported by the National Center for Research Resources and National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, NIH, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The term genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) refers to the bothersome symptoms and physical findings associated with estrogen deficiency that involve the labia, vestibular tissue, clitoris, vagina, urethra, and bladder.¹ GSM is associated with genital irritation, dryness, and burning; urinary symptoms including urgency, dysuria, and recurrent urinary tract infections; and sexual symptoms including vaginal dryness and pain. Vulvovaginal atrophy (VVA) represents a component of GSM.

GSM is highly prevalent, affecting more than three-quarters of menopausal women. In contrast to menopausal vasomotor symptoms, which often are most severe and frequent in recently menopausal women, GSM commonly presents years following menopause. Unfortunately, VVA symptoms may have a substantial negative impact on women’s quality of life.

In this 2020 Menopause Update, I review a large observational study that provides reassurance to clinicians and patients regarding the safety of the best-studied prescription treatment for GSM—vaginal estrogen. Because some women should not use vaginal estrogen and others choose not to use it, nonhormonal management of GSM is important. Dr. JoAnn Pinkerton provides details on a randomized clinical trial that compared the use of fractionated CO2 laser therapy with vaginal estrogen for the treatment of GSM. In addition, Dr. JoAnn Manson discusses recent studies that found lower health risks with vaginal estrogen use compared with systemic estrogen therapy.

Diagnosing GSM

GSM can be diagnosed presumptively based on a characteristic history in a menopausal patient. Performing a pelvic examination, however, allows clinicians to exclude other conditions that may present with similar symptoms, such as lichen sclerosus, Candida infection, and malignancy.

During inspection of the external genitalia, the clinician may note loss of the fat pad in the labia majora and mons as well as a reduction in labia minora pigmentation and tissue. The urethral meatus often becomes erythematous and prominent. If vaginal or introital narrowing is present, use of a pediatric (ultrathin) speculum reduces patient discomfort. The vaginal mucosa may appear smooth due to loss of rugation; it also may appear shiny and dry. Bleeding (friability) on contact with a spatula or cotton-tipped swab may occur. In addition, the vaginal fornices may become attenuated, leaving the cervix flush with the vaginal apex.

GSM can be diagnosed without laboratory assessment. However, vaginal pH, if measured, is characteristically higher than 5.0; microscopic wet prep often reveals many white blood cells, immature epithelial cells (large nuclei), and reduced or absent lactobacilli.²

Nonhormonal management of GSM

Water, silicone-based, and oil-based lubricants reduce the friction and discomfort associated with sexual activity. By contrast, vaginal moisturizers act longer than lubricants and can be applied several times weekly or daily. Natural oils, including olive and coconut oil, may be useful both as lubricants and as moisturizers. Aqueous lidocaine 4%, applied to vestibular tissue with cotton balls prior to penetration, reduces dyspareunia in women with GSM.³

Vaginal estrogen therapy

When nonhormonal management does not sufficiently reduce GSM symptoms, use of low-dose vaginal estrogen enhances thickness and elasticity of genital tissue and improves vaginal blood flow. Vaginal estrogen creams, tablets, an insert, and a ring are marketed in the United States. Although clinical improvement may be apparent within several weeks of initiating vaginal estrogen, the full benefit of treatment becomes apparent after 2 to 3 months.³

Despite the availability and effectiveness of low-dose vaginal estrogen, fears regarding the safety of menopausal hormone therapy have resulted in the underutilization of vaginal estrogen.^4,5 Unfortunately, the package labeling for low-dose vaginal estrogen can exacerbate these fears.

Continue to: Nurses’ Health Study report...

Nurses’ Health Study report provides reassurance on long-term safety of vaginal estrogen

Bhupathiraju SN, Grodstein F, Stampfer MJ, et al. Vaginal estrogen use and chronic disease risk in the Nurses’ Health Study. Menopause. 2018;26:603-610

Bhupathiraju and colleagues published a report from the long-running Nurses’ Health prospective cohort  study on the health outcomes associated with the use of vaginal estrogen.

Recap of the study

Starting  in  1982, participants  in  the  Nurses’Health  Study were asked to report their use of vaginal estrogen via a validated questionnaire. For the years 1982 to 2012, investigators analyzed  data from 896 and 52,901 women who had and had not used vaginal estrogen, respectively. The mean duration of vaginal estrogen use was 36 months.

In an analysis adjusted for numerous  factors, the investigators observed no statistically significant differences in risk for cardiovascular outcomes (myocardial infarction, stroke, deep vein thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism) or invasive cancers (colorectal, endometrial, ovarian, or breast).

Findings uphold safety of vaginal estrogen

This landmark study provides reassurance that 3 years of use of vaginal estrogen does not increase the risk of cardiovascular events or invasive breast cancer, findings that hopefully will allow clinicians and women to feel comfortable regarding the safety of vaginal estrogen. A study of vaginal estrogen from the Women’s Health Initiative provided similar reassurance. Recent research supports guidance from The North American Menopause Society and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists that vaginal estrogen can be used indefinitely, if indicated, and that use of concomitant progestin is not recommended in women who use vaginal estrogen and have an intact uterus.^6,7

I agree with the authors, who point out that since treatment of GSM may need to be continued long term (even indefinitely), it would be helpful to have data that assessed the safety of longer-duration use of vaginal estrogen.

How CO2 fractionated vaginal laser therapy compares with vaginal estrogen for relief of GSM symptoms

Paraiso MF, Ferrando CA, Sokol ER, et al. A randomized clinical trial comparing vaginal laser therapy to vaginal estrogen therapy in women with genitourinary syndrome of menopause: the VeLVET trial. Menopause. 2020;27:50-56.

Up to 50% to 60% of postmenopausal women experience GSM symptoms. However, many fewer receive treatment, either because they do not understand that the symptoms are related to menopause or they are not aware that safe and effective treatment is available. Sadly, many women are not asked about their symptoms or are embarrassed to tell providers.

GSM affects relationships and quality of life. Vaginal lubricants or moisturizers may provide relief. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved therapies include low-dose vaginal estrogen, available as a vaginal tablet, cream, suppository, and ring; intravaginal dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA); and oral ospemifene, a selective estrogen replacement modulator. If women have an estrogen-sensitive breast or uterine cancer, an oncologist should be involved in decisions about vaginal hormonal therapy.

Energy-based devices such as vaginal lasers appear to induce wound healing; stimulate collagen and elastin fiber formation through increased storage of glycogen; and activate fibroblasts, which leads to increased extracellular matrix and restoration of vaginal pH.

These lasers are FDA approved for use in gynecology but not specifically for the treatment of GSM. In July 2016, the FDA issued a safety alert that energy-based devices, while approved for use in gynecology, have not been approved or adequately tested for menopausal vaginal conditions, and safety concerns include reports of vaginal burns.⁸ Lacking are publications of adequately powered randomized, sham-con-trolled trials to determine if laser therapy works better for women with GSM than placebos, moisturizers, or vaginal hormone therapies.

Recently, investigators conducted a multicenter, randomized, single-blinded trial of vaginal laser therapy and estrogen cream for treatment of GSM.

Continue to: Details of the study...

Details of the study

Paraiso and colleagues aimed to compare the 6-month efficacy and safety of fractionated CO2 vaginal laser therapy with that of estrogen vaginal cream for the treatment of vaginal dryness/GSM.

Participants randomly assigned to the estrogen therapy arm applied conjugated estrogen cream 0.5 g vaginally daily for 14 days, followed by twice weekly application for 24 weeks (a low-dose vaginal estrogen therapy). Participants randomly assigned to laser therapy underwent 3 vaginal treatments at a minimum of 6 weeks apart.

Sixty-nine women were enrolled in the trial before enrollment was closed because the FDA required that the sponsor obtain and maintain an investigational device exemption. Of 62 women who completed 6 months’ treatment, 30 received 3 laser treatments and 32 received estrogen cream.

The primary outcome compared subjective improvement in vaginal dryness using the visual analog scale (VAS) between the 2 groups at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included comparisons of the vaginal health index (VHI) and vaginal maturation index (VMI), the effect of GSM on quality of life, the effect of treatment on sexual function and urinary symptoms, and patient satisfaction.

Study findings

Efficacy. Laser therapy and estrogen therapy were found to be similarly effective except on the VMI, which favored estrogen. On patient global impression, 85.8% of laser-treated women rated their improvement as ‘‘better or much better’’ and 78.5% reported being either ‘‘satisfied or very satisfied,’’ compared with 70% and 73.3%, respectively, in the estrogen group, a statistically nonsignificant difference.

On linear regression, the investigators found a nonsignificant mean difference in female sexual function index scores. While VMI scores remained higher in the estrogen-treated group (adjusted P = .02), baseline and 6-month follow-up VMI data were available for only 34 participants (16 laser treated, 18 estrogen treated).

Regarding long-term effectiveness, 20% to 25% of the women in the laser-treated group needed further treatment after 1 year while the estrogen cream continued to work as long as it was used as prescribed.

Adverse effects. The incidence of vaginal bleeding was similar in the 2 groups: 6.7% in the laser group and 6.3% in the estrogen group. In the laser therapy group, 3% expe-rienced vaginal pain, discharge, and bladder infections, while in the estrogen cream group, 3% reported breast tenderness, migraine headaches, and abdominal cramping.

Takeaways. This small randomized, open-label (not blinded) trial provides pilot data on the effectiveness of vaginal CO2 laser compared with vaginal estrogen in treating vaginal atrophy, quality-of-life symptoms, sexual function, and urinary symptoms. Adverse events were minimal. Patient global impression of improvement and satisfaction improved for both vaginal laser and vaginal estrogen therapy.

Continue to: Study strengths and limitations...

Study strengths and limitations

To show noninferiority of vaginal laser therapy to vaginal estrogen, 196 study participants were needed. However, after 38% had been enrolled, the FDA sent a warning letter to the Foundation for Female Health Awareness, which required obtainment of an investigational device exemption for the laser and addition of a sham treatment arm.⁹ Instead of redesigning the trial and reconsenting the participants, the investigators closed the study, and analysis was performed only on the 62 participants who completed the study; vaginal maturation was assessed only in 34 participants.

The study lacked a placebo or sham control, which increases the risk of bias, while small numbers limit the strength of the findings. Longer-term evaluation of the effects of laser therapy beyond 6 months is needed to allow assessment of the effects of scarring on vaginal health, sexual function, and urinary issues.

Discussing therapy with patients

Despite this study’s preliminary findings, and until more robust data are available, providers should discuss the benefits and risks of all available treatment options for vaginal symptoms, including over-the-counter lubricants, vaginal moisturizers, FDA-approved vaginal hormone therapies (such as vaginal estrogen and intravaginal dehydroepiandrosterone), and systemic therapies, such as hormone therapy and ospemifene, to determine the best treatment for the individual woman with GSM.

In a healthy postmenopausal woman with bothersome GSM symptoms not responsive to lubricants and moisturizers, I recommend FDA-approved vaginal therapies as first-line treatment if there are no contraindications. For women with breast cancer, I involve their oncologist. If a patient asks about vaginal laser treatment, I share that vaginal energy-based therapies, such as the vaginal laser, have not been approved for menopausal vaginal concerns. In addition to the possibility of adverse events or unsuccessful treatment, there are significant out-of-pocket costs and the potential need for ongoing therapy after the initial 3 laser treatments.

The term genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) refers to the bothersome symptoms and physical findings associated with estrogen deficiency that involve the labia, vestibular tissue, clitoris, vagina, urethra, and bladder.¹ GSM is associated with genital irritation, dryness, and burning; urinary symptoms including urgency, dysuria, and recurrent urinary tract infections; and sexual symptoms including vaginal dryness and pain. Vulvovaginal atrophy (VVA) represents a component of GSM.

GSM is highly prevalent, affecting more than three-quarters of menopausal women. In contrast to menopausal vasomotor symptoms, which often are most severe and frequent in recently menopausal women, GSM commonly presents years following menopause. Unfortunately, VVA symptoms may have a substantial negative impact on women’s quality of life.

In this 2020 Menopause Update, I review a large observational study that provides reassurance to clinicians and patients regarding the safety of the best-studied prescription treatment for GSM—vaginal estrogen. Because some women should not use vaginal estrogen and others choose not to use it, nonhormonal management of GSM is important. Dr. JoAnn Pinkerton provides details on a randomized clinical trial that compared the use of fractionated CO2 laser therapy with vaginal estrogen for the treatment of GSM. In addition, Dr. JoAnn Manson discusses recent studies that found lower health risks with vaginal estrogen use compared with systemic estrogen therapy.

Diagnosing GSM

GSM can be diagnosed presumptively based on a characteristic history in a menopausal patient. Performing a pelvic examination, however, allows clinicians to exclude other conditions that may present with similar symptoms, such as lichen sclerosus, Candida infection, and malignancy.

During inspection of the external genitalia, the clinician may note loss of the fat pad in the labia majora and mons as well as a reduction in labia minora pigmentation and tissue. The urethral meatus often becomes erythematous and prominent. If vaginal or introital narrowing is present, use of a pediatric (ultrathin) speculum reduces patient discomfort. The vaginal mucosa may appear smooth due to loss of rugation; it also may appear shiny and dry. Bleeding (friability) on contact with a spatula or cotton-tipped swab may occur. In addition, the vaginal fornices may become attenuated, leaving the cervix flush with the vaginal apex.

GSM can be diagnosed without laboratory assessment. However, vaginal pH, if measured, is characteristically higher than 5.0; microscopic wet prep often reveals many white blood cells, immature epithelial cells (large nuclei), and reduced or absent lactobacilli.²

Nonhormonal management of GSM

Water, silicone-based, and oil-based lubricants reduce the friction and discomfort associated with sexual activity. By contrast, vaginal moisturizers act longer than lubricants and can be applied several times weekly or daily. Natural oils, including olive and coconut oil, may be useful both as lubricants and as moisturizers. Aqueous lidocaine 4%, applied to vestibular tissue with cotton balls prior to penetration, reduces dyspareunia in women with GSM.³

Vaginal estrogen therapy

When nonhormonal management does not sufficiently reduce GSM symptoms, use of low-dose vaginal estrogen enhances thickness and elasticity of genital tissue and improves vaginal blood flow. Vaginal estrogen creams, tablets, an insert, and a ring are marketed in the United States. Although clinical improvement may be apparent within several weeks of initiating vaginal estrogen, the full benefit of treatment becomes apparent after 2 to 3 months.³

Despite the availability and effectiveness of low-dose vaginal estrogen, fears regarding the safety of menopausal hormone therapy have resulted in the underutilization of vaginal estrogen.^4,5 Unfortunately, the package labeling for low-dose vaginal estrogen can exacerbate these fears.

Continue to: Nurses’ Health Study report...

Nurses’ Health Study report provides reassurance on long-term safety of vaginal estrogen

Bhupathiraju SN, Grodstein F, Stampfer MJ, et al. Vaginal estrogen use and chronic disease risk in the Nurses’ Health Study. Menopause. 2018;26:603-610

Bhupathiraju and colleagues published a report from the long-running Nurses’ Health prospective cohort  study on the health outcomes associated with the use of vaginal estrogen.

Recap of the study

Starting  in  1982, participants  in  the  Nurses’Health  Study were asked to report their use of vaginal estrogen via a validated questionnaire. For the years 1982 to 2012, investigators analyzed  data from 896 and 52,901 women who had and had not used vaginal estrogen, respectively. The mean duration of vaginal estrogen use was 36 months.

In an analysis adjusted for numerous  factors, the investigators observed no statistically significant differences in risk for cardiovascular outcomes (myocardial infarction, stroke, deep vein thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism) or invasive cancers (colorectal, endometrial, ovarian, or breast).

Findings uphold safety of vaginal estrogen

This landmark study provides reassurance that 3 years of use of vaginal estrogen does not increase the risk of cardiovascular events or invasive breast cancer, findings that hopefully will allow clinicians and women to feel comfortable regarding the safety of vaginal estrogen. A study of vaginal estrogen from the Women’s Health Initiative provided similar reassurance. Recent research supports guidance from The North American Menopause Society and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists that vaginal estrogen can be used indefinitely, if indicated, and that use of concomitant progestin is not recommended in women who use vaginal estrogen and have an intact uterus.^6,7

I agree with the authors, who point out that since treatment of GSM may need to be continued long term (even indefinitely), it would be helpful to have data that assessed the safety of longer-duration use of vaginal estrogen.

How CO2 fractionated vaginal laser therapy compares with vaginal estrogen for relief of GSM symptoms

Paraiso MF, Ferrando CA, Sokol ER, et al. A randomized clinical trial comparing vaginal laser therapy to vaginal estrogen therapy in women with genitourinary syndrome of menopause: the VeLVET trial. Menopause. 2020;27:50-56.

Up to 50% to 60% of postmenopausal women experience GSM symptoms. However, many fewer receive treatment, either because they do not understand that the symptoms are related to menopause or they are not aware that safe and effective treatment is available. Sadly, many women are not asked about their symptoms or are embarrassed to tell providers.

GSM affects relationships and quality of life. Vaginal lubricants or moisturizers may provide relief. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved therapies include low-dose vaginal estrogen, available as a vaginal tablet, cream, suppository, and ring; intravaginal dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA); and oral ospemifene, a selective estrogen replacement modulator. If women have an estrogen-sensitive breast or uterine cancer, an oncologist should be involved in decisions about vaginal hormonal therapy.

Energy-based devices such as vaginal lasers appear to induce wound healing; stimulate collagen and elastin fiber formation through increased storage of glycogen; and activate fibroblasts, which leads to increased extracellular matrix and restoration of vaginal pH.

These lasers are FDA approved for use in gynecology but not specifically for the treatment of GSM. In July 2016, the FDA issued a safety alert that energy-based devices, while approved for use in gynecology, have not been approved or adequately tested for menopausal vaginal conditions, and safety concerns include reports of vaginal burns.⁸ Lacking are publications of adequately powered randomized, sham-con-trolled trials to determine if laser therapy works better for women with GSM than placebos, moisturizers, or vaginal hormone therapies.

Recently, investigators conducted a multicenter, randomized, single-blinded trial of vaginal laser therapy and estrogen cream for treatment of GSM.

Continue to: Details of the study...

Details of the study

Paraiso and colleagues aimed to compare the 6-month efficacy and safety of fractionated CO2 vaginal laser therapy with that of estrogen vaginal cream for the treatment of vaginal dryness/GSM.

Participants randomly assigned to the estrogen therapy arm applied conjugated estrogen cream 0.5 g vaginally daily for 14 days, followed by twice weekly application for 24 weeks (a low-dose vaginal estrogen therapy). Participants randomly assigned to laser therapy underwent 3 vaginal treatments at a minimum of 6 weeks apart.

Sixty-nine women were enrolled in the trial before enrollment was closed because the FDA required that the sponsor obtain and maintain an investigational device exemption. Of 62 women who completed 6 months’ treatment, 30 received 3 laser treatments and 32 received estrogen cream.

The primary outcome compared subjective improvement in vaginal dryness using the visual analog scale (VAS) between the 2 groups at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included comparisons of the vaginal health index (VHI) and vaginal maturation index (VMI), the effect of GSM on quality of life, the effect of treatment on sexual function and urinary symptoms, and patient satisfaction.

Study findings

Efficacy. Laser therapy and estrogen therapy were found to be similarly effective except on the VMI, which favored estrogen. On patient global impression, 85.8% of laser-treated women rated their improvement as ‘‘better or much better’’ and 78.5% reported being either ‘‘satisfied or very satisfied,’’ compared with 70% and 73.3%, respectively, in the estrogen group, a statistically nonsignificant difference.

On linear regression, the investigators found a nonsignificant mean difference in female sexual function index scores. While VMI scores remained higher in the estrogen-treated group (adjusted P = .02), baseline and 6-month follow-up VMI data were available for only 34 participants (16 laser treated, 18 estrogen treated).

Regarding long-term effectiveness, 20% to 25% of the women in the laser-treated group needed further treatment after 1 year while the estrogen cream continued to work as long as it was used as prescribed.

Adverse effects. The incidence of vaginal bleeding was similar in the 2 groups: 6.7% in the laser group and 6.3% in the estrogen group. In the laser therapy group, 3% expe-rienced vaginal pain, discharge, and bladder infections, while in the estrogen cream group, 3% reported breast tenderness, migraine headaches, and abdominal cramping.

Takeaways. This small randomized, open-label (not blinded) trial provides pilot data on the effectiveness of vaginal CO2 laser compared with vaginal estrogen in treating vaginal atrophy, quality-of-life symptoms, sexual function, and urinary symptoms. Adverse events were minimal. Patient global impression of improvement and satisfaction improved for both vaginal laser and vaginal estrogen therapy.

Continue to: Study strengths and limitations...

Study strengths and limitations

To show noninferiority of vaginal laser therapy to vaginal estrogen, 196 study participants were needed. However, after 38% had been enrolled, the FDA sent a warning letter to the Foundation for Female Health Awareness, which required obtainment of an investigational device exemption for the laser and addition of a sham treatment arm.⁹ Instead of redesigning the trial and reconsenting the participants, the investigators closed the study, and analysis was performed only on the 62 participants who completed the study; vaginal maturation was assessed only in 34 participants.

The study lacked a placebo or sham control, which increases the risk of bias, while small numbers limit the strength of the findings. Longer-term evaluation of the effects of laser therapy beyond 6 months is needed to allow assessment of the effects of scarring on vaginal health, sexual function, and urinary issues.

Discussing therapy with patients

Despite this study’s preliminary findings, and until more robust data are available, providers should discuss the benefits and risks of all available treatment options for vaginal symptoms, including over-the-counter lubricants, vaginal moisturizers, FDA-approved vaginal hormone therapies (such as vaginal estrogen and intravaginal dehydroepiandrosterone), and systemic therapies, such as hormone therapy and ospemifene, to determine the best treatment for the individual woman with GSM.

In a healthy postmenopausal woman with bothersome GSM symptoms not responsive to lubricants and moisturizers, I recommend FDA-approved vaginal therapies as first-line treatment if there are no contraindications. For women with breast cancer, I involve their oncologist. If a patient asks about vaginal laser treatment, I share that vaginal energy-based therapies, such as the vaginal laser, have not been approved for menopausal vaginal concerns. In addition to the possibility of adverse events or unsuccessful treatment, there are significant out-of-pocket costs and the potential need for ongoing therapy after the initial 3 laser treatments.

The term genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) refers to the bothersome symptoms and physical findings associated with estrogen deficiency that involve the labia, vestibular tissue, clitoris, vagina, urethra, and bladder.¹ GSM is associated with genital irritation, dryness, and burning; urinary symptoms including urgency, dysuria, and recurrent urinary tract infections; and sexual symptoms including vaginal dryness and pain. Vulvovaginal atrophy (VVA) represents a component of GSM.

GSM is highly prevalent, affecting more than three-quarters of menopausal women. In contrast to menopausal vasomotor symptoms, which often are most severe and frequent in recently menopausal women, GSM commonly presents years following menopause. Unfortunately, VVA symptoms may have a substantial negative impact on women’s quality of life.

In this 2020 Menopause Update, I review a large observational study that provides reassurance to clinicians and patients regarding the safety of the best-studied prescription treatment for GSM—vaginal estrogen. Because some women should not use vaginal estrogen and others choose not to use it, nonhormonal management of GSM is important. Dr. JoAnn Pinkerton provides details on a randomized clinical trial that compared the use of fractionated CO2 laser therapy with vaginal estrogen for the treatment of GSM. In addition, Dr. JoAnn Manson discusses recent studies that found lower health risks with vaginal estrogen use compared with systemic estrogen therapy.

Diagnosing GSM

GSM can be diagnosed presumptively based on a characteristic history in a menopausal patient. Performing a pelvic examination, however, allows clinicians to exclude other conditions that may present with similar symptoms, such as lichen sclerosus, Candida infection, and malignancy.

During inspection of the external genitalia, the clinician may note loss of the fat pad in the labia majora and mons as well as a reduction in labia minora pigmentation and tissue. The urethral meatus often becomes erythematous and prominent. If vaginal or introital narrowing is present, use of a pediatric (ultrathin) speculum reduces patient discomfort. The vaginal mucosa may appear smooth due to loss of rugation; it also may appear shiny and dry. Bleeding (friability) on contact with a spatula or cotton-tipped swab may occur. In addition, the vaginal fornices may become attenuated, leaving the cervix flush with the vaginal apex.

GSM can be diagnosed without laboratory assessment. However, vaginal pH, if measured, is characteristically higher than 5.0; microscopic wet prep often reveals many white blood cells, immature epithelial cells (large nuclei), and reduced or absent lactobacilli.²

Nonhormonal management of GSM

Water, silicone-based, and oil-based lubricants reduce the friction and discomfort associated with sexual activity. By contrast, vaginal moisturizers act longer than lubricants and can be applied several times weekly or daily. Natural oils, including olive and coconut oil, may be useful both as lubricants and as moisturizers. Aqueous lidocaine 4%, applied to vestibular tissue with cotton balls prior to penetration, reduces dyspareunia in women with GSM.³

Vaginal estrogen therapy

When nonhormonal management does not sufficiently reduce GSM symptoms, use of low-dose vaginal estrogen enhances thickness and elasticity of genital tissue and improves vaginal blood flow. Vaginal estrogen creams, tablets, an insert, and a ring are marketed in the United States. Although clinical improvement may be apparent within several weeks of initiating vaginal estrogen, the full benefit of treatment becomes apparent after 2 to 3 months.³

Despite the availability and effectiveness of low-dose vaginal estrogen, fears regarding the safety of menopausal hormone therapy have resulted in the underutilization of vaginal estrogen.^4,5 Unfortunately, the package labeling for low-dose vaginal estrogen can exacerbate these fears.

Continue to: Nurses’ Health Study report...

Nurses’ Health Study report provides reassurance on long-term safety of vaginal estrogen

Bhupathiraju SN, Grodstein F, Stampfer MJ, et al. Vaginal estrogen use and chronic disease risk in the Nurses’ Health Study. Menopause. 2018;26:603-610

Bhupathiraju and colleagues published a report from the long-running Nurses’ Health prospective cohort  study on the health outcomes associated with the use of vaginal estrogen.

Recap of the study

Starting  in  1982, participants  in  the  Nurses’Health  Study were asked to report their use of vaginal estrogen via a validated questionnaire. For the years 1982 to 2012, investigators analyzed  data from 896 and 52,901 women who had and had not used vaginal estrogen, respectively. The mean duration of vaginal estrogen use was 36 months.

In an analysis adjusted for numerous  factors, the investigators observed no statistically significant differences in risk for cardiovascular outcomes (myocardial infarction, stroke, deep vein thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism) or invasive cancers (colorectal, endometrial, ovarian, or breast).

Findings uphold safety of vaginal estrogen

This landmark study provides reassurance that 3 years of use of vaginal estrogen does not increase the risk of cardiovascular events or invasive breast cancer, findings that hopefully will allow clinicians and women to feel comfortable regarding the safety of vaginal estrogen. A study of vaginal estrogen from the Women’s Health Initiative provided similar reassurance. Recent research supports guidance from The North American Menopause Society and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists that vaginal estrogen can be used indefinitely, if indicated, and that use of concomitant progestin is not recommended in women who use vaginal estrogen and have an intact uterus.^6,7

I agree with the authors, who point out that since treatment of GSM may need to be continued long term (even indefinitely), it would be helpful to have data that assessed the safety of longer-duration use of vaginal estrogen.

How CO2 fractionated vaginal laser therapy compares with vaginal estrogen for relief of GSM symptoms

Paraiso MF, Ferrando CA, Sokol ER, et al. A randomized clinical trial comparing vaginal laser therapy to vaginal estrogen therapy in women with genitourinary syndrome of menopause: the VeLVET trial. Menopause. 2020;27:50-56.

Up to 50% to 60% of postmenopausal women experience GSM symptoms. However, many fewer receive treatment, either because they do not understand that the symptoms are related to menopause or they are not aware that safe and effective treatment is available. Sadly, many women are not asked about their symptoms or are embarrassed to tell providers.

GSM affects relationships and quality of life. Vaginal lubricants or moisturizers may provide relief. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved therapies include low-dose vaginal estrogen, available as a vaginal tablet, cream, suppository, and ring; intravaginal dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA); and oral ospemifene, a selective estrogen replacement modulator. If women have an estrogen-sensitive breast or uterine cancer, an oncologist should be involved in decisions about vaginal hormonal therapy.

Energy-based devices such as vaginal lasers appear to induce wound healing; stimulate collagen and elastin fiber formation through increased storage of glycogen; and activate fibroblasts, which leads to increased extracellular matrix and restoration of vaginal pH.

These lasers are FDA approved for use in gynecology but not specifically for the treatment of GSM. In July 2016, the FDA issued a safety alert that energy-based devices, while approved for use in gynecology, have not been approved or adequately tested for menopausal vaginal conditions, and safety concerns include reports of vaginal burns.⁸ Lacking are publications of adequately powered randomized, sham-con-trolled trials to determine if laser therapy works better for women with GSM than placebos, moisturizers, or vaginal hormone therapies.

Recently, investigators conducted a multicenter, randomized, single-blinded trial of vaginal laser therapy and estrogen cream for treatment of GSM.

Continue to: Details of the study...

Details of the study

Paraiso and colleagues aimed to compare the 6-month efficacy and safety of fractionated CO2 vaginal laser therapy with that of estrogen vaginal cream for the treatment of vaginal dryness/GSM.

Participants randomly assigned to the estrogen therapy arm applied conjugated estrogen cream 0.5 g vaginally daily for 14 days, followed by twice weekly application for 24 weeks (a low-dose vaginal estrogen therapy). Participants randomly assigned to laser therapy underwent 3 vaginal treatments at a minimum of 6 weeks apart.

Sixty-nine women were enrolled in the trial before enrollment was closed because the FDA required that the sponsor obtain and maintain an investigational device exemption. Of 62 women who completed 6 months’ treatment, 30 received 3 laser treatments and 32 received estrogen cream.

The primary outcome compared subjective improvement in vaginal dryness using the visual analog scale (VAS) between the 2 groups at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included comparisons of the vaginal health index (VHI) and vaginal maturation index (VMI), the effect of GSM on quality of life, the effect of treatment on sexual function and urinary symptoms, and patient satisfaction.

Study findings

Efficacy. Laser therapy and estrogen therapy were found to be similarly effective except on the VMI, which favored estrogen. On patient global impression, 85.8% of laser-treated women rated their improvement as ‘‘better or much better’’ and 78.5% reported being either ‘‘satisfied or very satisfied,’’ compared with 70% and 73.3%, respectively, in the estrogen group, a statistically nonsignificant difference.

On linear regression, the investigators found a nonsignificant mean difference in female sexual function index scores. While VMI scores remained higher in the estrogen-treated group (adjusted P = .02), baseline and 6-month follow-up VMI data were available for only 34 participants (16 laser treated, 18 estrogen treated).

Regarding long-term effectiveness, 20% to 25% of the women in the laser-treated group needed further treatment after 1 year while the estrogen cream continued to work as long as it was used as prescribed.

Adverse effects. The incidence of vaginal bleeding was similar in the 2 groups: 6.7% in the laser group and 6.3% in the estrogen group. In the laser therapy group, 3% expe-rienced vaginal pain, discharge, and bladder infections, while in the estrogen cream group, 3% reported breast tenderness, migraine headaches, and abdominal cramping.

Takeaways. This small randomized, open-label (not blinded) trial provides pilot data on the effectiveness of vaginal CO2 laser compared with vaginal estrogen in treating vaginal atrophy, quality-of-life symptoms, sexual function, and urinary symptoms. Adverse events were minimal. Patient global impression of improvement and satisfaction improved for both vaginal laser and vaginal estrogen therapy.

Continue to: Study strengths and limitations...

Study strengths and limitations

To show noninferiority of vaginal laser therapy to vaginal estrogen, 196 study participants were needed. However, after 38% had been enrolled, the FDA sent a warning letter to the Foundation for Female Health Awareness, which required obtainment of an investigational device exemption for the laser and addition of a sham treatment arm.⁹ Instead of redesigning the trial and reconsenting the participants, the investigators closed the study, and analysis was performed only on the 62 participants who completed the study; vaginal maturation was assessed only in 34 participants.

The study lacked a placebo or sham control, which increases the risk of bias, while small numbers limit the strength of the findings. Longer-term evaluation of the effects of laser therapy beyond 6 months is needed to allow assessment of the effects of scarring on vaginal health, sexual function, and urinary issues.

Discussing therapy with patients

Despite this study’s preliminary findings, and until more robust data are available, providers should discuss the benefits and risks of all available treatment options for vaginal symptoms, including over-the-counter lubricants, vaginal moisturizers, FDA-approved vaginal hormone therapies (such as vaginal estrogen and intravaginal dehydroepiandrosterone), and systemic therapies, such as hormone therapy and ospemifene, to determine the best treatment for the individual woman with GSM.

In a healthy postmenopausal woman with bothersome GSM symptoms not responsive to lubricants and moisturizers, I recommend FDA-approved vaginal therapies as first-line treatment if there are no contraindications. For women with breast cancer, I involve their oncologist. If a patient asks about vaginal laser treatment, I share that vaginal energy-based therapies, such as the vaginal laser, have not been approved for menopausal vaginal concerns. In addition to the possibility of adverse events or unsuccessful treatment, there are significant out-of-pocket costs and the potential need for ongoing therapy after the initial 3 laser treatments.

Menopausal women with an intact uterus treated for a year with a daily, oral, single-pill formulation of estradiol and progesterone for the primary goal of reducing moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms showed evidence of reduced bone turnover in a post hoc, subgroup analysis of 157 women enrolled in the REPLENISH trial.

Ingram Publishing/Thinkstock

These findings “provide support for a potential skeletal benefit” when menopausal women with an intact uterus regularly used the tested estradiol plus progesterone formulation to treat moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms (VMS), Risa Kagan, MD, and associates wrote in an abstract released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG canceled the meeting, and released abstracts for press coverage.

The reductions reported for three different markers of bone turnover compared with placebo control after 6 and 12 months on treatment with a U.S.-marketed estradiol plus progesterone formulation were ”reassuring and in line with expectations” said Lubna Pal, MBBS, professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., who was not involved with the study. But the findings fell short of addressing the more clinically relevant issue of whether the tested regimen reduces the rate of bone fractures.

The analysis included 56 women treated with 1.0 mg estradiol and 100 mg progesterone daily, 56 who received 0.5 mg estradiol and 100 mg progesterone daily, and 45 women in the placebo arm. It assessed changes from baseline in the on-treatment compared with placebo groups using immunoassays for bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (BSAP), C-terminal telopeptide of type 1 collagen (CTX-1), and N-terminal propeptide of type 1 procollagen (PINP). For this analysis, the researchers combined the two active-treatment arms, and found that all three markers showed statistically significant drops from baseline with treatment, compared with placebo at both 6- and 12-month follow-up. For all three markers, the declines on active treatment grew larger with time, and after 12 months the mean drops from baseline compared with placebo were an 18% relative reduction in BSAP, a 41% relative reduction in CTX-1, and a 29% relative reduction in PINP, reported Dr. Kagan, a gynecologist based in Berkeley, Calif., who is affiliated with the University of California San Francisco.

In addition to not yet providing more clinically meaningful results on bone fracture rates, Dr. Pal cited additional issues that limit interpretation of both these findings and the broader REPLENISH results. First, the new analysis of bone-turnover markers as reported in the abstract does not allow assessment of a possible dose-dependent effect on bone turnover. More importantly, while the full REPLENISH trial provided reassuring data on endometrial protection, it has not yet reported data on the other major safety concern of hormone replacement: the effects of treatment on breast cancer rates. “They need to show no harm” in breast tissue, Dr. Pal said in an interview. In addition, the positive effect reported on markers of bone turnover is not unique to this formulation. Other formulations with estrogen at similar dosages would have similar effects, she said.

Other considerations when using an oral formulation include the reduced risk for prothrombotic effects from estradiol when delivered transdermally instead of orally, although some women have trouble getting insurance coverage for transdermal formulations, Dr. Pal said. Oral estrogen is appropriate only for women without an elevated clotting risk. Daily progesterone treatment also is more problematic than a cyclical dosage regimen, but noncontinuous progesterone results in monthly bleeding, something that some women prefer to avoid. “I’m not convinced that continuous progesterone is a physiologic approach,” said Dr. Pal, a member of the Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board. In addition, some women may find the formulation attractive because both the estradiol and progesterone are bioidentical and not synthetic molecules.

In short, the oral estradiol plus progesterone formulation tested in REPLENISH “is another tool” that’s an option for selected menopausal women with a uterus. “The bone findings are in line with expectations and are reassuring. Long-term data are keenly awaited to understand whether the bone marker changes lead to fewer fractures. The impact of the treatment on breast safety will be especially important.” For women who want a bioidentical, oral option and to not have bleeding, the tested formulation can be an effective option providing both symptom benefit and endometrial protection, Dr. Pal said.

REPLENISH was funded by TherapeuticsMD, the company that markets the tested estradiol plus progesterone formulation (Bijuva). Dr. Kagan has been a consultant and adviser to and speaker on behalf of Therapeutics MD, and she has also been a consultant or adviser to or has spoken on behalf of AMAG, Amgen, Astellas, Lupin, Radius, and Warner Chilcott/Allergan, and she has received research funding from Endoceutics. Dr. Pal has been a consultant to Flow Health.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kagan R et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 May;135:62S. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000665076.20231.a8.

Menopausal women with an intact uterus treated for a year with a daily, oral, single-pill formulation of estradiol and progesterone for the primary goal of reducing moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms showed evidence of reduced bone turnover in a post hoc, subgroup analysis of 157 women enrolled in the REPLENISH trial.

Ingram Publishing/Thinkstock

These findings “provide support for a potential skeletal benefit” when menopausal women with an intact uterus regularly used the tested estradiol plus progesterone formulation to treat moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms (VMS), Risa Kagan, MD, and associates wrote in an abstract released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG canceled the meeting, and released abstracts for press coverage.

The reductions reported for three different markers of bone turnover compared with placebo control after 6 and 12 months on treatment with a U.S.-marketed estradiol plus progesterone formulation were ”reassuring and in line with expectations” said Lubna Pal, MBBS, professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., who was not involved with the study. But the findings fell short of addressing the more clinically relevant issue of whether the tested regimen reduces the rate of bone fractures.

The analysis included 56 women treated with 1.0 mg estradiol and 100 mg progesterone daily, 56 who received 0.5 mg estradiol and 100 mg progesterone daily, and 45 women in the placebo arm. It assessed changes from baseline in the on-treatment compared with placebo groups using immunoassays for bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (BSAP), C-terminal telopeptide of type 1 collagen (CTX-1), and N-terminal propeptide of type 1 procollagen (PINP). For this analysis, the researchers combined the two active-treatment arms, and found that all three markers showed statistically significant drops from baseline with treatment, compared with placebo at both 6- and 12-month follow-up. For all three markers, the declines on active treatment grew larger with time, and after 12 months the mean drops from baseline compared with placebo were an 18% relative reduction in BSAP, a 41% relative reduction in CTX-1, and a 29% relative reduction in PINP, reported Dr. Kagan, a gynecologist based in Berkeley, Calif., who is affiliated with the University of California San Francisco.

In addition to not yet providing more clinically meaningful results on bone fracture rates, Dr. Pal cited additional issues that limit interpretation of both these findings and the broader REPLENISH results. First, the new analysis of bone-turnover markers as reported in the abstract does not allow assessment of a possible dose-dependent effect on bone turnover. More importantly, while the full REPLENISH trial provided reassuring data on endometrial protection, it has not yet reported data on the other major safety concern of hormone replacement: the effects of treatment on breast cancer rates. “They need to show no harm” in breast tissue, Dr. Pal said in an interview. In addition, the positive effect reported on markers of bone turnover is not unique to this formulation. Other formulations with estrogen at similar dosages would have similar effects, she said.

Other considerations when using an oral formulation include the reduced risk for prothrombotic effects from estradiol when delivered transdermally instead of orally, although some women have trouble getting insurance coverage for transdermal formulations, Dr. Pal said. Oral estrogen is appropriate only for women without an elevated clotting risk. Daily progesterone treatment also is more problematic than a cyclical dosage regimen, but noncontinuous progesterone results in monthly bleeding, something that some women prefer to avoid. “I’m not convinced that continuous progesterone is a physiologic approach,” said Dr. Pal, a member of the Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board. In addition, some women may find the formulation attractive because both the estradiol and progesterone are bioidentical and not synthetic molecules.

In short, the oral estradiol plus progesterone formulation tested in REPLENISH “is another tool” that’s an option for selected menopausal women with a uterus. “The bone findings are in line with expectations and are reassuring. Long-term data are keenly awaited to understand whether the bone marker changes lead to fewer fractures. The impact of the treatment on breast safety will be especially important.” For women who want a bioidentical, oral option and to not have bleeding, the tested formulation can be an effective option providing both symptom benefit and endometrial protection, Dr. Pal said.

REPLENISH was funded by TherapeuticsMD, the company that markets the tested estradiol plus progesterone formulation (Bijuva). Dr. Kagan has been a consultant and adviser to and speaker on behalf of Therapeutics MD, and she has also been a consultant or adviser to or has spoken on behalf of AMAG, Amgen, Astellas, Lupin, Radius, and Warner Chilcott/Allergan, and she has received research funding from Endoceutics. Dr. Pal has been a consultant to Flow Health.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kagan R et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 May;135:62S. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000665076.20231.a8.

Menopausal women with an intact uterus treated for a year with a daily, oral, single-pill formulation of estradiol and progesterone for the primary goal of reducing moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms showed evidence of reduced bone turnover in a post hoc, subgroup analysis of 157 women enrolled in the REPLENISH trial.

Ingram Publishing/Thinkstock

These findings “provide support for a potential skeletal benefit” when menopausal women with an intact uterus regularly used the tested estradiol plus progesterone formulation to treat moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms (VMS), Risa Kagan, MD, and associates wrote in an abstract released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG canceled the meeting, and released abstracts for press coverage.

The reductions reported for three different markers of bone turnover compared with placebo control after 6 and 12 months on treatment with a U.S.-marketed estradiol plus progesterone formulation were ”reassuring and in line with expectations” said Lubna Pal, MBBS, professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., who was not involved with the study. But the findings fell short of addressing the more clinically relevant issue of whether the tested regimen reduces the rate of bone fractures.

The analysis included 56 women treated with 1.0 mg estradiol and 100 mg progesterone daily, 56 who received 0.5 mg estradiol and 100 mg progesterone daily, and 45 women in the placebo arm. It assessed changes from baseline in the on-treatment compared with placebo groups using immunoassays for bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (BSAP), C-terminal telopeptide of type 1 collagen (CTX-1), and N-terminal propeptide of type 1 procollagen (PINP). For this analysis, the researchers combined the two active-treatment arms, and found that all three markers showed statistically significant drops from baseline with treatment, compared with placebo at both 6- and 12-month follow-up. For all three markers, the declines on active treatment grew larger with time, and after 12 months the mean drops from baseline compared with placebo were an 18% relative reduction in BSAP, a 41% relative reduction in CTX-1, and a 29% relative reduction in PINP, reported Dr. Kagan, a gynecologist based in Berkeley, Calif., who is affiliated with the University of California San Francisco.

In addition to not yet providing more clinically meaningful results on bone fracture rates, Dr. Pal cited additional issues that limit interpretation of both these findings and the broader REPLENISH results. First, the new analysis of bone-turnover markers as reported in the abstract does not allow assessment of a possible dose-dependent effect on bone turnover. More importantly, while the full REPLENISH trial provided reassuring data on endometrial protection, it has not yet reported data on the other major safety concern of hormone replacement: the effects of treatment on breast cancer rates. “They need to show no harm” in breast tissue, Dr. Pal said in an interview. In addition, the positive effect reported on markers of bone turnover is not unique to this formulation. Other formulations with estrogen at similar dosages would have similar effects, she said.

Other considerations when using an oral formulation include the reduced risk for prothrombotic effects from estradiol when delivered transdermally instead of orally, although some women have trouble getting insurance coverage for transdermal formulations, Dr. Pal said. Oral estrogen is appropriate only for women without an elevated clotting risk. Daily progesterone treatment also is more problematic than a cyclical dosage regimen, but noncontinuous progesterone results in monthly bleeding, something that some women prefer to avoid. “I’m not convinced that continuous progesterone is a physiologic approach,” said Dr. Pal, a member of the Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board. In addition, some women may find the formulation attractive because both the estradiol and progesterone are bioidentical and not synthetic molecules.

In short, the oral estradiol plus progesterone formulation tested in REPLENISH “is another tool” that’s an option for selected menopausal women with a uterus. “The bone findings are in line with expectations and are reassuring. Long-term data are keenly awaited to understand whether the bone marker changes lead to fewer fractures. The impact of the treatment on breast safety will be especially important.” For women who want a bioidentical, oral option and to not have bleeding, the tested formulation can be an effective option providing both symptom benefit and endometrial protection, Dr. Pal said.

REPLENISH was funded by TherapeuticsMD, the company that markets the tested estradiol plus progesterone formulation (Bijuva). Dr. Kagan has been a consultant and adviser to and speaker on behalf of Therapeutics MD, and she has also been a consultant or adviser to or has spoken on behalf of AMAG, Amgen, Astellas, Lupin, Radius, and Warner Chilcott/Allergan, and she has received research funding from Endoceutics. Dr. Pal has been a consultant to Flow Health.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kagan R et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 May;135:62S. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000665076.20231.a8.

The selective neurokinin 3 receptor antagonist fezolinetant was a well tolerated and effective nonhormone therapy for moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms associated with menopause, Graeme L. Fraser, PhD, of Ogeda, a subsidiary of Astellas Pharma, and associates reported in Menopause.

yacobchuk/Getty Images

The investigators conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging, parallel-group study between July 19, 2017, and Sept. 19, 2018, in 287 women who completed the full 12-week trial. The women were aged between 41 and 65 years, were menopausal, and had moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms (VMS) with an incidence of at least 50 episodes per week. The majority of the women were white, 25% were black, 1% were Asian, and 1% were “other.”

The reduction in VMS episodes in patients who received fezolinetant ranged from 1.9 to 3.5 episodes per day at week 4 and from 1.8 to 2.6 per day at week 12. The mean difference from placebo in VMS severity score was –0.4 to –1 at week 4 and was –0.2 to –0.6 at week 12. At least a 50% reduction in VMS frequency at week 12 was achieved by 81%-95% of patients who received fezolinetant, compared with 59% of those who received placebo.

Treatment-emergent adverse events were generally mild to moderate, with the most common events including nausea, diarrhea, fatigue, urinary tract infection, upper respiratory tract infections, sinusitis, headache, and cough. Of the five severe adverse events reported, only two were considered related to treatment – cholelithiasis and drug-induced liver injury. A total of 21 patients discontinued because of adverse events.

“Further evaluation of fezolinetant in larger and longer phase 3 trials of women with VMS associated with menopause is warranted to more fully characterize its efficacy and safety profile,” Dr. Fraser and colleagues concluded.

The study was funded by Astellas Pharma. The investigators reported numerous conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Fraser GL et al. Menopause. 2020 Feb 24. doi: 10.1097/GME.0000000000001510.

The selective neurokinin 3 receptor antagonist fezolinetant was a well tolerated and effective nonhormone therapy for moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms associated with menopause, Graeme L. Fraser, PhD, of Ogeda, a subsidiary of Astellas Pharma, and associates reported in Menopause.

yacobchuk/Getty Images

The investigators conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging, parallel-group study between July 19, 2017, and Sept. 19, 2018, in 287 women who completed the full 12-week trial. The women were aged between 41 and 65 years, were menopausal, and had moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms (VMS) with an incidence of at least 50 episodes per week. The majority of the women were white, 25% were black, 1% were Asian, and 1% were “other.”

The reduction in VMS episodes in patients who received fezolinetant ranged from 1.9 to 3.5 episodes per day at week 4 and from 1.8 to 2.6 per day at week 12. The mean difference from placebo in VMS severity score was –0.4 to –1 at week 4 and was –0.2 to –0.6 at week 12. At least a 50% reduction in VMS frequency at week 12 was achieved by 81%-95% of patients who received fezolinetant, compared with 59% of those who received placebo.

Treatment-emergent adverse events were generally mild to moderate, with the most common events including nausea, diarrhea, fatigue, urinary tract infection, upper respiratory tract infections, sinusitis, headache, and cough. Of the five severe adverse events reported, only two were considered related to treatment – cholelithiasis and drug-induced liver injury. A total of 21 patients discontinued because of adverse events.

“Further evaluation of fezolinetant in larger and longer phase 3 trials of women with VMS associated with menopause is warranted to more fully characterize its efficacy and safety profile,” Dr. Fraser and colleagues concluded.

The study was funded by Astellas Pharma. The investigators reported numerous conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Fraser GL et al. Menopause. 2020 Feb 24. doi: 10.1097/GME.0000000000001510.

The selective neurokinin 3 receptor antagonist fezolinetant was a well tolerated and effective nonhormone therapy for moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms associated with menopause, Graeme L. Fraser, PhD, of Ogeda, a subsidiary of Astellas Pharma, and associates reported in Menopause.

yacobchuk/Getty Images

The investigators conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging, parallel-group study between July 19, 2017, and Sept. 19, 2018, in 287 women who completed the full 12-week trial. The women were aged between 41 and 65 years, were menopausal, and had moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms (VMS) with an incidence of at least 50 episodes per week. The majority of the women were white, 25% were black, 1% were Asian, and 1% were “other.”

The reduction in VMS episodes in patients who received fezolinetant ranged from 1.9 to 3.5 episodes per day at week 4 and from 1.8 to 2.6 per day at week 12. The mean difference from placebo in VMS severity score was –0.4 to –1 at week 4 and was –0.2 to –0.6 at week 12. At least a 50% reduction in VMS frequency at week 12 was achieved by 81%-95% of patients who received fezolinetant, compared with 59% of those who received placebo.

Treatment-emergent adverse events were generally mild to moderate, with the most common events including nausea, diarrhea, fatigue, urinary tract infection, upper respiratory tract infections, sinusitis, headache, and cough. Of the five severe adverse events reported, only two were considered related to treatment – cholelithiasis and drug-induced liver injury. A total of 21 patients discontinued because of adverse events.

“Further evaluation of fezolinetant in larger and longer phase 3 trials of women with VMS associated with menopause is warranted to more fully characterize its efficacy and safety profile,” Dr. Fraser and colleagues concluded.

The study was funded by Astellas Pharma. The investigators reported numerous conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Fraser GL et al. Menopause. 2020 Feb 24. doi: 10.1097/GME.0000000000001510.