Menopause

In North America, women experience menopause (the permanent cessation of menstruation due to loss of ovarian activity) at a median age of 51 years. They may experience symptoms of perimenopause, or the menopause transition, for several years before menstruation ceases. Menopausal symptoms include vasomotor symptoms, such as hot flushes, and vaginal symptoms, such as vaginal dryness and pain during intercourse.¹

Women may have questions about treating menopausal symptoms, maintaining their health, and preventing such age-related diseases as osteoporosis and cardiovascular disease. The decision to treat menopausal symptoms is challenging for women as well as their clinicians given that recommendations have changed over the past few years.

A free app with multiple features. The North American Menopause Society (NAMS) has developed a no-cost mobile health application called MenoPro for menopausal symptom management based on the organization’s 2017 recommendations.² The app has 2 modes: one for clinicians and one for women/patients to support shared decision making.

For clinicians, the app helps identify which patients with menopausal symptoms are candidates for pharmacologic treatment and the options for optimal therapy. The app also can be used to calculate a 10-year cardiovascular disease (heart disease and stroke) risk assessment. In addition, it contains links to a breast cancer risk assessment as well as an osteoporosis/bone fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX model calculator). Finally, MenoPro includes NAMS’s educational materials and information pages on lifestyle modifications to reduce hot flushes, contraindications and cautions to hormone therapy, pros and cons of hormonal versus nonhormonal options, a comparison of oral (pills) and transdermal (patches, gels, sprays) therapies, treatment options for vaginal dryness and pain with sexual activities, and direct links to tables with the various formulations and doses of medications.

The TABLE details the features of the MenoPro app based on a shortened version of the APPLICATIONS scoring system, APPLI (app comprehensiveness, price, platform, literature used, and important special features).³ I hope that the app described here will assist you in caring for women in the menopausal transition.

In North America, women experience menopause (the permanent cessation of menstruation due to loss of ovarian activity) at a median age of 51 years. They may experience symptoms of perimenopause, or the menopause transition, for several years before menstruation ceases. Menopausal symptoms include vasomotor symptoms, such as hot flushes, and vaginal symptoms, such as vaginal dryness and pain during intercourse.¹

Women may have questions about treating menopausal symptoms, maintaining their health, and preventing such age-related diseases as osteoporosis and cardiovascular disease. The decision to treat menopausal symptoms is challenging for women as well as their clinicians given that recommendations have changed over the past few years.

A free app with multiple features. The North American Menopause Society (NAMS) has developed a no-cost mobile health application called MenoPro for menopausal symptom management based on the organization’s 2017 recommendations.² The app has 2 modes: one for clinicians and one for women/patients to support shared decision making.

For clinicians, the app helps identify which patients with menopausal symptoms are candidates for pharmacologic treatment and the options for optimal therapy. The app also can be used to calculate a 10-year cardiovascular disease (heart disease and stroke) risk assessment. In addition, it contains links to a breast cancer risk assessment as well as an osteoporosis/bone fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX model calculator). Finally, MenoPro includes NAMS’s educational materials and information pages on lifestyle modifications to reduce hot flushes, contraindications and cautions to hormone therapy, pros and cons of hormonal versus nonhormonal options, a comparison of oral (pills) and transdermal (patches, gels, sprays) therapies, treatment options for vaginal dryness and pain with sexual activities, and direct links to tables with the various formulations and doses of medications.

The TABLE details the features of the MenoPro app based on a shortened version of the APPLICATIONS scoring system, APPLI (app comprehensiveness, price, platform, literature used, and important special features).³ I hope that the app described here will assist you in caring for women in the menopausal transition.

In North America, women experience menopause (the permanent cessation of menstruation due to loss of ovarian activity) at a median age of 51 years. They may experience symptoms of perimenopause, or the menopause transition, for several years before menstruation ceases. Menopausal symptoms include vasomotor symptoms, such as hot flushes, and vaginal symptoms, such as vaginal dryness and pain during intercourse.¹

Women may have questions about treating menopausal symptoms, maintaining their health, and preventing such age-related diseases as osteoporosis and cardiovascular disease. The decision to treat menopausal symptoms is challenging for women as well as their clinicians given that recommendations have changed over the past few years.

A free app with multiple features. The North American Menopause Society (NAMS) has developed a no-cost mobile health application called MenoPro for menopausal symptom management based on the organization’s 2017 recommendations.² The app has 2 modes: one for clinicians and one for women/patients to support shared decision making.

For clinicians, the app helps identify which patients with menopausal symptoms are candidates for pharmacologic treatment and the options for optimal therapy. The app also can be used to calculate a 10-year cardiovascular disease (heart disease and stroke) risk assessment. In addition, it contains links to a breast cancer risk assessment as well as an osteoporosis/bone fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX model calculator). Finally, MenoPro includes NAMS’s educational materials and information pages on lifestyle modifications to reduce hot flushes, contraindications and cautions to hormone therapy, pros and cons of hormonal versus nonhormonal options, a comparison of oral (pills) and transdermal (patches, gels, sprays) therapies, treatment options for vaginal dryness and pain with sexual activities, and direct links to tables with the various formulations and doses of medications.

The TABLE details the features of the MenoPro app based on a shortened version of the APPLICATIONS scoring system, APPLI (app comprehensiveness, price, platform, literature used, and important special features).³ I hope that the app described here will assist you in caring for women in the menopausal transition.

Among peri- and postmenopausal women, abnormal bleeding, breast cancer, and mood disorders represent prevalent conditions. In this Update, we discuss data from a review that provides quantitative information on the likelihood of finding endometrial cancer among women with postmenopausal bleeding (PMB). We also summarize 2 recent consensus recommendations: One addresses the clinically important but controversial issue of the treatment of genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) in breast cancer survivors, and the other provides guidance on the management of depression in perimenopausal women.

Endometrial cancer is associated with a high prevalence of PMB 

Clarke MA, Long BJ, Del Mar Morillo A, et al. Association of endometrial cancer risk with postmenopausal bleeding in women: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178:1210-1222. 

Endometrial cancer is the most common gynecologic malignancy and the fourth most common cancer among US women. In recent years, the incidence of and mortality from endometrial cancer have increased.¹ Despite the high prevalence of endometrial cancer, population-based screening currently is not recommended. 

PMB affects up to 10% of women and can be caused by endometrial atrophy, endometrial polyps, uterine leiomyoma, and malignancy. While it is well known that PMB is a common presenting symptom of endometrial cancer, we do not have good data to guide counseling patients with PMB on the likelihood that endometrial cancer is present. Similarly, estimates are lacking regarding what proportion of women with endometrial cancer will present with PMB. 

To address these 2 issues, Clarke and colleagues conducted a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of PMB among women with endometrial cancer (sensitivity) and the risk of endometrial cancer among women with PMB (positive predictive value). The authors included 129 studies--with 34,432 women with PMB and 6,358 with endometrial cancer--in their report.

Cancer prevalence varied with HT use, geographic location 

The study findings demonstrated that the prevalence of PMB in women with endometrial cancer was 90% (95% confidence interval [CI], 84%-94%), and there was no significant difference in the occurrence of PMB by cancer stage. The risk of endometrial cancer in women with PMB ranged from 0% to 48%, yielding an overall pooled estimate of 9% (95% CI, 8%-11%). As an editorialist pointed out, the risk of endometrial cancer in women with PMB is similar to that of colorectal cancer in individuals with rectal bleeding (8%) and breast cancer in women with a palpable mass (10%), supporting current guidance that recommends evaluation of women with PMB.² Evaluating 100 women with PMB to diagnose 9 endometrial cancers does not seem excessive. 

Interestingly, among women with PMB, the prevalence of endometrial cancer was significantly higher among women not using hormone therapy (HT) than among users of HT (12% and 7%, respectively). In 7 studies restricted to women with PMB and polyps (n = 2,801), the pooled risk of endometrial cancer was 3% (95% CI, 3%-4%). In an analysis stratified by geographic region, a striking difference was noted in the risk of endometrial cancer among women with PMB in North America (5%), Northern Europe (7%), and in Western Europe (13%). This finding may be explained by regional differences in the approach to evaluating PMB, cultural perceptions of PMB that can affect thresholds to present for care, and differences in risk factors between these populations. 

The study had several limitations, including an inability to evaluate the number of years since menopause and the effects of body mass index. Additionally, the study did not address endometrial hyperplasia or endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia. 

Treating GSM in breast cancer survivors: New guidance targets QoL and sexuality 

Faubion SS, Larkin LC, Stuenkel CA, et al. Management of genitourinary syndrome of menopause in women with or at high risk for breast cancer: consensus recommendations from The North American Menopause Society and The International Society for the Study of Women's Sexual Health. Menopause. 2018;25:596-608. 

Given that there is little evidence addressing the safety of vaginal estrogen, other hormonal therapies, and nonprescription treatments for GSM in breast cancer survivors, many survivors with bothersome GSM symptoms are not appropriately treated.

Continue to: Expert panel creates evidence-based guidance...

Against this backdrop, The North American Menopause Society and the International Society for the Study of Women's Sexual Health convened a group comprised of menopause specialists (ObGyns, internists, and nurse practitioners), specialists in sexuality, medical oncologists specializing in breast cancer, and a psychologist to create evidence-based interdisciplinary consensus guidelines for enhancing quality of life and sexuality for breast cancer survivors with GSM. 

Measures to help enhance quality of life and sexuality 

The group's key recommendations for clinicians include: 

• Sexual function and quality of life (QoL) should be assessed in all women with or at high risk for breast cancer. 
• Management of GSM should be individualized based on shared decision-making involving the patient and her oncologist. 
• Initial treatment options include: 

—over-the-counter vaginal moisturizers used several times weekly on a regular basis 
—lubricants used with intercourse  
—vaginal dilator therapy  
—pelvic floor physical therapy. 
 

• Low-dose vaginal estrogen therapy may be appropriate for select women who have been treated for breast cancer: 

—With use of vaginal estrogen, serum estradiol levels remain in the postmenopausal range. 
—Based on limited data, use of vaginal estrogen is associated with a minimal risk for recurrence of breast cancer. 
—Because their use is associated with the lowest serum estradiol levels, vaginal tablets, rings, or inserts may be preferable to creams.  
—Decisions regarding use of vaginal estrogen in breast cancer survivors should involve the woman's oncologist. Appropriate candidates for off-label use of vaginal estrogen may be survivors:

–who are at relatively low risk for recurrence 
–with hormone receptor-negative disease
–using tamoxifen rather than an AI 
–who are particularly concerned about quality of life.

—Given that AIs prevent recurrence by lowering estrogen levels, oncologists may be reluctant to consider use of vaginal estrogen in survivors using adjuvant agents. 
—With respect to use of vaginal estrogen, oncologists may be more comfortable with use in patients taking tamoxifen. 

• Neither intravaginal dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA; prasterone) nor the oral selective estrogen receptor modulator ospemifene has been studied in breast cancer survivors. 

In women with metastatic disease, QoL, comfort, and sexual intimacy are key considerations when weighing potential therapies; optimal choices will vary with probability of long-term survival. 

Framework provided for managing depressive disorders in perimenopausal women 

Maki PM, Kornstein SG, Joffe H, et al; Board of Trustees for The North American Menopause Society (NAMS) and the Women and Mood Disorders Task Force of the National Network of Depression Centers. Guidelines for the evaluation and treatment of perimenopausal depression: summary and recommendations. Menopause. 2018;25:1069-1085. 

Although perimenopausal women are more susceptible to the development of depressive symptoms and major depressive episodes (MDE), there is a lack of consensus regarding how to evaluate and treat depression in women during the menopausal transition and postmenopausal period. 

Recently, an expert panel comprised of representatives from The North American Menopause Society and the National Network of Depression Centers Women and Mood Disorders Task Group developed clinical guidelines addressing epidemiology, clinical presentation, therapeutic effects of antidepressants, effects of HT, and efficacy of other therapies. Here we provide a summary of the expert panel's findings and guidelines. 

Continue to: Certain factors are associated with higher risk for depression...

The perimenopause represents a time of increased risk for depressive symptoms and major depressive disorder (MDD), even in women with no prior history of depression. Several characteristics and health factors are associated with the increased risk during the menopause transition. These include a prior history of MDD, current antidepressant use, anxiety, premenstrual depressive symptoms, African American race, high body mass index, younger age, social isolation, upsetting life events, and menopausal sleep disturbances.  

Although data are inconclusive on whether surgical menopause increases or decreases the risk for developing depression compared with women who transition through menopause naturally, recent studies show an elevated risk of depression in women following hysterectomy with and without oophorectomy.^6,7 

Menopausal and depressive symptoms can overlap 

Midlife depression presents with classic depressive symptoms that commonly occur in combination with menopausal symptoms, including vasomotor symptoms, sleep and sexual disturbances, and weight and energy changes. These menopausal symptoms can complicate, co-occur, and overlap with the clinical presentation of depression. 

Conversely, depression may affect an individual's judgment of the degree of bother from menopausal somatic symptoms, thereby further magnifying the effect of symptoms on quality of life. The interrelationship between depressive symptoms and menopausal symptoms may pose a challenge when attempting to parse out contributing etiologies, relative contributions of each etiology, and the potential additive effects. 

Diagnosis and treatment options 

Diagnosis involves identifying the menopausal stage, assessing for co-existing psychiatric and menopause symptoms, appreciating the psychosocial factors common in midlife, and considering the differential diagnosis. Validated screening instruments can be helpful. Although a menopause-specific mood disorder scale does not yet exist, several general validated screening measures, such as the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, or PHQ-9, can be used for categorical determination of mood disorder diagnoses during the menopause transition. 

Antidepressants, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and other psychotherapies are considered first-line treatments for perimenopausal major depressive episodes. Only desvenlafaxine has been studied in large randomized placebo-controlled trials and has proven efficacious for the treatment of MDD in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women. 

A number of small open-label studies of other selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), and mirtazapine to treat MDD in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women have demonstrated a positive effect on mood, and several SSRIs and SNRIs also have the added benefit of improving menopause-related symptoms. 

In women with a history of MDD, a prior adequate response to a particular antidepressant should guide treatment selection when MDD recurs during the midlife years. 

Although estrogen is not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration specifically for the treatment of mood disturbances, some evidence suggests that unopposed estrogen therapy has efficacy similar to that of antidepressant medications in treating depressive disorders in perimenopausal women,^8-11 but it is ineffective in treating depressive disorders in postmenopausal women. Estrogen therapy also may augment the clinical response to antidepressants in midlife and older women.^12,13 The data on combined HT (estrogen plus progestogen) or for different progestogens in treating depressive disorders in perimenopausal women are lacking and inconclusive.  

Among peri- and postmenopausal women, abnormal bleeding, breast cancer, and mood disorders represent prevalent conditions. In this Update, we discuss data from a review that provides quantitative information on the likelihood of finding endometrial cancer among women with postmenopausal bleeding (PMB). We also summarize 2 recent consensus recommendations: One addresses the clinically important but controversial issue of the treatment of genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) in breast cancer survivors, and the other provides guidance on the management of depression in perimenopausal women.

Endometrial cancer is associated with a high prevalence of PMB 

Clarke MA, Long BJ, Del Mar Morillo A, et al. Association of endometrial cancer risk with postmenopausal bleeding in women: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178:1210-1222. 

Endometrial cancer is the most common gynecologic malignancy and the fourth most common cancer among US women. In recent years, the incidence of and mortality from endometrial cancer have increased.¹ Despite the high prevalence of endometrial cancer, population-based screening currently is not recommended. 

PMB affects up to 10% of women and can be caused by endometrial atrophy, endometrial polyps, uterine leiomyoma, and malignancy. While it is well known that PMB is a common presenting symptom of endometrial cancer, we do not have good data to guide counseling patients with PMB on the likelihood that endometrial cancer is present. Similarly, estimates are lacking regarding what proportion of women with endometrial cancer will present with PMB. 

To address these 2 issues, Clarke and colleagues conducted a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of PMB among women with endometrial cancer (sensitivity) and the risk of endometrial cancer among women with PMB (positive predictive value). The authors included 129 studies--with 34,432 women with PMB and 6,358 with endometrial cancer--in their report.

Cancer prevalence varied with HT use, geographic location 

The study findings demonstrated that the prevalence of PMB in women with endometrial cancer was 90% (95% confidence interval [CI], 84%-94%), and there was no significant difference in the occurrence of PMB by cancer stage. The risk of endometrial cancer in women with PMB ranged from 0% to 48%, yielding an overall pooled estimate of 9% (95% CI, 8%-11%). As an editorialist pointed out, the risk of endometrial cancer in women with PMB is similar to that of colorectal cancer in individuals with rectal bleeding (8%) and breast cancer in women with a palpable mass (10%), supporting current guidance that recommends evaluation of women with PMB.² Evaluating 100 women with PMB to diagnose 9 endometrial cancers does not seem excessive. 

Interestingly, among women with PMB, the prevalence of endometrial cancer was significantly higher among women not using hormone therapy (HT) than among users of HT (12% and 7%, respectively). In 7 studies restricted to women with PMB and polyps (n = 2,801), the pooled risk of endometrial cancer was 3% (95% CI, 3%-4%). In an analysis stratified by geographic region, a striking difference was noted in the risk of endometrial cancer among women with PMB in North America (5%), Northern Europe (7%), and in Western Europe (13%). This finding may be explained by regional differences in the approach to evaluating PMB, cultural perceptions of PMB that can affect thresholds to present for care, and differences in risk factors between these populations. 

The study had several limitations, including an inability to evaluate the number of years since menopause and the effects of body mass index. Additionally, the study did not address endometrial hyperplasia or endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia. 

Treating GSM in breast cancer survivors: New guidance targets QoL and sexuality 

Faubion SS, Larkin LC, Stuenkel CA, et al. Management of genitourinary syndrome of menopause in women with or at high risk for breast cancer: consensus recommendations from The North American Menopause Society and The International Society for the Study of Women's Sexual Health. Menopause. 2018;25:596-608. 

Given that there is little evidence addressing the safety of vaginal estrogen, other hormonal therapies, and nonprescription treatments for GSM in breast cancer survivors, many survivors with bothersome GSM symptoms are not appropriately treated.

Continue to: Expert panel creates evidence-based guidance...

Against this backdrop, The North American Menopause Society and the International Society for the Study of Women's Sexual Health convened a group comprised of menopause specialists (ObGyns, internists, and nurse practitioners), specialists in sexuality, medical oncologists specializing in breast cancer, and a psychologist to create evidence-based interdisciplinary consensus guidelines for enhancing quality of life and sexuality for breast cancer survivors with GSM. 

Measures to help enhance quality of life and sexuality 

The group's key recommendations for clinicians include: 

• Sexual function and quality of life (QoL) should be assessed in all women with or at high risk for breast cancer. 
• Management of GSM should be individualized based on shared decision-making involving the patient and her oncologist. 
• Initial treatment options include: 

—over-the-counter vaginal moisturizers used several times weekly on a regular basis 
—lubricants used with intercourse  
—vaginal dilator therapy  
—pelvic floor physical therapy. 
 

• Low-dose vaginal estrogen therapy may be appropriate for select women who have been treated for breast cancer: 

—With use of vaginal estrogen, serum estradiol levels remain in the postmenopausal range. 
—Based on limited data, use of vaginal estrogen is associated with a minimal risk for recurrence of breast cancer. 
—Because their use is associated with the lowest serum estradiol levels, vaginal tablets, rings, or inserts may be preferable to creams.  
—Decisions regarding use of vaginal estrogen in breast cancer survivors should involve the woman's oncologist. Appropriate candidates for off-label use of vaginal estrogen may be survivors:

–who are at relatively low risk for recurrence 
–with hormone receptor-negative disease
–using tamoxifen rather than an AI 
–who are particularly concerned about quality of life.

—Given that AIs prevent recurrence by lowering estrogen levels, oncologists may be reluctant to consider use of vaginal estrogen in survivors using adjuvant agents. 
—With respect to use of vaginal estrogen, oncologists may be more comfortable with use in patients taking tamoxifen. 

• Neither intravaginal dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA; prasterone) nor the oral selective estrogen receptor modulator ospemifene has been studied in breast cancer survivors. 

In women with metastatic disease, QoL, comfort, and sexual intimacy are key considerations when weighing potential therapies; optimal choices will vary with probability of long-term survival. 

Framework provided for managing depressive disorders in perimenopausal women 

Maki PM, Kornstein SG, Joffe H, et al; Board of Trustees for The North American Menopause Society (NAMS) and the Women and Mood Disorders Task Force of the National Network of Depression Centers. Guidelines for the evaluation and treatment of perimenopausal depression: summary and recommendations. Menopause. 2018;25:1069-1085. 

Although perimenopausal women are more susceptible to the development of depressive symptoms and major depressive episodes (MDE), there is a lack of consensus regarding how to evaluate and treat depression in women during the menopausal transition and postmenopausal period. 

Recently, an expert panel comprised of representatives from The North American Menopause Society and the National Network of Depression Centers Women and Mood Disorders Task Group developed clinical guidelines addressing epidemiology, clinical presentation, therapeutic effects of antidepressants, effects of HT, and efficacy of other therapies. Here we provide a summary of the expert panel's findings and guidelines. 

Continue to: Certain factors are associated with higher risk for depression...

The perimenopause represents a time of increased risk for depressive symptoms and major depressive disorder (MDD), even in women with no prior history of depression. Several characteristics and health factors are associated with the increased risk during the menopause transition. These include a prior history of MDD, current antidepressant use, anxiety, premenstrual depressive symptoms, African American race, high body mass index, younger age, social isolation, upsetting life events, and menopausal sleep disturbances.  

Although data are inconclusive on whether surgical menopause increases or decreases the risk for developing depression compared with women who transition through menopause naturally, recent studies show an elevated risk of depression in women following hysterectomy with and without oophorectomy.^6,7 

Menopausal and depressive symptoms can overlap 

Midlife depression presents with classic depressive symptoms that commonly occur in combination with menopausal symptoms, including vasomotor symptoms, sleep and sexual disturbances, and weight and energy changes. These menopausal symptoms can complicate, co-occur, and overlap with the clinical presentation of depression. 

Conversely, depression may affect an individual's judgment of the degree of bother from menopausal somatic symptoms, thereby further magnifying the effect of symptoms on quality of life. The interrelationship between depressive symptoms and menopausal symptoms may pose a challenge when attempting to parse out contributing etiologies, relative contributions of each etiology, and the potential additive effects. 

Diagnosis and treatment options 

Diagnosis involves identifying the menopausal stage, assessing for co-existing psychiatric and menopause symptoms, appreciating the psychosocial factors common in midlife, and considering the differential diagnosis. Validated screening instruments can be helpful. Although a menopause-specific mood disorder scale does not yet exist, several general validated screening measures, such as the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, or PHQ-9, can be used for categorical determination of mood disorder diagnoses during the menopause transition. 

Antidepressants, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and other psychotherapies are considered first-line treatments for perimenopausal major depressive episodes. Only desvenlafaxine has been studied in large randomized placebo-controlled trials and has proven efficacious for the treatment of MDD in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women. 

A number of small open-label studies of other selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), and mirtazapine to treat MDD in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women have demonstrated a positive effect on mood, and several SSRIs and SNRIs also have the added benefit of improving menopause-related symptoms. 

In women with a history of MDD, a prior adequate response to a particular antidepressant should guide treatment selection when MDD recurs during the midlife years. 

Although estrogen is not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration specifically for the treatment of mood disturbances, some evidence suggests that unopposed estrogen therapy has efficacy similar to that of antidepressant medications in treating depressive disorders in perimenopausal women,^8-11 but it is ineffective in treating depressive disorders in postmenopausal women. Estrogen therapy also may augment the clinical response to antidepressants in midlife and older women.^12,13 The data on combined HT (estrogen plus progestogen) or for different progestogens in treating depressive disorders in perimenopausal women are lacking and inconclusive.  

Among peri- and postmenopausal women, abnormal bleeding, breast cancer, and mood disorders represent prevalent conditions. In this Update, we discuss data from a review that provides quantitative information on the likelihood of finding endometrial cancer among women with postmenopausal bleeding (PMB). We also summarize 2 recent consensus recommendations: One addresses the clinically important but controversial issue of the treatment of genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) in breast cancer survivors, and the other provides guidance on the management of depression in perimenopausal women.

Endometrial cancer is associated with a high prevalence of PMB 

Clarke MA, Long BJ, Del Mar Morillo A, et al. Association of endometrial cancer risk with postmenopausal bleeding in women: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178:1210-1222. 

Endometrial cancer is the most common gynecologic malignancy and the fourth most common cancer among US women. In recent years, the incidence of and mortality from endometrial cancer have increased.¹ Despite the high prevalence of endometrial cancer, population-based screening currently is not recommended. 

PMB affects up to 10% of women and can be caused by endometrial atrophy, endometrial polyps, uterine leiomyoma, and malignancy. While it is well known that PMB is a common presenting symptom of endometrial cancer, we do not have good data to guide counseling patients with PMB on the likelihood that endometrial cancer is present. Similarly, estimates are lacking regarding what proportion of women with endometrial cancer will present with PMB. 

To address these 2 issues, Clarke and colleagues conducted a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of PMB among women with endometrial cancer (sensitivity) and the risk of endometrial cancer among women with PMB (positive predictive value). The authors included 129 studies--with 34,432 women with PMB and 6,358 with endometrial cancer--in their report.

Cancer prevalence varied with HT use, geographic location 

The study findings demonstrated that the prevalence of PMB in women with endometrial cancer was 90% (95% confidence interval [CI], 84%-94%), and there was no significant difference in the occurrence of PMB by cancer stage. The risk of endometrial cancer in women with PMB ranged from 0% to 48%, yielding an overall pooled estimate of 9% (95% CI, 8%-11%). As an editorialist pointed out, the risk of endometrial cancer in women with PMB is similar to that of colorectal cancer in individuals with rectal bleeding (8%) and breast cancer in women with a palpable mass (10%), supporting current guidance that recommends evaluation of women with PMB.² Evaluating 100 women with PMB to diagnose 9 endometrial cancers does not seem excessive. 

Interestingly, among women with PMB, the prevalence of endometrial cancer was significantly higher among women not using hormone therapy (HT) than among users of HT (12% and 7%, respectively). In 7 studies restricted to women with PMB and polyps (n = 2,801), the pooled risk of endometrial cancer was 3% (95% CI, 3%-4%). In an analysis stratified by geographic region, a striking difference was noted in the risk of endometrial cancer among women with PMB in North America (5%), Northern Europe (7%), and in Western Europe (13%). This finding may be explained by regional differences in the approach to evaluating PMB, cultural perceptions of PMB that can affect thresholds to present for care, and differences in risk factors between these populations. 

The study had several limitations, including an inability to evaluate the number of years since menopause and the effects of body mass index. Additionally, the study did not address endometrial hyperplasia or endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia. 

Treating GSM in breast cancer survivors: New guidance targets QoL and sexuality 

Faubion SS, Larkin LC, Stuenkel CA, et al. Management of genitourinary syndrome of menopause in women with or at high risk for breast cancer: consensus recommendations from The North American Menopause Society and The International Society for the Study of Women's Sexual Health. Menopause. 2018;25:596-608. 

Given that there is little evidence addressing the safety of vaginal estrogen, other hormonal therapies, and nonprescription treatments for GSM in breast cancer survivors, many survivors with bothersome GSM symptoms are not appropriately treated.

Continue to: Expert panel creates evidence-based guidance...

Against this backdrop, The North American Menopause Society and the International Society for the Study of Women's Sexual Health convened a group comprised of menopause specialists (ObGyns, internists, and nurse practitioners), specialists in sexuality, medical oncologists specializing in breast cancer, and a psychologist to create evidence-based interdisciplinary consensus guidelines for enhancing quality of life and sexuality for breast cancer survivors with GSM. 

Measures to help enhance quality of life and sexuality 

The group's key recommendations for clinicians include: 

• Sexual function and quality of life (QoL) should be assessed in all women with or at high risk for breast cancer. 
• Management of GSM should be individualized based on shared decision-making involving the patient and her oncologist. 
• Initial treatment options include: 

—over-the-counter vaginal moisturizers used several times weekly on a regular basis 
—lubricants used with intercourse  
—vaginal dilator therapy  
—pelvic floor physical therapy. 
 

• Low-dose vaginal estrogen therapy may be appropriate for select women who have been treated for breast cancer: 

—With use of vaginal estrogen, serum estradiol levels remain in the postmenopausal range. 
—Based on limited data, use of vaginal estrogen is associated with a minimal risk for recurrence of breast cancer. 
—Because their use is associated with the lowest serum estradiol levels, vaginal tablets, rings, or inserts may be preferable to creams.  
—Decisions regarding use of vaginal estrogen in breast cancer survivors should involve the woman's oncologist. Appropriate candidates for off-label use of vaginal estrogen may be survivors:

–who are at relatively low risk for recurrence 
–with hormone receptor-negative disease
–using tamoxifen rather than an AI 
–who are particularly concerned about quality of life.

—Given that AIs prevent recurrence by lowering estrogen levels, oncologists may be reluctant to consider use of vaginal estrogen in survivors using adjuvant agents. 
—With respect to use of vaginal estrogen, oncologists may be more comfortable with use in patients taking tamoxifen. 

• Neither intravaginal dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA; prasterone) nor the oral selective estrogen receptor modulator ospemifene has been studied in breast cancer survivors. 

In women with metastatic disease, QoL, comfort, and sexual intimacy are key considerations when weighing potential therapies; optimal choices will vary with probability of long-term survival. 

Framework provided for managing depressive disorders in perimenopausal women 

Maki PM, Kornstein SG, Joffe H, et al; Board of Trustees for The North American Menopause Society (NAMS) and the Women and Mood Disorders Task Force of the National Network of Depression Centers. Guidelines for the evaluation and treatment of perimenopausal depression: summary and recommendations. Menopause. 2018;25:1069-1085. 

Although perimenopausal women are more susceptible to the development of depressive symptoms and major depressive episodes (MDE), there is a lack of consensus regarding how to evaluate and treat depression in women during the menopausal transition and postmenopausal period. 

Recently, an expert panel comprised of representatives from The North American Menopause Society and the National Network of Depression Centers Women and Mood Disorders Task Group developed clinical guidelines addressing epidemiology, clinical presentation, therapeutic effects of antidepressants, effects of HT, and efficacy of other therapies. Here we provide a summary of the expert panel's findings and guidelines. 

Continue to: Certain factors are associated with higher risk for depression...

The perimenopause represents a time of increased risk for depressive symptoms and major depressive disorder (MDD), even in women with no prior history of depression. Several characteristics and health factors are associated with the increased risk during the menopause transition. These include a prior history of MDD, current antidepressant use, anxiety, premenstrual depressive symptoms, African American race, high body mass index, younger age, social isolation, upsetting life events, and menopausal sleep disturbances.  

Although data are inconclusive on whether surgical menopause increases or decreases the risk for developing depression compared with women who transition through menopause naturally, recent studies show an elevated risk of depression in women following hysterectomy with and without oophorectomy.^6,7 

Menopausal and depressive symptoms can overlap 

Midlife depression presents with classic depressive symptoms that commonly occur in combination with menopausal symptoms, including vasomotor symptoms, sleep and sexual disturbances, and weight and energy changes. These menopausal symptoms can complicate, co-occur, and overlap with the clinical presentation of depression. 

Conversely, depression may affect an individual's judgment of the degree of bother from menopausal somatic symptoms, thereby further magnifying the effect of symptoms on quality of life. The interrelationship between depressive symptoms and menopausal symptoms may pose a challenge when attempting to parse out contributing etiologies, relative contributions of each etiology, and the potential additive effects. 

Diagnosis and treatment options 

Diagnosis involves identifying the menopausal stage, assessing for co-existing psychiatric and menopause symptoms, appreciating the psychosocial factors common in midlife, and considering the differential diagnosis. Validated screening instruments can be helpful. Although a menopause-specific mood disorder scale does not yet exist, several general validated screening measures, such as the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, or PHQ-9, can be used for categorical determination of mood disorder diagnoses during the menopause transition. 

Antidepressants, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and other psychotherapies are considered first-line treatments for perimenopausal major depressive episodes. Only desvenlafaxine has been studied in large randomized placebo-controlled trials and has proven efficacious for the treatment of MDD in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women. 

A number of small open-label studies of other selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), and mirtazapine to treat MDD in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women have demonstrated a positive effect on mood, and several SSRIs and SNRIs also have the added benefit of improving menopause-related symptoms. 

In women with a history of MDD, a prior adequate response to a particular antidepressant should guide treatment selection when MDD recurs during the midlife years. 

Although estrogen is not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration specifically for the treatment of mood disturbances, some evidence suggests that unopposed estrogen therapy has efficacy similar to that of antidepressant medications in treating depressive disorders in perimenopausal women,^8-11 but it is ineffective in treating depressive disorders in postmenopausal women. Estrogen therapy also may augment the clinical response to antidepressants in midlife and older women.^12,13 The data on combined HT (estrogen plus progestogen) or for different progestogens in treating depressive disorders in perimenopausal women are lacking and inconclusive.  

Breast pain is one of the most common breast-related patient complaints and is found to affect at least 50% of the female population.¹ Most cases are self-limiting and are related to hormonal and normal fibrocystic changes. The median age of onset of symptoms is 36 years, with most women experiencing pain for 5 to 12 years.² Because the cause of breast pain is not always clear, its presence can produce anxiety in patients and physicians over the possibility of underlying malignancy. Although breast cancer is not associated with breast pain, many patients presenting with pain are referred for diagnostic imaging (usually with negative results). The majority of women with mastalgia and normal clinical examination findings can be reassured with education about the many benign causes of breast pain.

What are causes of breast pain without an imaging abnormality?

Hormones. Mastalgia can be focal or generalized and is mostly due to hormonal changes. Elevated estrogen can stimulate the growth of breast tissue, which is known as epithelial hyperplasia.³ Fluctuations in hormone levels can occur in perimenopausal women in their forties and can result in new symptoms of breast pain.⁴ Sometimes starting a new contraceptive medication or hormone replacement therapy can exacerbate the pain. Switching brands or medications may help. Another cause of mastalgia may be elevated prolactin levels, with hypothalamic-pituitary dysfunction.^5,6

Diet. There is evidence to link a high-fat diet with breast pain. The pain has been shown to improve when lipid intake is reduced and high- and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels are normalized. As estrogen is a steroid hormone that can be synthesized from lipids and fatty acids, elevated lipid metabolism can increase estrogen levels and exacerbate breast pain symptoms.^7,8 Essential fatty acids, such as evening primrose oil and vitamin E, have been used to treat mastalgia because they reduce inflammation in fatty breast tissue through the prostaglandin pathway.^9,10

Caffeine. Methylxanthines can be found in coffee, tea, and chocolate and can aggravate mastalgia by enhancing the cyclin adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) pathway. This pathway stimulates cellular proliferation and fibrocystic changes which in turn can exacerbate breast pain.¹¹

Smoking. In my clinical practice I have clearly noted a higher incidence of breast pain in patients who smoke. The pain tends to improve significantly when the patient quits or even cuts back on smoking. The exact reasons for smoking’s effects on breast pain are not well known; however, they are thought to be related to acceleration of the cAMP pathway.

Large breast size. Very large breasts will strain and weaken the suspensory ligaments, leading to pain and discomfort. It has been shown that wearing a supportive sports bra during episodes of breast pain is effective.

Types of breast pain

Cyclical

Women with fibrocystic breasts tend to experience more breast pain. Breast sensitivity can be localized to the upper outer quadrants or to the nipple and sub-areolar area. It also can be generalized. The pain tends to peak with ovulation, improve with menses, and to recur every few weeks. Patients who have had partial hysterectomy (with ovaries in situ) or endometrial ablation will be unable to correlate their symptoms to menstruation. Therefore, women are encouraged to keep a diary or calendar of their symptoms to detect any correlation with their ovarian cycle. Such correlation is reassuring.

Continue to: Noncyclical...

Noncyclical

Noncyclical breast pain is not associated with the menstrual cycle and can be unilateral or bilateral. Providers should perform a good history of patients presenting with noncyclicalbreast pain, to include character, onset, duration, location, radiation, alleviating, and aggravating factors. A physical examination may elicit point tenderness at the chest by pushing the breast tissue off of the chest wall while the patient is in supine position and pressing directly over the ribs. Lack of tenderness on palpation of the breast parenchyma, but pain on the chest wall, points to a musculoskeletal etiology. Chest wall pain may be related to muscle spasm or muscle strain, trauma, rib fracture, or costochondritis (Tietze syndrome). Finally, based on history of review of systems and physical examination, referred pain from biliary or cardiac etiology should be considered.

When breast pain occurs with skin changes

Skin changes usually have an underlying pathology. Infectious processes, such as infected epidermal inclusion cyst, hidradenitis of the cleavage and inframammary crease, or breast abscess will present with pain and induration with an acute onset of 5 to 10 days. Large pendulous breasts may develop yeast infection at the inframammary crease. Chronic infectious irritation can lead to hyperpigmentation of that area. Eczema or contact dermatitis frequently can affect the areola and become confused with Paget disease (ductal carcinoma in situ of the nipple). With Paget, the excoriation always starts at the nipple and can then spread to the areola. However, with dermatitis, the rash begins on the peri-areolar skin, without affecting the nipple itself.

When breast pain occurs with nipple discharge

Breast pain with nipple discharge usually is bilateral and more common in patients with significant fibrocystic changes who smoke. If the nipple discharge is bilateral, serous and non-bloody, and multiduct, it is considered benign and physiologic. Physiologic nipple discharge can be multifactorial and hormonal. It may be related to thyroid disorders or medications such as antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), mood stabilizers, or antipsychotics. The only nipple discharge that is considered pathologic is unilateral spontaneous bloody discharge for which diagnostic imaging and breast surgeon referral is indicated. Women should be discouraged from self-expressing their nipples, as 80% will experience serous nipple discharge upon manual self-expression.

Management of mastalgia

Appropriate breast pain management begins with a good history and physical examination. The decision to perform imaging should depend on clinical exam findings and not on symptoms of breast pain. If there is a palpable mass, then breast imaging and possible biopsy is appropriate. However, if clinical exam is normal, there is no indication for breast imaging in low-risk women under the age of 40 whose only symptom is breast pain. Women older than age 40 can undergo diagnostic imaging, if they have not had a negative screening mammogram in the past year.

Breast pain with abnormal clinical exam

In the patient who is younger than age 30 with a palpable mass. For this patient order targeted breast ultrasound (US) (FIGURE 1). If results are negative, repeat the clinical examination 1 week after menses. If the mass is persistent, refer the patient to a breast surgeon. If diagnostic imaging results are negative, consider breast MRI, especially if there is a strong family history of breast cancer.

In the patient who is aged 30 and older with a palpable mass. For this patient, bilateral diagnostic mammogram and US are in order. The testing is best performed 1 week after menses to reduce false-positive findings. If imaging is negative and the patient still has a clinically suspicious finding or mass, refer her to a breast surgeon and consider breast MRI. At this point if there is a persistent firm dominant mass, a biopsy is indicated as part of the triple test. If the mass resolves with menses, the patient can be reassured that the cause is most likely benign, with clinical examination repeated in 3 months.

Continue to: Breast pain and normal clinical exam...

Breast pain and normal clinical exam

When women who report breast pain have normal clinical examination findings (and have a negative screening mammogram in the past 12 months if older than age 40), there are several management strategies you can offer (FIGURE 2).

Reassurance and education. The majority of women with breast pain can be managed with reassurance and education, which are often sufficient to reduce their anxieties.

Supportive bra. The most effective intervention is to wear and sleep in a well-fitted supportive sports bra for 4 to 12 weeks. In a nonrandomized single-center trial of danazol versus sports bra, 85% of women reported relief of their breast pain with bra alone (vs 58% with danazol).¹² A supportive bra is the first-line management of mastalgia (Level II evidence).

Symptom diary/calendar. Many women do not know whether or not their symptoms correspond to their ovarian cycle or are related to hormonal fluctuations. Therefore, it is reassuring and informative for them to keep a calendar or a diary of their symptoms to determine whether their symptoms occur or are exacerbated in a cyclical pattern.

Diet and lifestyle modification. Women should avoid caffeine (especially when having pain). Studies on methylxanthines have demonstrated some symptom relief with reducing caffeine intake.^11,13 One cup of coffee or tea per day most likely will not make a difference. However, if a woman is drinking large quantities of caffeinated beverages throughout the day, it will very likely improve her breast pain if she cuts back. This is especially true during the times of exacerbated pain prior to her menses.

In addition, recommend reduced dietary fat (overall good health). This is good advice for any patient. There were 2 small studies that showed improvement in breast pain with a 15% reduction in dietary fat.^7,8

Finally, advise that patients stop smoking. Smoking aggravates and exacerbates fibrocystic changes, and these will lead to more breast pain.

Medical management. Over-the-counter medications that are found in the vitamin section of a local drug store are vitamin E and evening primrose oil. There are no significant adverse effects with these treatments. Their efficacy is theoretical, however; 3 randomized controlled trials demonstrated no significant clinical benefit with evening primrose oil versus placebo for treatment of mastalgia.¹⁴

Topical or oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs; Voltaren gel, topical compound pain creams) are useful as second-line management after using a supportive bra. Three randomized controlled trials have demonstrated up to 90% improvement of mastalgia with topical NSAIDs.^15-17

Tamoxifen is a selective estrogen-receptor modulator (SERM), which is an antagonist to the estrogen receptor (ER) in the breast and an agonist to the ER in the endometrium. Tamoxifen has been found to reduce symptoms of mastalgia by 70% even at a lower dosage of 10-mg per day (for 6 months), or as a topical gel (afimoxifene). The oral form can have some adverse effects, including hot flashes, and has a low risk for thromboembolic events and endometrial neoplasia.^18-20

Danazol is very effective in reducing breast pain symptoms (by 80%), with a higher relapse after stopping the medication. Danazol is less tolerated due to its androgenic effects, such as hirsutism, acne, menorrhagia, and voice changes. Both danazol and tamoxifen can be teratogenic and should be used with caution in women of child-bearing age.²¹

Finally, bromocriptine inhibits serum prolactin and has been reported to provide 65% improvement in breast pain. Its use for breast pain is not US Food and Drug Administration–approved and adverse effects include nausea, dizziness, and hypotension.²²

Tamoxifen, danazol, and bromocriptine can be considered as third-line management options for severe treatment-resistant mastalgia.

Continue to: FIGURE 2 Treatment algorithm for breast pain...

In summary

Evaluation and counseling for breast pain should be managed by women’s health care providers in a primary care setting. Most patients need reassurance and medical explanation of their symptoms. They should be educated that more than 95% of the time breast pain is not caused by an underlying malignancy but rather due to hormonal and fibrocystic changes, which can be managed conservatively. If the clinical breast examination and recent screening mammogram (in women over age 40) results are negative, patients should be educated that their pain is benign and undergo a trial of conservative measures: wear and sleep in a supporting bra; keep a calendar of symptoms to determine any relation to cyclical changes; and avoid nicotine, caffeine, and fatty food. Topical pain creams with diclofenac and evening primrose oil also can be effective in ameliorating the symptoms. Breast pain is not a surgical disease; referral to a surgical specialist and diagnostic imaging can be unnecessary and expensive.

Breast pain is one of the most common breast-related patient complaints and is found to affect at least 50% of the female population.¹ Most cases are self-limiting and are related to hormonal and normal fibrocystic changes. The median age of onset of symptoms is 36 years, with most women experiencing pain for 5 to 12 years.² Because the cause of breast pain is not always clear, its presence can produce anxiety in patients and physicians over the possibility of underlying malignancy. Although breast cancer is not associated with breast pain, many patients presenting with pain are referred for diagnostic imaging (usually with negative results). The majority of women with mastalgia and normal clinical examination findings can be reassured with education about the many benign causes of breast pain.

What are causes of breast pain without an imaging abnormality?

Hormones. Mastalgia can be focal or generalized and is mostly due to hormonal changes. Elevated estrogen can stimulate the growth of breast tissue, which is known as epithelial hyperplasia.³ Fluctuations in hormone levels can occur in perimenopausal women in their forties and can result in new symptoms of breast pain.⁴ Sometimes starting a new contraceptive medication or hormone replacement therapy can exacerbate the pain. Switching brands or medications may help. Another cause of mastalgia may be elevated prolactin levels, with hypothalamic-pituitary dysfunction.^5,6

Diet. There is evidence to link a high-fat diet with breast pain. The pain has been shown to improve when lipid intake is reduced and high- and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels are normalized. As estrogen is a steroid hormone that can be synthesized from lipids and fatty acids, elevated lipid metabolism can increase estrogen levels and exacerbate breast pain symptoms.^7,8 Essential fatty acids, such as evening primrose oil and vitamin E, have been used to treat mastalgia because they reduce inflammation in fatty breast tissue through the prostaglandin pathway.^9,10

Caffeine. Methylxanthines can be found in coffee, tea, and chocolate and can aggravate mastalgia by enhancing the cyclin adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) pathway. This pathway stimulates cellular proliferation and fibrocystic changes which in turn can exacerbate breast pain.¹¹

Smoking. In my clinical practice I have clearly noted a higher incidence of breast pain in patients who smoke. The pain tends to improve significantly when the patient quits or even cuts back on smoking. The exact reasons for smoking’s effects on breast pain are not well known; however, they are thought to be related to acceleration of the cAMP pathway.

Large breast size. Very large breasts will strain and weaken the suspensory ligaments, leading to pain and discomfort. It has been shown that wearing a supportive sports bra during episodes of breast pain is effective.

Types of breast pain

Cyclical

Women with fibrocystic breasts tend to experience more breast pain. Breast sensitivity can be localized to the upper outer quadrants or to the nipple and sub-areolar area. It also can be generalized. The pain tends to peak with ovulation, improve with menses, and to recur every few weeks. Patients who have had partial hysterectomy (with ovaries in situ) or endometrial ablation will be unable to correlate their symptoms to menstruation. Therefore, women are encouraged to keep a diary or calendar of their symptoms to detect any correlation with their ovarian cycle. Such correlation is reassuring.

Continue to: Noncyclical...

Noncyclical

Noncyclical breast pain is not associated with the menstrual cycle and can be unilateral or bilateral. Providers should perform a good history of patients presenting with noncyclicalbreast pain, to include character, onset, duration, location, radiation, alleviating, and aggravating factors. A physical examination may elicit point tenderness at the chest by pushing the breast tissue off of the chest wall while the patient is in supine position and pressing directly over the ribs. Lack of tenderness on palpation of the breast parenchyma, but pain on the chest wall, points to a musculoskeletal etiology. Chest wall pain may be related to muscle spasm or muscle strain, trauma, rib fracture, or costochondritis (Tietze syndrome). Finally, based on history of review of systems and physical examination, referred pain from biliary or cardiac etiology should be considered.

When breast pain occurs with skin changes

Skin changes usually have an underlying pathology. Infectious processes, such as infected epidermal inclusion cyst, hidradenitis of the cleavage and inframammary crease, or breast abscess will present with pain and induration with an acute onset of 5 to 10 days. Large pendulous breasts may develop yeast infection at the inframammary crease. Chronic infectious irritation can lead to hyperpigmentation of that area. Eczema or contact dermatitis frequently can affect the areola and become confused with Paget disease (ductal carcinoma in situ of the nipple). With Paget, the excoriation always starts at the nipple and can then spread to the areola. However, with dermatitis, the rash begins on the peri-areolar skin, without affecting the nipple itself.

When breast pain occurs with nipple discharge

Breast pain with nipple discharge usually is bilateral and more common in patients with significant fibrocystic changes who smoke. If the nipple discharge is bilateral, serous and non-bloody, and multiduct, it is considered benign and physiologic. Physiologic nipple discharge can be multifactorial and hormonal. It may be related to thyroid disorders or medications such as antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), mood stabilizers, or antipsychotics. The only nipple discharge that is considered pathologic is unilateral spontaneous bloody discharge for which diagnostic imaging and breast surgeon referral is indicated. Women should be discouraged from self-expressing their nipples, as 80% will experience serous nipple discharge upon manual self-expression.

Management of mastalgia

Appropriate breast pain management begins with a good history and physical examination. The decision to perform imaging should depend on clinical exam findings and not on symptoms of breast pain. If there is a palpable mass, then breast imaging and possible biopsy is appropriate. However, if clinical exam is normal, there is no indication for breast imaging in low-risk women under the age of 40 whose only symptom is breast pain. Women older than age 40 can undergo diagnostic imaging, if they have not had a negative screening mammogram in the past year.

Breast pain with abnormal clinical exam

In the patient who is younger than age 30 with a palpable mass. For this patient order targeted breast ultrasound (US) (FIGURE 1). If results are negative, repeat the clinical examination 1 week after menses. If the mass is persistent, refer the patient to a breast surgeon. If diagnostic imaging results are negative, consider breast MRI, especially if there is a strong family history of breast cancer.

In the patient who is aged 30 and older with a palpable mass. For this patient, bilateral diagnostic mammogram and US are in order. The testing is best performed 1 week after menses to reduce false-positive findings. If imaging is negative and the patient still has a clinically suspicious finding or mass, refer her to a breast surgeon and consider breast MRI. At this point if there is a persistent firm dominant mass, a biopsy is indicated as part of the triple test. If the mass resolves with menses, the patient can be reassured that the cause is most likely benign, with clinical examination repeated in 3 months.

Continue to: Breast pain and normal clinical exam...

Breast pain and normal clinical exam

When women who report breast pain have normal clinical examination findings (and have a negative screening mammogram in the past 12 months if older than age 40), there are several management strategies you can offer (FIGURE 2).

Reassurance and education. The majority of women with breast pain can be managed with reassurance and education, which are often sufficient to reduce their anxieties.

Supportive bra. The most effective intervention is to wear and sleep in a well-fitted supportive sports bra for 4 to 12 weeks. In a nonrandomized single-center trial of danazol versus sports bra, 85% of women reported relief of their breast pain with bra alone (vs 58% with danazol).¹² A supportive bra is the first-line management of mastalgia (Level II evidence).

Symptom diary/calendar. Many women do not know whether or not their symptoms correspond to their ovarian cycle or are related to hormonal fluctuations. Therefore, it is reassuring and informative for them to keep a calendar or a diary of their symptoms to determine whether their symptoms occur or are exacerbated in a cyclical pattern.

Diet and lifestyle modification. Women should avoid caffeine (especially when having pain). Studies on methylxanthines have demonstrated some symptom relief with reducing caffeine intake.^11,13 One cup of coffee or tea per day most likely will not make a difference. However, if a woman is drinking large quantities of caffeinated beverages throughout the day, it will very likely improve her breast pain if she cuts back. This is especially true during the times of exacerbated pain prior to her menses.

In addition, recommend reduced dietary fat (overall good health). This is good advice for any patient. There were 2 small studies that showed improvement in breast pain with a 15% reduction in dietary fat.^7,8

Finally, advise that patients stop smoking. Smoking aggravates and exacerbates fibrocystic changes, and these will lead to more breast pain.

Medical management. Over-the-counter medications that are found in the vitamin section of a local drug store are vitamin E and evening primrose oil. There are no significant adverse effects with these treatments. Their efficacy is theoretical, however; 3 randomized controlled trials demonstrated no significant clinical benefit with evening primrose oil versus placebo for treatment of mastalgia.¹⁴

Topical or oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs; Voltaren gel, topical compound pain creams) are useful as second-line management after using a supportive bra. Three randomized controlled trials have demonstrated up to 90% improvement of mastalgia with topical NSAIDs.^15-17

Tamoxifen is a selective estrogen-receptor modulator (SERM), which is an antagonist to the estrogen receptor (ER) in the breast and an agonist to the ER in the endometrium. Tamoxifen has been found to reduce symptoms of mastalgia by 70% even at a lower dosage of 10-mg per day (for 6 months), or as a topical gel (afimoxifene). The oral form can have some adverse effects, including hot flashes, and has a low risk for thromboembolic events and endometrial neoplasia.^18-20

Danazol is very effective in reducing breast pain symptoms (by 80%), with a higher relapse after stopping the medication. Danazol is less tolerated due to its androgenic effects, such as hirsutism, acne, menorrhagia, and voice changes. Both danazol and tamoxifen can be teratogenic and should be used with caution in women of child-bearing age.²¹

Finally, bromocriptine inhibits serum prolactin and has been reported to provide 65% improvement in breast pain. Its use for breast pain is not US Food and Drug Administration–approved and adverse effects include nausea, dizziness, and hypotension.²²

Tamoxifen, danazol, and bromocriptine can be considered as third-line management options for severe treatment-resistant mastalgia.

Continue to: FIGURE 2 Treatment algorithm for breast pain...

In summary

Evaluation and counseling for breast pain should be managed by women’s health care providers in a primary care setting. Most patients need reassurance and medical explanation of their symptoms. They should be educated that more than 95% of the time breast pain is not caused by an underlying malignancy but rather due to hormonal and fibrocystic changes, which can be managed conservatively. If the clinical breast examination and recent screening mammogram (in women over age 40) results are negative, patients should be educated that their pain is benign and undergo a trial of conservative measures: wear and sleep in a supporting bra; keep a calendar of symptoms to determine any relation to cyclical changes; and avoid nicotine, caffeine, and fatty food. Topical pain creams with diclofenac and evening primrose oil also can be effective in ameliorating the symptoms. Breast pain is not a surgical disease; referral to a surgical specialist and diagnostic imaging can be unnecessary and expensive.

Breast pain is one of the most common breast-related patient complaints and is found to affect at least 50% of the female population.¹ Most cases are self-limiting and are related to hormonal and normal fibrocystic changes. The median age of onset of symptoms is 36 years, with most women experiencing pain for 5 to 12 years.² Because the cause of breast pain is not always clear, its presence can produce anxiety in patients and physicians over the possibility of underlying malignancy. Although breast cancer is not associated with breast pain, many patients presenting with pain are referred for diagnostic imaging (usually with negative results). The majority of women with mastalgia and normal clinical examination findings can be reassured with education about the many benign causes of breast pain.

What are causes of breast pain without an imaging abnormality?

Hormones. Mastalgia can be focal or generalized and is mostly due to hormonal changes. Elevated estrogen can stimulate the growth of breast tissue, which is known as epithelial hyperplasia.³ Fluctuations in hormone levels can occur in perimenopausal women in their forties and can result in new symptoms of breast pain.⁴ Sometimes starting a new contraceptive medication or hormone replacement therapy can exacerbate the pain. Switching brands or medications may help. Another cause of mastalgia may be elevated prolactin levels, with hypothalamic-pituitary dysfunction.^5,6

Diet. There is evidence to link a high-fat diet with breast pain. The pain has been shown to improve when lipid intake is reduced and high- and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels are normalized. As estrogen is a steroid hormone that can be synthesized from lipids and fatty acids, elevated lipid metabolism can increase estrogen levels and exacerbate breast pain symptoms.^7,8 Essential fatty acids, such as evening primrose oil and vitamin E, have been used to treat mastalgia because they reduce inflammation in fatty breast tissue through the prostaglandin pathway.^9,10

Caffeine. Methylxanthines can be found in coffee, tea, and chocolate and can aggravate mastalgia by enhancing the cyclin adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) pathway. This pathway stimulates cellular proliferation and fibrocystic changes which in turn can exacerbate breast pain.¹¹

Smoking. In my clinical practice I have clearly noted a higher incidence of breast pain in patients who smoke. The pain tends to improve significantly when the patient quits or even cuts back on smoking. The exact reasons for smoking’s effects on breast pain are not well known; however, they are thought to be related to acceleration of the cAMP pathway.

Large breast size. Very large breasts will strain and weaken the suspensory ligaments, leading to pain and discomfort. It has been shown that wearing a supportive sports bra during episodes of breast pain is effective.

Types of breast pain

Cyclical

Women with fibrocystic breasts tend to experience more breast pain. Breast sensitivity can be localized to the upper outer quadrants or to the nipple and sub-areolar area. It also can be generalized. The pain tends to peak with ovulation, improve with menses, and to recur every few weeks. Patients who have had partial hysterectomy (with ovaries in situ) or endometrial ablation will be unable to correlate their symptoms to menstruation. Therefore, women are encouraged to keep a diary or calendar of their symptoms to detect any correlation with their ovarian cycle. Such correlation is reassuring.

Continue to: Noncyclical...

Noncyclical

Noncyclical breast pain is not associated with the menstrual cycle and can be unilateral or bilateral. Providers should perform a good history of patients presenting with noncyclicalbreast pain, to include character, onset, duration, location, radiation, alleviating, and aggravating factors. A physical examination may elicit point tenderness at the chest by pushing the breast tissue off of the chest wall while the patient is in supine position and pressing directly over the ribs. Lack of tenderness on palpation of the breast parenchyma, but pain on the chest wall, points to a musculoskeletal etiology. Chest wall pain may be related to muscle spasm or muscle strain, trauma, rib fracture, or costochondritis (Tietze syndrome). Finally, based on history of review of systems and physical examination, referred pain from biliary or cardiac etiology should be considered.

When breast pain occurs with skin changes

Skin changes usually have an underlying pathology. Infectious processes, such as infected epidermal inclusion cyst, hidradenitis of the cleavage and inframammary crease, or breast abscess will present with pain and induration with an acute onset of 5 to 10 days. Large pendulous breasts may develop yeast infection at the inframammary crease. Chronic infectious irritation can lead to hyperpigmentation of that area. Eczema or contact dermatitis frequently can affect the areola and become confused with Paget disease (ductal carcinoma in situ of the nipple). With Paget, the excoriation always starts at the nipple and can then spread to the areola. However, with dermatitis, the rash begins on the peri-areolar skin, without affecting the nipple itself.

When breast pain occurs with nipple discharge

Breast pain with nipple discharge usually is bilateral and more common in patients with significant fibrocystic changes who smoke. If the nipple discharge is bilateral, serous and non-bloody, and multiduct, it is considered benign and physiologic. Physiologic nipple discharge can be multifactorial and hormonal. It may be related to thyroid disorders or medications such as antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), mood stabilizers, or antipsychotics. The only nipple discharge that is considered pathologic is unilateral spontaneous bloody discharge for which diagnostic imaging and breast surgeon referral is indicated. Women should be discouraged from self-expressing their nipples, as 80% will experience serous nipple discharge upon manual self-expression.

Management of mastalgia

Appropriate breast pain management begins with a good history and physical examination. The decision to perform imaging should depend on clinical exam findings and not on symptoms of breast pain. If there is a palpable mass, then breast imaging and possible biopsy is appropriate. However, if clinical exam is normal, there is no indication for breast imaging in low-risk women under the age of 40 whose only symptom is breast pain. Women older than age 40 can undergo diagnostic imaging, if they have not had a negative screening mammogram in the past year.

Breast pain with abnormal clinical exam

In the patient who is younger than age 30 with a palpable mass. For this patient order targeted breast ultrasound (US) (FIGURE 1). If results are negative, repeat the clinical examination 1 week after menses. If the mass is persistent, refer the patient to a breast surgeon. If diagnostic imaging results are negative, consider breast MRI, especially if there is a strong family history of breast cancer.

In the patient who is aged 30 and older with a palpable mass. For this patient, bilateral diagnostic mammogram and US are in order. The testing is best performed 1 week after menses to reduce false-positive findings. If imaging is negative and the patient still has a clinically suspicious finding or mass, refer her to a breast surgeon and consider breast MRI. At this point if there is a persistent firm dominant mass, a biopsy is indicated as part of the triple test. If the mass resolves with menses, the patient can be reassured that the cause is most likely benign, with clinical examination repeated in 3 months.

Continue to: Breast pain and normal clinical exam...

Breast pain and normal clinical exam

When women who report breast pain have normal clinical examination findings (and have a negative screening mammogram in the past 12 months if older than age 40), there are several management strategies you can offer (FIGURE 2).

Reassurance and education. The majority of women with breast pain can be managed with reassurance and education, which are often sufficient to reduce their anxieties.

Supportive bra. The most effective intervention is to wear and sleep in a well-fitted supportive sports bra for 4 to 12 weeks. In a nonrandomized single-center trial of danazol versus sports bra, 85% of women reported relief of their breast pain with bra alone (vs 58% with danazol).¹² A supportive bra is the first-line management of mastalgia (Level II evidence).

Symptom diary/calendar. Many women do not know whether or not their symptoms correspond to their ovarian cycle or are related to hormonal fluctuations. Therefore, it is reassuring and informative for them to keep a calendar or a diary of their symptoms to determine whether their symptoms occur or are exacerbated in a cyclical pattern.

Diet and lifestyle modification. Women should avoid caffeine (especially when having pain). Studies on methylxanthines have demonstrated some symptom relief with reducing caffeine intake.^11,13 One cup of coffee or tea per day most likely will not make a difference. However, if a woman is drinking large quantities of caffeinated beverages throughout the day, it will very likely improve her breast pain if she cuts back. This is especially true during the times of exacerbated pain prior to her menses.

In addition, recommend reduced dietary fat (overall good health). This is good advice for any patient. There were 2 small studies that showed improvement in breast pain with a 15% reduction in dietary fat.^7,8

Finally, advise that patients stop smoking. Smoking aggravates and exacerbates fibrocystic changes, and these will lead to more breast pain.

Medical management. Over-the-counter medications that are found in the vitamin section of a local drug store are vitamin E and evening primrose oil. There are no significant adverse effects with these treatments. Their efficacy is theoretical, however; 3 randomized controlled trials demonstrated no significant clinical benefit with evening primrose oil versus placebo for treatment of mastalgia.¹⁴

Topical or oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs; Voltaren gel, topical compound pain creams) are useful as second-line management after using a supportive bra. Three randomized controlled trials have demonstrated up to 90% improvement of mastalgia with topical NSAIDs.^15-17

Tamoxifen is a selective estrogen-receptor modulator (SERM), which is an antagonist to the estrogen receptor (ER) in the breast and an agonist to the ER in the endometrium. Tamoxifen has been found to reduce symptoms of mastalgia by 70% even at a lower dosage of 10-mg per day (for 6 months), or as a topical gel (afimoxifene). The oral form can have some adverse effects, including hot flashes, and has a low risk for thromboembolic events and endometrial neoplasia.^18-20

Danazol is very effective in reducing breast pain symptoms (by 80%), with a higher relapse after stopping the medication. Danazol is less tolerated due to its androgenic effects, such as hirsutism, acne, menorrhagia, and voice changes. Both danazol and tamoxifen can be teratogenic and should be used with caution in women of child-bearing age.²¹

Finally, bromocriptine inhibits serum prolactin and has been reported to provide 65% improvement in breast pain. Its use for breast pain is not US Food and Drug Administration–approved and adverse effects include nausea, dizziness, and hypotension.²²

Tamoxifen, danazol, and bromocriptine can be considered as third-line management options for severe treatment-resistant mastalgia.

Continue to: FIGURE 2 Treatment algorithm for breast pain...

In summary

Evaluation and counseling for breast pain should be managed by women’s health care providers in a primary care setting. Most patients need reassurance and medical explanation of their symptoms. They should be educated that more than 95% of the time breast pain is not caused by an underlying malignancy but rather due to hormonal and fibrocystic changes, which can be managed conservatively. If the clinical breast examination and recent screening mammogram (in women over age 40) results are negative, patients should be educated that their pain is benign and undergo a trial of conservative measures: wear and sleep in a supporting bra; keep a calendar of symptoms to determine any relation to cyclical changes; and avoid nicotine, caffeine, and fatty food. Topical pain creams with diclofenac and evening primrose oil also can be effective in ameliorating the symptoms. Breast pain is not a surgical disease; referral to a surgical specialist and diagnostic imaging can be unnecessary and expensive.

NASHVILLE, TENN. – The vast majority of women with menopausal symptoms who completed an online shared decision-making counseling session felt better prepared to discuss treatment options with their provider, a post-intervention survey showed.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

Of 36 women who completed the counseling, 72% were able to express a clear preference for a particular treatment. Additionally, 90% to 100% of those who completed the final survey said the various components of the counseling–such as an educational brochure or a telephone call from a research nurse–made them feel more prepared to speak with their provider about treatment options, Sandra Dayaratna, MD, reported during a poster session at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Among 18 women with vasomotor symptoms, 6 (33%) preferred non-hormone treatment, 7 (39%) preferred hormone treatment, and 5 (28%) were unsure; among 18 with genitourinary symptoms of menopause, 6 (33%) preferred non-prescription treatment, 7 (39%) preferred topical hormone therapy, and 5 (28%) were unsure, Dr. Dayaratna, division director and clinical associate professor at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital and Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, found.

Of women who were not being treated for vasomotor symptoms, 5 (56%) expressed a clear treatment preference after counseling, whereas 8 (80%) of those not receiving treatment for genitourinary symptoms expressed a clear preference. Among 7 women receiving systemic hormone therapy for vasomotor symptoms, 86% preferred this treatment after counseling, and 3 women (50%) receiving topical hormone therapy preferred topical treatment after counseling.

The study included women aged 36-50 years from diverse educational and racial backgrounds who were referred to the counseling program after reporting menopausal symptoms, completing a baseline survey, and providing consent. The counseling, which was adapted from a tool developed at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital for the assessment of patients with colon and cancer or lung cancer, involved an educational brochure that was mailed to participants. It also offered access to an online tool that provided information about systemic hormone therapy, non-hormone prescription therapy, topical hormone treatment, and non-prescription treatment for vasomotor and genitourinary symptoms of menopause.

A research nurse contacted participants by phone and used the online program to review the brochure, clarify treatment preference, and produce a summary of the results.

In an interview, Dr. Dayaratna noted that the concept of “shared decision making” is often misunderstood to mean that patients are provided with information about options and then they make a choice.

Actually, this study demonstrates that shared decision making really involves a “values clarification” component, she explained. In this study, counseling that incorporates this type of shared decision making helped women feel more prepared to speak with their providers about treatment and thus may add value to care of menopausal women, she concluded.

“This is relevant because we know that over 50% of patients within 90 minutes of leaving their doctor’s office have forgotten what they were told, and over 50% do not comply with their treatment prescriptions,” she said. “So if patients can do this process ahead of time, when they come to speak to their physician about their symptoms and selection of medication, it’s a more effective and efficient conversation.”

Further research should evaluate impact on the subsequent office visit, she added.

This study was funded by an educational grant from Pfizer, Inc. and by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Dayaratna reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Dayaratna S et al., ACOG 2019: Abstract 21M.

NASHVILLE, TENN. – The vast majority of women with menopausal symptoms who completed an online shared decision-making counseling session felt better prepared to discuss treatment options with their provider, a post-intervention survey showed.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

Of 36 women who completed the counseling, 72% were able to express a clear preference for a particular treatment. Additionally, 90% to 100% of those who completed the final survey said the various components of the counseling–such as an educational brochure or a telephone call from a research nurse–made them feel more prepared to speak with their provider about treatment options, Sandra Dayaratna, MD, reported during a poster session at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Among 18 women with vasomotor symptoms, 6 (33%) preferred non-hormone treatment, 7 (39%) preferred hormone treatment, and 5 (28%) were unsure; among 18 with genitourinary symptoms of menopause, 6 (33%) preferred non-prescription treatment, 7 (39%) preferred topical hormone therapy, and 5 (28%) were unsure, Dr. Dayaratna, division director and clinical associate professor at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital and Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, found.

Of women who were not being treated for vasomotor symptoms, 5 (56%) expressed a clear treatment preference after counseling, whereas 8 (80%) of those not receiving treatment for genitourinary symptoms expressed a clear preference. Among 7 women receiving systemic hormone therapy for vasomotor symptoms, 86% preferred this treatment after counseling, and 3 women (50%) receiving topical hormone therapy preferred topical treatment after counseling.

The study included women aged 36-50 years from diverse educational and racial backgrounds who were referred to the counseling program after reporting menopausal symptoms, completing a baseline survey, and providing consent. The counseling, which was adapted from a tool developed at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital for the assessment of patients with colon and cancer or lung cancer, involved an educational brochure that was mailed to participants. It also offered access to an online tool that provided information about systemic hormone therapy, non-hormone prescription therapy, topical hormone treatment, and non-prescription treatment for vasomotor and genitourinary symptoms of menopause.

A research nurse contacted participants by phone and used the online program to review the brochure, clarify treatment preference, and produce a summary of the results.

In an interview, Dr. Dayaratna noted that the concept of “shared decision making” is often misunderstood to mean that patients are provided with information about options and then they make a choice.

Actually, this study demonstrates that shared decision making really involves a “values clarification” component, she explained. In this study, counseling that incorporates this type of shared decision making helped women feel more prepared to speak with their providers about treatment and thus may add value to care of menopausal women, she concluded.

“This is relevant because we know that over 50% of patients within 90 minutes of leaving their doctor’s office have forgotten what they were told, and over 50% do not comply with their treatment prescriptions,” she said. “So if patients can do this process ahead of time, when they come to speak to their physician about their symptoms and selection of medication, it’s a more effective and efficient conversation.”

Further research should evaluate impact on the subsequent office visit, she added.

This study was funded by an educational grant from Pfizer, Inc. and by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Dayaratna reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Dayaratna S et al., ACOG 2019: Abstract 21M.

NASHVILLE, TENN. – The vast majority of women with menopausal symptoms who completed an online shared decision-making counseling session felt better prepared to discuss treatment options with their provider, a post-intervention survey showed.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

Of 36 women who completed the counseling, 72% were able to express a clear preference for a particular treatment. Additionally, 90% to 100% of those who completed the final survey said the various components of the counseling–such as an educational brochure or a telephone call from a research nurse–made them feel more prepared to speak with their provider about treatment options, Sandra Dayaratna, MD, reported during a poster session at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Among 18 women with vasomotor symptoms, 6 (33%) preferred non-hormone treatment, 7 (39%) preferred hormone treatment, and 5 (28%) were unsure; among 18 with genitourinary symptoms of menopause, 6 (33%) preferred non-prescription treatment, 7 (39%) preferred topical hormone therapy, and 5 (28%) were unsure, Dr. Dayaratna, division director and clinical associate professor at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital and Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, found.

Of women who were not being treated for vasomotor symptoms, 5 (56%) expressed a clear treatment preference after counseling, whereas 8 (80%) of those not receiving treatment for genitourinary symptoms expressed a clear preference. Among 7 women receiving systemic hormone therapy for vasomotor symptoms, 86% preferred this treatment after counseling, and 3 women (50%) receiving topical hormone therapy preferred topical treatment after counseling.

The study included women aged 36-50 years from diverse educational and racial backgrounds who were referred to the counseling program after reporting menopausal symptoms, completing a baseline survey, and providing consent. The counseling, which was adapted from a tool developed at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital for the assessment of patients with colon and cancer or lung cancer, involved an educational brochure that was mailed to participants. It also offered access to an online tool that provided information about systemic hormone therapy, non-hormone prescription therapy, topical hormone treatment, and non-prescription treatment for vasomotor and genitourinary symptoms of menopause.

A research nurse contacted participants by phone and used the online program to review the brochure, clarify treatment preference, and produce a summary of the results.

In an interview, Dr. Dayaratna noted that the concept of “shared decision making” is often misunderstood to mean that patients are provided with information about options and then they make a choice.

Actually, this study demonstrates that shared decision making really involves a “values clarification” component, she explained. In this study, counseling that incorporates this type of shared decision making helped women feel more prepared to speak with their providers about treatment and thus may add value to care of menopausal women, she concluded.

“This is relevant because we know that over 50% of patients within 90 minutes of leaving their doctor’s office have forgotten what they were told, and over 50% do not comply with their treatment prescriptions,” she said. “So if patients can do this process ahead of time, when they come to speak to their physician about their symptoms and selection of medication, it’s a more effective and efficient conversation.”

Further research should evaluate impact on the subsequent office visit, she added.

This study was funded by an educational grant from Pfizer, Inc. and by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Dayaratna reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Dayaratna S et al., ACOG 2019: Abstract 21M.

The clinical scenario is as follows: A 62-year-old woman comes to see me for a new diagnosis of grade 1 endometrial cancer. She has a normal body mass index of 24 kg/m², a history of four prior full-term pregnancies, no family history of malignancy, and no medical comorbidities. She is otherwise a specimen of good health, and has no clear identifiable risk factors for this malignancy. She then reports that she transitioned through menopause at age 52 years and developed severe hot flashes with sleep and mood disturbance. She did not wish to take conventional hormone replacement therapy (HT) because she had heard it causes cancer. She subsequently researched the Internet and found a provider who has been prescribing compounded bioidentical hormone therapy (CBHT) for her for the past 10 years. She submits saliva for testing of her estrogen levels, and the provider uses this data to compound the appropriate doses of “natural” estrogens and testosterone for her which she applies via vaginal or transdermal creams. She has been prescribed a progesterone suppository, but she doesn’t always take that because she doesn’t notice that it has any effect on how she feels. “Doctor, did my bioidentical hormones give me this uterine cancer?”

Alexander Raths/Fotolia

My answer is, of course, I don’t know. Cancer is a complex disease with a complex array of causative and promoting factors. However, we do know that taking estrogen unopposed with adequate progesterone can cause the development of uterine cancer and its precursor state.¹ If those bioidentical estrogens were effective at controlling her menopausal symptoms, they likely were effective at stimulating her endometrium at the same time.

What are compounded bioidentical hormones?

The term “bioidentical” refers to having the same molecular structure as that which is found in the human body. Examples of bioidentical estrogens include 17-beta-estradiol, estrone, and estriol – which are produced from yams and soy. Micronized progesterone is an example of a bioidentical progesterone. Many of these drugs are approved by the Food and Drug Administration, and prescribed and dispensed by conventional pharmacies.

An alternative, and increasingly popular, version of bioidentical hormones are CBHs. It should be recognized that this is a marketing, and not a scientific, term. These products utilize hormones, in some cases FDA-approved bioidentical hormones, that are broken down and blended by specialized pharmacies and reconstituted (compounded) into different, and sometimes “customized,” dosing and delivery methods (such as capsules, patches, gels, creams, lozenges, suppositories). Frequently used compounded products utilize multiple formulations of estrogens in doublets and triplets as well as progesterone, testosterone, and dehydroepiandrosterone.

How do they differ from synthetic hormones?

Distributors of CBHs state that they differ from conventional HT (synthetic and bioidentical) because of the customization process from which they promise greater efficacy and a sense of personalized medicine. The distributors frequently utilize assays from saliva, blood, vaginal secretions, and urine to measure a woman’s hormone levels, and titrate her compounded formulation based on those results. It should be noted that there is no data to support that titration of hormones to blood, salivary, or urine levels is efficacious or ensures greater safety than titration based on symptom management.

Critics of CBHT, which includes the North American Menopause Society² and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,³ highlight that the main difference between CBHT and HT is lack of FDA regulation over the CBHT industry. Many of these agents are delivered transdermally and therefore are classified as “dietary supplements.” As such, they do not require FDA regulation or proof of safety or efficacy.

What drives patients’ decision to use compounded bioidentical hormones?

After the Womens’ Health Initiative study was published in 2002⁵, all FDA-regulated estrogen preparations were required to carry specific warnings, particularly in relation to the increased risk for MI, venous thromboembolic events, and breast cancer. There was a clear uptake in use of CBHT after this study was reported. By avoiding FDA regulations, distributors of CBHTs may have avoided providing Womens’ Health Initiative information to patients. The absence of an insert with a written warning, in and of itself, makes these preparations seem safer to the patient.

But is it entirely a lack of information that drives demand for CBHTs? Surveys of current or former users suggest the motivations are more complex than that. A survey of 21 past or present CBHT users inquired about reasons for use of CBHT over conventional HT.⁶ Their responses were categorized as either push motivations away from conventional therapy versus pull motivations toward CBHT. About 95% of current and former users cited distrust of the biomedicine and pharmaceutical industry as reasons for use of CBHT. Fear about the safety of conventional HT, particularly with respect to cancer risk, also was strongly cited at 81%. Motivations pulling toward CBHT included its efficacy (76%) and perception that CBHT is “safer” than conventional HT (76%).

Women in this study also appreciated the tailored, individualized approach that often is associated with CBHT, in which providers spend long consultations discussing individual patient needs and concerns. They enjoy the idea of a customized blend that is created, as opposed to a standard dosing regimen, and intuitively trust the reliability of blood and saliva testing as a prescriptive tool.

Are bioidentical hormones safe with respect to cancer risk?

Hormones themselves are not inert substances, including those derived in vivo and those from plants. They have powerful effects in the human body and can promote malignant transformation or proliferation, alter metabolic pathways, stimulate vascular tone, influence coagulation pathways, along with many other effects. A hormone’s potential for deleterious effect can be present regardless of how that hormone is synthesized, procured, or prepared. While there are no data to suggest that CBHT is associated with increased cancer risk, compared with conventional HT, there are by no means any data to suggest it is safer. Unopposed compounded estrogens place women at increased risk for endometrial cancers, and the prolonged use of hormonal therapy, compounded or otherwise, after menopause increases the risk for breast cancer.

How should we counsel patients?

Patients who desire compounded bioidentical hormone preparations should be counseled that little is known about the safety of these preparations, compared with conventional hormone preparations. The fact that the components are often plant based rather than synthetic does not inherently alter their potential negative impact on biologic pathways. Patients should be educated regarding the difference between FDA-regulated products and nonregulated products so that they can understand that lack of a boxed warning on a non-FDA regulated product does not mean an absence of risk. Women should be informed of the potential inaccuracies in dosing and strength of the CBH preparations they receive.

We should recognize that our patients strongly desire a relationship with their provider in which they are listened to, understood, and treated as individuals. If conversations regarding hormone use are approached with these principles, we will optimize the likelihood our patients are receptive to the highest quality information and not pulled in the direction of unregulated products.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She reported that she had no conflicts of interest. Email Dr. Rossi at [email protected].

References:

1. Maturitas. 2014 Jan;77(1):4-6.

2. Menopause. 2014 Dec;21(12):1298-300.

3. Fertil Steril. 2012 Aug;98(2):308-12.

4. Report: Limited FDA survey of compounded drug products (Silver Spring, Md.: U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2009).

5. JAMA. 2002;288(3):321-33.

6. BMC Womens Health. 2017 Oct 2;17(1):97.

The clinical scenario is as follows: A 62-year-old woman comes to see me for a new diagnosis of grade 1 endometrial cancer. She has a normal body mass index of 24 kg/m², a history of four prior full-term pregnancies, no family history of malignancy, and no medical comorbidities. She is otherwise a specimen of good health, and has no clear identifiable risk factors for this malignancy. She then reports that she transitioned through menopause at age 52 years and developed severe hot flashes with sleep and mood disturbance. She did not wish to take conventional hormone replacement therapy (HT) because she had heard it causes cancer. She subsequently researched the Internet and found a provider who has been prescribing compounded bioidentical hormone therapy (CBHT) for her for the past 10 years. She submits saliva for testing of her estrogen levels, and the provider uses this data to compound the appropriate doses of “natural” estrogens and testosterone for her which she applies via vaginal or transdermal creams. She has been prescribed a progesterone suppository, but she doesn’t always take that because she doesn’t notice that it has any effect on how she feels. “Doctor, did my bioidentical hormones give me this uterine cancer?”

Alexander Raths/Fotolia

My answer is, of course, I don’t know. Cancer is a complex disease with a complex array of causative and promoting factors. However, we do know that taking estrogen unopposed with adequate progesterone can cause the development of uterine cancer and its precursor state.¹ If those bioidentical estrogens were effective at controlling her menopausal symptoms, they likely were effective at stimulating her endometrium at the same time.

What are compounded bioidentical hormones?

The term “bioidentical” refers to having the same molecular structure as that which is found in the human body. Examples of bioidentical estrogens include 17-beta-estradiol, estrone, and estriol – which are produced from yams and soy. Micronized progesterone is an example of a bioidentical progesterone. Many of these drugs are approved by the Food and Drug Administration, and prescribed and dispensed by conventional pharmacies.

An alternative, and increasingly popular, version of bioidentical hormones are CBHs. It should be recognized that this is a marketing, and not a scientific, term. These products utilize hormones, in some cases FDA-approved bioidentical hormones, that are broken down and blended by specialized pharmacies and reconstituted (compounded) into different, and sometimes “customized,” dosing and delivery methods (such as capsules, patches, gels, creams, lozenges, suppositories). Frequently used compounded products utilize multiple formulations of estrogens in doublets and triplets as well as progesterone, testosterone, and dehydroepiandrosterone.

How do they differ from synthetic hormones?

Distributors of CBHs state that they differ from conventional HT (synthetic and bioidentical) because of the customization process from which they promise greater efficacy and a sense of personalized medicine. The distributors frequently utilize assays from saliva, blood, vaginal secretions, and urine to measure a woman’s hormone levels, and titrate her compounded formulation based on those results. It should be noted that there is no data to support that titration of hormones to blood, salivary, or urine levels is efficacious or ensures greater safety than titration based on symptom management.

Critics of CBHT, which includes the North American Menopause Society² and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,³ highlight that the main difference between CBHT and HT is lack of FDA regulation over the CBHT industry. Many of these agents are delivered transdermally and therefore are classified as “dietary supplements.” As such, they do not require FDA regulation or proof of safety or efficacy.

What drives patients’ decision to use compounded bioidentical hormones?

After the Womens’ Health Initiative study was published in 2002⁵, all FDA-regulated estrogen preparations were required to carry specific warnings, particularly in relation to the increased risk for MI, venous thromboembolic events, and breast cancer. There was a clear uptake in use of CBHT after this study was reported. By avoiding FDA regulations, distributors of CBHTs may have avoided providing Womens’ Health Initiative information to patients. The absence of an insert with a written warning, in and of itself, makes these preparations seem safer to the patient.

But is it entirely a lack of information that drives demand for CBHTs? Surveys of current or former users suggest the motivations are more complex than that. A survey of 21 past or present CBHT users inquired about reasons for use of CBHT over conventional HT.⁶ Their responses were categorized as either push motivations away from conventional therapy versus pull motivations toward CBHT. About 95% of current and former users cited distrust of the biomedicine and pharmaceutical industry as reasons for use of CBHT. Fear about the safety of conventional HT, particularly with respect to cancer risk, also was strongly cited at 81%. Motivations pulling toward CBHT included its efficacy (76%) and perception that CBHT is “safer” than conventional HT (76%).

Women in this study also appreciated the tailored, individualized approach that often is associated with CBHT, in which providers spend long consultations discussing individual patient needs and concerns. They enjoy the idea of a customized blend that is created, as opposed to a standard dosing regimen, and intuitively trust the reliability of blood and saliva testing as a prescriptive tool.

Are bioidentical hormones safe with respect to cancer risk?

Hormones themselves are not inert substances, including those derived in vivo and those from plants. They have powerful effects in the human body and can promote malignant transformation or proliferation, alter metabolic pathways, stimulate vascular tone, influence coagulation pathways, along with many other effects. A hormone’s potential for deleterious effect can be present regardless of how that hormone is synthesized, procured, or prepared. While there are no data to suggest that CBHT is associated with increased cancer risk, compared with conventional HT, there are by no means any data to suggest it is safer. Unopposed compounded estrogens place women at increased risk for endometrial cancers, and the prolonged use of hormonal therapy, compounded or otherwise, after menopause increases the risk for breast cancer.

How should we counsel patients?

Patients who desire compounded bioidentical hormone preparations should be counseled that little is known about the safety of these preparations, compared with conventional hormone preparations. The fact that the components are often plant based rather than synthetic does not inherently alter their potential negative impact on biologic pathways. Patients should be educated regarding the difference between FDA-regulated products and nonregulated products so that they can understand that lack of a boxed warning on a non-FDA regulated product does not mean an absence of risk. Women should be informed of the potential inaccuracies in dosing and strength of the CBH preparations they receive.

We should recognize that our patients strongly desire a relationship with their provider in which they are listened to, understood, and treated as individuals. If conversations regarding hormone use are approached with these principles, we will optimize the likelihood our patients are receptive to the highest quality information and not pulled in the direction of unregulated products.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She reported that she had no conflicts of interest. Email Dr. Rossi at [email protected].

References:

1. Maturitas. 2014 Jan;77(1):4-6.

2. Menopause. 2014 Dec;21(12):1298-300.

3. Fertil Steril. 2012 Aug;98(2):308-12.

4. Report: Limited FDA survey of compounded drug products (Silver Spring, Md.: U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2009).

5. JAMA. 2002;288(3):321-33.

6. BMC Womens Health. 2017 Oct 2;17(1):97.

The clinical scenario is as follows: A 62-year-old woman comes to see me for a new diagnosis of grade 1 endometrial cancer. She has a normal body mass index of 24 kg/m², a history of four prior full-term pregnancies, no family history of malignancy, and no medical comorbidities. She is otherwise a specimen of good health, and has no clear identifiable risk factors for this malignancy. She then reports that she transitioned through menopause at age 52 years and developed severe hot flashes with sleep and mood disturbance. She did not wish to take conventional hormone replacement therapy (HT) because she had heard it causes cancer. She subsequently researched the Internet and found a provider who has been prescribing compounded bioidentical hormone therapy (CBHT) for her for the past 10 years. She submits saliva for testing of her estrogen levels, and the provider uses this data to compound the appropriate doses of “natural” estrogens and testosterone for her which she applies via vaginal or transdermal creams. She has been prescribed a progesterone suppository, but she doesn’t always take that because she doesn’t notice that it has any effect on how she feels. “Doctor, did my bioidentical hormones give me this uterine cancer?”

Alexander Raths/Fotolia

My answer is, of course, I don’t know. Cancer is a complex disease with a complex array of causative and promoting factors. However, we do know that taking estrogen unopposed with adequate progesterone can cause the development of uterine cancer and its precursor state.¹ If those bioidentical estrogens were effective at controlling her menopausal symptoms, they likely were effective at stimulating her endometrium at the same time.

What are compounded bioidentical hormones?

The term “bioidentical” refers to having the same molecular structure as that which is found in the human body. Examples of bioidentical estrogens include 17-beta-estradiol, estrone, and estriol – which are produced from yams and soy. Micronized progesterone is an example of a bioidentical progesterone. Many of these drugs are approved by the Food and Drug Administration, and prescribed and dispensed by conventional pharmacies.

An alternative, and increasingly popular, version of bioidentical hormones are CBHs. It should be recognized that this is a marketing, and not a scientific, term. These products utilize hormones, in some cases FDA-approved bioidentical hormones, that are broken down and blended by specialized pharmacies and reconstituted (compounded) into different, and sometimes “customized,” dosing and delivery methods (such as capsules, patches, gels, creams, lozenges, suppositories). Frequently used compounded products utilize multiple formulations of estrogens in doublets and triplets as well as progesterone, testosterone, and dehydroepiandrosterone.

How do they differ from synthetic hormones?

Distributors of CBHs state that they differ from conventional HT (synthetic and bioidentical) because of the customization process from which they promise greater efficacy and a sense of personalized medicine. The distributors frequently utilize assays from saliva, blood, vaginal secretions, and urine to measure a woman’s hormone levels, and titrate her compounded formulation based on those results. It should be noted that there is no data to support that titration of hormones to blood, salivary, or urine levels is efficacious or ensures greater safety than titration based on symptom management.

Critics of CBHT, which includes the North American Menopause Society² and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,³ highlight that the main difference between CBHT and HT is lack of FDA regulation over the CBHT industry. Many of these agents are delivered transdermally and therefore are classified as “dietary supplements.” As such, they do not require FDA regulation or proof of safety or efficacy.

What drives patients’ decision to use compounded bioidentical hormones?

After the Womens’ Health Initiative study was published in 2002⁵, all FDA-regulated estrogen preparations were required to carry specific warnings, particularly in relation to the increased risk for MI, venous thromboembolic events, and breast cancer. There was a clear uptake in use of CBHT after this study was reported. By avoiding FDA regulations, distributors of CBHTs may have avoided providing Womens’ Health Initiative information to patients. The absence of an insert with a written warning, in and of itself, makes these preparations seem safer to the patient.

But is it entirely a lack of information that drives demand for CBHTs? Surveys of current or former users suggest the motivations are more complex than that. A survey of 21 past or present CBHT users inquired about reasons for use of CBHT over conventional HT.⁶ Their responses were categorized as either push motivations away from conventional therapy versus pull motivations toward CBHT. About 95% of current and former users cited distrust of the biomedicine and pharmaceutical industry as reasons for use of CBHT. Fear about the safety of conventional HT, particularly with respect to cancer risk, also was strongly cited at 81%. Motivations pulling toward CBHT included its efficacy (76%) and perception that CBHT is “safer” than conventional HT (76%).

Women in this study also appreciated the tailored, individualized approach that often is associated with CBHT, in which providers spend long consultations discussing individual patient needs and concerns. They enjoy the idea of a customized blend that is created, as opposed to a standard dosing regimen, and intuitively trust the reliability of blood and saliva testing as a prescriptive tool.

Are bioidentical hormones safe with respect to cancer risk?

Hormones themselves are not inert substances, including those derived in vivo and those from plants. They have powerful effects in the human body and can promote malignant transformation or proliferation, alter metabolic pathways, stimulate vascular tone, influence coagulation pathways, along with many other effects. A hormone’s potential for deleterious effect can be present regardless of how that hormone is synthesized, procured, or prepared. While there are no data to suggest that CBHT is associated with increased cancer risk, compared with conventional HT, there are by no means any data to suggest it is safer. Unopposed compounded estrogens place women at increased risk for endometrial cancers, and the prolonged use of hormonal therapy, compounded or otherwise, after menopause increases the risk for breast cancer.

How should we counsel patients?

Patients who desire compounded bioidentical hormone preparations should be counseled that little is known about the safety of these preparations, compared with conventional hormone preparations. The fact that the components are often plant based rather than synthetic does not inherently alter their potential negative impact on biologic pathways. Patients should be educated regarding the difference between FDA-regulated products and nonregulated products so that they can understand that lack of a boxed warning on a non-FDA regulated product does not mean an absence of risk. Women should be informed of the potential inaccuracies in dosing and strength of the CBH preparations they receive.

We should recognize that our patients strongly desire a relationship with their provider in which they are listened to, understood, and treated as individuals. If conversations regarding hormone use are approached with these principles, we will optimize the likelihood our patients are receptive to the highest quality information and not pulled in the direction of unregulated products.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She reported that she had no conflicts of interest. Email Dr. Rossi at [email protected].

References:

1. Maturitas. 2014 Jan;77(1):4-6.

2. Menopause. 2014 Dec;21(12):1298-300.

3. Fertil Steril. 2012 Aug;98(2):308-12.

4. Report: Limited FDA survey of compounded drug products (Silver Spring, Md.: U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2009).

5. JAMA. 2002;288(3):321-33.

6. BMC Womens Health. 2017 Oct 2;17(1):97.

The Food and Drug Administration approved romosozumab-aqqg (Evenity) for treating osteoporosis in postmenopausal women who are at high risk for fracture.

“These are women who have a history of osteoporotic fracture or multiple risk factors or have failed other treatments for osteoporosis,” according to a news release from the agency.

The monthly treatment of two injections (given one after the other at one visit) mainly works by increasing new bone formation, but these effects wane after 12 doses. If patients still need osteoporosis therapy after that maximum of 12 doses, it’s recommended they are put on treatments that reduce bone breakdown. Romosozumab-aqqg is “a monoclonal antibody that blocks the effects of the protein sclerostin,” according to the news release.

The treatment’s efficacy and safety was evaluated in two clinical trials of more than 11,000 women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. In one trial, women received 12 months of either romosozumab-aqqg or placebo. The treatment arm had a 73% lower risk of vertebral fracture than did the placebo arm, and this benefit was maintained over a second year when both groups were switched to denosumab, another osteoporosis therapy. In the second trial, one group received romosozumab-aqqg for 1 year and then a year of alendronate, and the other group received 2 years of alendronate, another osteoporosis therapy, according to the news release. In this trial, the romosozumab-aqqg arm had 50% less risk of vertebral fractures than did the alendronate-only arm, as well as reduced risk of nonvertebral fractures.

Romosozumab-aqqg was associated with higher risks of cardiovascular death, heart attack, and stroke in the alendronate trial, so the treatment comes with a boxed warning regarding those risks and recommends that the drug not be used in patients who have had a heart attack or stroke within the previous year, according to the news release. Common side effects include joint pain and headache, as well as injection-site reactions.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration approved romosozumab-aqqg (Evenity) for treating osteoporosis in postmenopausal women who are at high risk for fracture.

“These are women who have a history of osteoporotic fracture or multiple risk factors or have failed other treatments for osteoporosis,” according to a news release from the agency.

The monthly treatment of two injections (given one after the other at one visit) mainly works by increasing new bone formation, but these effects wane after 12 doses. If patients still need osteoporosis therapy after that maximum of 12 doses, it’s recommended they are put on treatments that reduce bone breakdown. Romosozumab-aqqg is “a monoclonal antibody that blocks the effects of the protein sclerostin,” according to the news release.

The treatment’s efficacy and safety was evaluated in two clinical trials of more than 11,000 women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. In one trial, women received 12 months of either romosozumab-aqqg or placebo. The treatment arm had a 73% lower risk of vertebral fracture than did the placebo arm, and this benefit was maintained over a second year when both groups were switched to denosumab, another osteoporosis therapy. In the second trial, one group received romosozumab-aqqg for 1 year and then a year of alendronate, and the other group received 2 years of alendronate, another osteoporosis therapy, according to the news release. In this trial, the romosozumab-aqqg arm had 50% less risk of vertebral fractures than did the alendronate-only arm, as well as reduced risk of nonvertebral fractures.

Romosozumab-aqqg was associated with higher risks of cardiovascular death, heart attack, and stroke in the alendronate trial, so the treatment comes with a boxed warning regarding those risks and recommends that the drug not be used in patients who have had a heart attack or stroke within the previous year, according to the news release. Common side effects include joint pain and headache, as well as injection-site reactions.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration approved romosozumab-aqqg (Evenity) for treating osteoporosis in postmenopausal women who are at high risk for fracture.

“These are women who have a history of osteoporotic fracture or multiple risk factors or have failed other treatments for osteoporosis,” according to a news release from the agency.

The monthly treatment of two injections (given one after the other at one visit) mainly works by increasing new bone formation, but these effects wane after 12 doses. If patients still need osteoporosis therapy after that maximum of 12 doses, it’s recommended they are put on treatments that reduce bone breakdown. Romosozumab-aqqg is “a monoclonal antibody that blocks the effects of the protein sclerostin,” according to the news release.

The treatment’s efficacy and safety was evaluated in two clinical trials of more than 11,000 women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. In one trial, women received 12 months of either romosozumab-aqqg or placebo. The treatment arm had a 73% lower risk of vertebral fracture than did the placebo arm, and this benefit was maintained over a second year when both groups were switched to denosumab, another osteoporosis therapy. In the second trial, one group received romosozumab-aqqg for 1 year and then a year of alendronate, and the other group received 2 years of alendronate, another osteoporosis therapy, according to the news release. In this trial, the romosozumab-aqqg arm had 50% less risk of vertebral fractures than did the alendronate-only arm, as well as reduced risk of nonvertebral fractures.

Romosozumab-aqqg was associated with higher risks of cardiovascular death, heart attack, and stroke in the alendronate trial, so the treatment comes with a boxed warning regarding those risks and recommends that the drug not be used in patients who have had a heart attack or stroke within the previous year, according to the news release. Common side effects include joint pain and headache, as well as injection-site reactions.

[email protected]

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Savolainen-Peltonen H, Rahkola-Soisalo P, Hoti F, et al. Use of postmenopausal hormone therapy and risk of Alzheimer’s disease in Finland: nationwide case-control study. BMJ. 2019;364:1665.

Alzheimer disease represents the most common cause of dementia. Although sex hormones may play a role in the etiology of AD in women, studies addressing the impact of menopausal HT on risk of AD have conflicting findings.

Finnish researchers Savolainen-Peltonen and colleagues aimed to compare postmenopausal HT use in women with and without AD. They used national drug and population registries to identify patients with AD, control women without a diagnosis of AD, and data on postmenopausal HT use.

Details of the study

In Finland, reimbursement for treatment related to AD requires cognitive testing, brain imaging, and a statement from a specialist physician. Using national records, the study investigators identified 84,739 women with a diagnosis of AD during the years 1999–2013 and the same number of control women (without AD) during the same period. A national drug reimbursement registry was used to identify HT use from the year 1994.

Findings. Women diagnosed with AD were more likely to have been current or former users of systemic HT than controls (18.6% vs 17.0%, P<.001). The odds ratios (ORs) for AD were 1.09 for the estradiol-only group and 1.17 for the estrogen-progestin group (P<.05 for both comparisons).

Initiation of HT prior to age 60 was less common among AD cases than controls (P = .006). As a continuous variable, age was not a determinant for disease risk in estradiol-only users (OR, 1.0), estrogen-progestin users (OR, 1.0), or any HT use (OR, 1.0).

The exclusive use of vaginal estrogen therapy was not associated with an elevated risk of AD (OR, 0.99).

Study strengths and limitations

This study on the association between HT and AD included a very large number of participants from a national population registry, and the use of HT was objectively determined from a controlled registry (not self-reported). In addition, AD was accurately diagnosed and differentiated from other forms of dementia.

Limitations of the study include the lack of baseline demographic data for AD risk factors for both HT users and controls. Further, an increased risk of AD may have been a cause for HT use and not a consequence, given that initial cognitive impairments may occur 7 to 8 years prior to AD diagnosis and the possibility exists that such women may have sought help for cognitive symptoms from HT. In addition, the lack of brain imaging or neurologic examination to exclude AD might also account for undiagnosed disease in controls. The authors noted that they were unable to compare the use of oral and transdermal HT preparations or the use of cyclic and continuous estrogen-progestin therapy.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Savolainen-Peltonen H, Rahkola-Soisalo P, Hoti F, et al. Use of postmenopausal hormone therapy and risk of Alzheimer’s disease in Finland: nationwide case-control study. BMJ. 2019;364:1665.

Alzheimer disease represents the most common cause of dementia. Although sex hormones may play a role in the etiology of AD in women, studies addressing the impact of menopausal HT on risk of AD have conflicting findings.

Finnish researchers Savolainen-Peltonen and colleagues aimed to compare postmenopausal HT use in women with and without AD. They used national drug and population registries to identify patients with AD, control women without a diagnosis of AD, and data on postmenopausal HT use.

Details of the study

In Finland, reimbursement for treatment related to AD requires cognitive testing, brain imaging, and a statement from a specialist physician. Using national records, the study investigators identified 84,739 women with a diagnosis of AD during the years 1999–2013 and the same number of control women (without AD) during the same period. A national drug reimbursement registry was used to identify HT use from the year 1994.

Findings. Women diagnosed with AD were more likely to have been current or former users of systemic HT than controls (18.6% vs 17.0%, P<.001). The odds ratios (ORs) for AD were 1.09 for the estradiol-only group and 1.17 for the estrogen-progestin group (P<.05 for both comparisons).

Initiation of HT prior to age 60 was less common among AD cases than controls (P = .006). As a continuous variable, age was not a determinant for disease risk in estradiol-only users (OR, 1.0), estrogen-progestin users (OR, 1.0), or any HT use (OR, 1.0).

The exclusive use of vaginal estrogen therapy was not associated with an elevated risk of AD (OR, 0.99).

Study strengths and limitations

This study on the association between HT and AD included a very large number of participants from a national population registry, and the use of HT was objectively determined from a controlled registry (not self-reported). In addition, AD was accurately diagnosed and differentiated from other forms of dementia.

Limitations of the study include the lack of baseline demographic data for AD risk factors for both HT users and controls. Further, an increased risk of AD may have been a cause for HT use and not a consequence, given that initial cognitive impairments may occur 7 to 8 years prior to AD diagnosis and the possibility exists that such women may have sought help for cognitive symptoms from HT. In addition, the lack of brain imaging or neurologic examination to exclude AD might also account for undiagnosed disease in controls. The authors noted that they were unable to compare the use of oral and transdermal HT preparations or the use of cyclic and continuous estrogen-progestin therapy.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Savolainen-Peltonen H, Rahkola-Soisalo P, Hoti F, et al. Use of postmenopausal hormone therapy and risk of Alzheimer’s disease in Finland: nationwide case-control study. BMJ. 2019;364:1665.

Alzheimer disease represents the most common cause of dementia. Although sex hormones may play a role in the etiology of AD in women, studies addressing the impact of menopausal HT on risk of AD have conflicting findings.

Finnish researchers Savolainen-Peltonen and colleagues aimed to compare postmenopausal HT use in women with and without AD. They used national drug and population registries to identify patients with AD, control women without a diagnosis of AD, and data on postmenopausal HT use.

Details of the study

In Finland, reimbursement for treatment related to AD requires cognitive testing, brain imaging, and a statement from a specialist physician. Using national records, the study investigators identified 84,739 women with a diagnosis of AD during the years 1999–2013 and the same number of control women (without AD) during the same period. A national drug reimbursement registry was used to identify HT use from the year 1994.

Findings. Women diagnosed with AD were more likely to have been current or former users of systemic HT than controls (18.6% vs 17.0%, P<.001). The odds ratios (ORs) for AD were 1.09 for the estradiol-only group and 1.17 for the estrogen-progestin group (P<.05 for both comparisons).

Initiation of HT prior to age 60 was less common among AD cases than controls (P = .006). As a continuous variable, age was not a determinant for disease risk in estradiol-only users (OR, 1.0), estrogen-progestin users (OR, 1.0), or any HT use (OR, 1.0).

The exclusive use of vaginal estrogen therapy was not associated with an elevated risk of AD (OR, 0.99).

Study strengths and limitations

This study on the association between HT and AD included a very large number of participants from a national population registry, and the use of HT was objectively determined from a controlled registry (not self-reported). In addition, AD was accurately diagnosed and differentiated from other forms of dementia.

Limitations of the study include the lack of baseline demographic data for AD risk factors for both HT users and controls. Further, an increased risk of AD may have been a cause for HT use and not a consequence, given that initial cognitive impairments may occur 7 to 8 years prior to AD diagnosis and the possibility exists that such women may have sought help for cognitive symptoms from HT. In addition, the lack of brain imaging or neurologic examination to exclude AD might also account for undiagnosed disease in controls. The authors noted that they were unable to compare the use of oral and transdermal HT preparations or the use of cyclic and continuous estrogen-progestin therapy.

NEW ORLEANS – Hot flash frequency was reduced by up to threefold in phase 2b results for fezolinetant, a novel nonhormonal therapy.

Vidyard Video

The neurokinin-3–receptor (NK3R) antagonist showed a significant reduction of 1.8-2.6 mean hot flashes daily from placebo in twice-daily dosing at the end of 12 weeks, despite a strong 55% response rate to placebo, Graeme Fraser, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

Once-daily dosing also significantly dropped the frequency of moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms by 2.1-2.6 events daily, compared with placebo at the end of 12 weeks.

“This phase 2b trial was really about looking at different dose levels and looking at the once-daily versus twice-daily dosing,” Dr. Fraser said in a video interview. “The efficacy of both, with regard to once-daily and twice-daily dosing, was clear.”

The investigators looked at doses ranging from 15 mg to 90 mg twice daily and 30-120 mg daily. Significant reductions in frequency of moderate to severe hot flashes were seen at all doses and frequencies at 4 weeks and 12 weeks.

A coprimary endpoint, vasomotor severity, was also significantly reduced at 12 weeks for the two highest twice-daily doses. Hot flash severity was similarly reduced at 12 weeks for the two highest once-daily doses.

The safety profile was generally good; there were no signs of suicidality, no changes in endometrial thickness judged by ultrasound or endometrial biopsy, and estradiol levels were unchanged. Plasma bone markers, other laboratory values, and electrocardiograms were also unchanged.

A total of nine women experienced asymptomatic elevations in liver enzymes without bilirubin elevation. Most of these elevations were below three times the upper limit of normal.

Across 51 study sites in the United States, a total of 352 women received one dose of study drug and were included in the safety analysis. Efficacy was analyzed for 349 women, and 287 (81%) were considered completers.

Women were included in the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study if they were naturally or surgically menopausal and aged 40-65 years, and experiencing at least 50 moderate to severe hot flashes weekly.

Fezolinetant acts on the KNDy neuron by replacing estrogen’s inhibitory effects. “Normally the firing is controlled by estrogen, but of course, in menopause, estrogen levels drop, and that control is lost,” explained Dr. Fraser. Fezolinetant exerts antagonism on the KNDy neuron’s NK3 receptor. “Why that’s important is that this neuron synapses at the thermoregulatory centers of the brain.”

Dr. Fraser said that discussions are underway with regulatory authorities to proceed to phase 3 clinical trials.

Dr. Fraser is a consultant to Astellas and was formerly a principal in Ogeda, the developer of fezolinetant. Ogeda is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Astellas, which funded the phase 2B trial.

[email protected]

NEW ORLEANS – Hot flash frequency was reduced by up to threefold in phase 2b results for fezolinetant, a novel nonhormonal therapy.

Vidyard Video

The neurokinin-3–receptor (NK3R) antagonist showed a significant reduction of 1.8-2.6 mean hot flashes daily from placebo in twice-daily dosing at the end of 12 weeks, despite a strong 55% response rate to placebo, Graeme Fraser, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

Once-daily dosing also significantly dropped the frequency of moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms by 2.1-2.6 events daily, compared with placebo at the end of 12 weeks.

“This phase 2b trial was really about looking at different dose levels and looking at the once-daily versus twice-daily dosing,” Dr. Fraser said in a video interview. “The efficacy of both, with regard to once-daily and twice-daily dosing, was clear.”

The investigators looked at doses ranging from 15 mg to 90 mg twice daily and 30-120 mg daily. Significant reductions in frequency of moderate to severe hot flashes were seen at all doses and frequencies at 4 weeks and 12 weeks.

A coprimary endpoint, vasomotor severity, was also significantly reduced at 12 weeks for the two highest twice-daily doses. Hot flash severity was similarly reduced at 12 weeks for the two highest once-daily doses.

The safety profile was generally good; there were no signs of suicidality, no changes in endometrial thickness judged by ultrasound or endometrial biopsy, and estradiol levels were unchanged. Plasma bone markers, other laboratory values, and electrocardiograms were also unchanged.

A total of nine women experienced asymptomatic elevations in liver enzymes without bilirubin elevation. Most of these elevations were below three times the upper limit of normal.

Across 51 study sites in the United States, a total of 352 women received one dose of study drug and were included in the safety analysis. Efficacy was analyzed for 349 women, and 287 (81%) were considered completers.

Women were included in the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study if they were naturally or surgically menopausal and aged 40-65 years, and experiencing at least 50 moderate to severe hot flashes weekly.

Fezolinetant acts on the KNDy neuron by replacing estrogen’s inhibitory effects. “Normally the firing is controlled by estrogen, but of course, in menopause, estrogen levels drop, and that control is lost,” explained Dr. Fraser. Fezolinetant exerts antagonism on the KNDy neuron’s NK3 receptor. “Why that’s important is that this neuron synapses at the thermoregulatory centers of the brain.”

Dr. Fraser said that discussions are underway with regulatory authorities to proceed to phase 3 clinical trials.

Dr. Fraser is a consultant to Astellas and was formerly a principal in Ogeda, the developer of fezolinetant. Ogeda is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Astellas, which funded the phase 2B trial.

[email protected]

NEW ORLEANS – Hot flash frequency was reduced by up to threefold in phase 2b results for fezolinetant, a novel nonhormonal therapy.

Vidyard Video

The neurokinin-3–receptor (NK3R) antagonist showed a significant reduction of 1.8-2.6 mean hot flashes daily from placebo in twice-daily dosing at the end of 12 weeks, despite a strong 55% response rate to placebo, Graeme Fraser, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

Once-daily dosing also significantly dropped the frequency of moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms by 2.1-2.6 events daily, compared with placebo at the end of 12 weeks.

“This phase 2b trial was really about looking at different dose levels and looking at the once-daily versus twice-daily dosing,” Dr. Fraser said in a video interview. “The efficacy of both, with regard to once-daily and twice-daily dosing, was clear.”

The investigators looked at doses ranging from 15 mg to 90 mg twice daily and 30-120 mg daily. Significant reductions in frequency of moderate to severe hot flashes were seen at all doses and frequencies at 4 weeks and 12 weeks.

A coprimary endpoint, vasomotor severity, was also significantly reduced at 12 weeks for the two highest twice-daily doses. Hot flash severity was similarly reduced at 12 weeks for the two highest once-daily doses.

The safety profile was generally good; there were no signs of suicidality, no changes in endometrial thickness judged by ultrasound or endometrial biopsy, and estradiol levels were unchanged. Plasma bone markers, other laboratory values, and electrocardiograms were also unchanged.

A total of nine women experienced asymptomatic elevations in liver enzymes without bilirubin elevation. Most of these elevations were below three times the upper limit of normal.

Across 51 study sites in the United States, a total of 352 women received one dose of study drug and were included in the safety analysis. Efficacy was analyzed for 349 women, and 287 (81%) were considered completers.

Women were included in the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study if they were naturally or surgically menopausal and aged 40-65 years, and experiencing at least 50 moderate to severe hot flashes weekly.

Fezolinetant acts on the KNDy neuron by replacing estrogen’s inhibitory effects. “Normally the firing is controlled by estrogen, but of course, in menopause, estrogen levels drop, and that control is lost,” explained Dr. Fraser. Fezolinetant exerts antagonism on the KNDy neuron’s NK3 receptor. “Why that’s important is that this neuron synapses at the thermoregulatory centers of the brain.”

Dr. Fraser said that discussions are underway with regulatory authorities to proceed to phase 3 clinical trials.

Dr. Fraser is a consultant to Astellas and was formerly a principal in Ogeda, the developer of fezolinetant. Ogeda is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Astellas, which funded the phase 2B trial.

[email protected]

CHICAGO – An elevated baseline D-dimer level is helpful to women and their physicians in clarifying decision making about oral hormone therapy for troublesome menopausal symptoms, Mary Cushman, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

She was lead investigator in a nested case-control study embedded in the landmark Women’s Health Initiative (WHI), which showed that participants who had a baseline D-dimer greater than 0.54 mg/L – putting them in the top 25% – and were randomized to oral menopausal hormone therapy had a 5-year incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) of 6%. That’s 500% higher than in women with a lower D-dimer randomized to placebo.

“The number needed to test for D-dimer in advance of prescribing in order to prevent one VTE over 5 years of hormone therapy was only 33. So this is potentially something in the toolbox you can use in counseling women about oral hormone therapy,” said Dr. Cushman, professor of medicine and pathology and medical director of the thrombosis and hemostasis program at the University of Vermont, Burlington.

The biomarker study included 1,082 WHI participants aged 50-79 years randomized to oral conjugated equine estrogen with or without medroxyprogesterone acetate or to placebo, 215 of whom experienced VTE during a mean 4.1 years of follow-up. Levels of a variety of biomarkers obtained at baseline were assessed in terms of their associated risk of future VTE. The biomarkers included C-reactive protein and procoagulant, anticoagulant, and fibrinolytic factors.

In a logistic regression analysis adjusted for age, race, body mass index, and hysterectomy, the strongest association with VTE was a high D-dimer. That 500% increased risk of VTE with hormone therapy in women with a D-dimer greater than 0.54 mg/L was comparable in magnitude with the risk Dr. Cushman and her coinvestigators previously reported for the combination of factor V Leiden and hormone therapy.

Dr. Cushman and her associates also took a first step towards developing a multibiomarker risk score. They found that WHI participants randomized to hormone therapy who had abnormal baseline values for any three or more of eight biomarkers had a 1,450% greater risk of future VTE than women with zero or one abnormal biomarker who were assigned to placebo. The eight-biomarker panel described in the recently published study comprised D-dimer, factor V Leiden, protein C, total protein S, free protein S, antithrombin, plasmin-antiplasmin complex, and fragment 1.2. However, the investigators indicated the risk score needs further study before it’s ready for adoption in clinical practice (Res Pract Thromb Haemost. 2018 Apr 17;2[2]:310-9).

Dr. Cushman noted that, although the main findings of the WHI have largely resulted in abandonment of menopausal hormone therapy for disease prevention, many women still want to take oral hormone therapy for relief of bothersome menopausal symptoms. She tries to steer them instead to safer nonoral formulations. Transdermal estrogen replacement has no associated risk of VTE and doesn’t activate anticoagulation. Neither does vaginal estradiol.

In offering what she called “the 30,000-foot view of the impact of venous thrombosis on women’s health,” Dr. Cushman noted that VTE is the third-most common vascular disease in the United States, with up to 900,000 cases per year. The lifetime risk in women after age 45 is 8.4%. Half of VTEs are provoked and therefore potentially preventable, with common triggers being surgery, cancer, pregnancy, trauma, and immobilization, especially during travel.

In addition, a retrospective study conducted in the Worcester, Mass., area showed that 1-month mortality after VTE remained static in the 5%-10% range during 1999-2009.

“This is a fatal disease, even though we treat it as an outpatient quite a lot,” Dr. Cushman observed.

Common nonfatal complications of VTE include major bleeding in 5%-10% of cases, a recurrence rate of 5%-10% annually, a 20%-40% of the burdensome and not infrequently disabling condition known as postthrombotic syndrome, and a 3%-4% incidence of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension. Yet despite the seriousness of VTE, awareness about VTE is poor among both patients and physicians, and appropriate prophylaxis is underutilized, she said.

The key to improved primary prevention of VTE, Dr. Cushman continued, is greater attention to modifiable behavioral risk factors, along with more use of prophylactic medication when needed.

The traditional cardiovascular risk factors, like hypertension, smoking, and hyperlipidemia, aren’t relevant to VTE risk. But obesity and sedentary lifestyle have come to be recognized as important modifiable risk factors. In one study of more than 30,000 Americans, the risk of VTE was shown to be reduced by 40% in individuals who exercised at least four times per week, compared with the physically inactive.

And in an analysis led by Dr. Cushman of nearly 21,000 participants over age 45 years with 12.6 years of follow-up in the Longitudinal Investigation of Thromboembolism Etiology (LITE), the investigators found that greater levels of all body size measures – not just body mass index, but calf circumference, waist-hip ratio, hip circumference, and others – were associated with increased VTE risk. These associations weren’t affected by levels of circulating biomarkers for inflammation or hypercoagulability, suggesting that it’s obesity per se, with its associated adverse impact on blood flow caused by physical factors, that explains the mechanism underlying obesity as a risk factor for VTE (Thromb Res. 2016 Aug;144:127-32).

At the meeting’s opening ceremonies, AHA President Ivor Benjamin, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, presented Dr. Cushman with the AHA Population Research Prize. She was honored for her “critically acclaimed research utilizing biomarker assessments in population studies to elucidate pathways of disease etiology for the three most common vascular diseases – coronary heart disease, stroke, and venous thromboembolism – as well as their risk factors,” said Dr. Benjamin.

Dr. Cushman reported having no financial conflicts regarding her D-dimer study, which was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

[email protected]

CHICAGO – An elevated baseline D-dimer level is helpful to women and their physicians in clarifying decision making about oral hormone therapy for troublesome menopausal symptoms, Mary Cushman, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

She was lead investigator in a nested case-control study embedded in the landmark Women’s Health Initiative (WHI), which showed that participants who had a baseline D-dimer greater than 0.54 mg/L – putting them in the top 25% – and were randomized to oral menopausal hormone therapy had a 5-year incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) of 6%. That’s 500% higher than in women with a lower D-dimer randomized to placebo.

“The number needed to test for D-dimer in advance of prescribing in order to prevent one VTE over 5 years of hormone therapy was only 33. So this is potentially something in the toolbox you can use in counseling women about oral hormone therapy,” said Dr. Cushman, professor of medicine and pathology and medical director of the thrombosis and hemostasis program at the University of Vermont, Burlington.

The biomarker study included 1,082 WHI participants aged 50-79 years randomized to oral conjugated equine estrogen with or without medroxyprogesterone acetate or to placebo, 215 of whom experienced VTE during a mean 4.1 years of follow-up. Levels of a variety of biomarkers obtained at baseline were assessed in terms of their associated risk of future VTE. The biomarkers included C-reactive protein and procoagulant, anticoagulant, and fibrinolytic factors.

In a logistic regression analysis adjusted for age, race, body mass index, and hysterectomy, the strongest association with VTE was a high D-dimer. That 500% increased risk of VTE with hormone therapy in women with a D-dimer greater than 0.54 mg/L was comparable in magnitude with the risk Dr. Cushman and her coinvestigators previously reported for the combination of factor V Leiden and hormone therapy.

Dr. Cushman and her associates also took a first step towards developing a multibiomarker risk score. They found that WHI participants randomized to hormone therapy who had abnormal baseline values for any three or more of eight biomarkers had a 1,450% greater risk of future VTE than women with zero or one abnormal biomarker who were assigned to placebo. The eight-biomarker panel described in the recently published study comprised D-dimer, factor V Leiden, protein C, total protein S, free protein S, antithrombin, plasmin-antiplasmin complex, and fragment 1.2. However, the investigators indicated the risk score needs further study before it’s ready for adoption in clinical practice (Res Pract Thromb Haemost. 2018 Apr 17;2[2]:310-9).

Dr. Cushman noted that, although the main findings of the WHI have largely resulted in abandonment of menopausal hormone therapy for disease prevention, many women still want to take oral hormone therapy for relief of bothersome menopausal symptoms. She tries to steer them instead to safer nonoral formulations. Transdermal estrogen replacement has no associated risk of VTE and doesn’t activate anticoagulation. Neither does vaginal estradiol.

In offering what she called “the 30,000-foot view of the impact of venous thrombosis on women’s health,” Dr. Cushman noted that VTE is the third-most common vascular disease in the United States, with up to 900,000 cases per year. The lifetime risk in women after age 45 is 8.4%. Half of VTEs are provoked and therefore potentially preventable, with common triggers being surgery, cancer, pregnancy, trauma, and immobilization, especially during travel.

In addition, a retrospective study conducted in the Worcester, Mass., area showed that 1-month mortality after VTE remained static in the 5%-10% range during 1999-2009.

“This is a fatal disease, even though we treat it as an outpatient quite a lot,” Dr. Cushman observed.

Common nonfatal complications of VTE include major bleeding in 5%-10% of cases, a recurrence rate of 5%-10% annually, a 20%-40% of the burdensome and not infrequently disabling condition known as postthrombotic syndrome, and a 3%-4% incidence of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension. Yet despite the seriousness of VTE, awareness about VTE is poor among both patients and physicians, and appropriate prophylaxis is underutilized, she said.

The key to improved primary prevention of VTE, Dr. Cushman continued, is greater attention to modifiable behavioral risk factors, along with more use of prophylactic medication when needed.

The traditional cardiovascular risk factors, like hypertension, smoking, and hyperlipidemia, aren’t relevant to VTE risk. But obesity and sedentary lifestyle have come to be recognized as important modifiable risk factors. In one study of more than 30,000 Americans, the risk of VTE was shown to be reduced by 40% in individuals who exercised at least four times per week, compared with the physically inactive.

And in an analysis led by Dr. Cushman of nearly 21,000 participants over age 45 years with 12.6 years of follow-up in the Longitudinal Investigation of Thromboembolism Etiology (LITE), the investigators found that greater levels of all body size measures – not just body mass index, but calf circumference, waist-hip ratio, hip circumference, and others – were associated with increased VTE risk. These associations weren’t affected by levels of circulating biomarkers for inflammation or hypercoagulability, suggesting that it’s obesity per se, with its associated adverse impact on blood flow caused by physical factors, that explains the mechanism underlying obesity as a risk factor for VTE (Thromb Res. 2016 Aug;144:127-32).

At the meeting’s opening ceremonies, AHA President Ivor Benjamin, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, presented Dr. Cushman with the AHA Population Research Prize. She was honored for her “critically acclaimed research utilizing biomarker assessments in population studies to elucidate pathways of disease etiology for the three most common vascular diseases – coronary heart disease, stroke, and venous thromboembolism – as well as their risk factors,” said Dr. Benjamin.

Dr. Cushman reported having no financial conflicts regarding her D-dimer study, which was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

[email protected]

CHICAGO – An elevated baseline D-dimer level is helpful to women and their physicians in clarifying decision making about oral hormone therapy for troublesome menopausal symptoms, Mary Cushman, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

She was lead investigator in a nested case-control study embedded in the landmark Women’s Health Initiative (WHI), which showed that participants who had a baseline D-dimer greater than 0.54 mg/L – putting them in the top 25% – and were randomized to oral menopausal hormone therapy had a 5-year incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) of 6%. That’s 500% higher than in women with a lower D-dimer randomized to placebo.

“The number needed to test for D-dimer in advance of prescribing in order to prevent one VTE over 5 years of hormone therapy was only 33. So this is potentially something in the toolbox you can use in counseling women about oral hormone therapy,” said Dr. Cushman, professor of medicine and pathology and medical director of the thrombosis and hemostasis program at the University of Vermont, Burlington.

The biomarker study included 1,082 WHI participants aged 50-79 years randomized to oral conjugated equine estrogen with or without medroxyprogesterone acetate or to placebo, 215 of whom experienced VTE during a mean 4.1 years of follow-up. Levels of a variety of biomarkers obtained at baseline were assessed in terms of their associated risk of future VTE. The biomarkers included C-reactive protein and procoagulant, anticoagulant, and fibrinolytic factors.

In a logistic regression analysis adjusted for age, race, body mass index, and hysterectomy, the strongest association with VTE was a high D-dimer. That 500% increased risk of VTE with hormone therapy in women with a D-dimer greater than 0.54 mg/L was comparable in magnitude with the risk Dr. Cushman and her coinvestigators previously reported for the combination of factor V Leiden and hormone therapy.

Dr. Cushman and her associates also took a first step towards developing a multibiomarker risk score. They found that WHI participants randomized to hormone therapy who had abnormal baseline values for any three or more of eight biomarkers had a 1,450% greater risk of future VTE than women with zero or one abnormal biomarker who were assigned to placebo. The eight-biomarker panel described in the recently published study comprised D-dimer, factor V Leiden, protein C, total protein S, free protein S, antithrombin, plasmin-antiplasmin complex, and fragment 1.2. However, the investigators indicated the risk score needs further study before it’s ready for adoption in clinical practice (Res Pract Thromb Haemost. 2018 Apr 17;2[2]:310-9).

Dr. Cushman noted that, although the main findings of the WHI have largely resulted in abandonment of menopausal hormone therapy for disease prevention, many women still want to take oral hormone therapy for relief of bothersome menopausal symptoms. She tries to steer them instead to safer nonoral formulations. Transdermal estrogen replacement has no associated risk of VTE and doesn’t activate anticoagulation. Neither does vaginal estradiol.

In offering what she called “the 30,000-foot view of the impact of venous thrombosis on women’s health,” Dr. Cushman noted that VTE is the third-most common vascular disease in the United States, with up to 900,000 cases per year. The lifetime risk in women after age 45 is 8.4%. Half of VTEs are provoked and therefore potentially preventable, with common triggers being surgery, cancer, pregnancy, trauma, and immobilization, especially during travel.

In addition, a retrospective study conducted in the Worcester, Mass., area showed that 1-month mortality after VTE remained static in the 5%-10% range during 1999-2009.

“This is a fatal disease, even though we treat it as an outpatient quite a lot,” Dr. Cushman observed.

Common nonfatal complications of VTE include major bleeding in 5%-10% of cases, a recurrence rate of 5%-10% annually, a 20%-40% of the burdensome and not infrequently disabling condition known as postthrombotic syndrome, and a 3%-4% incidence of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension. Yet despite the seriousness of VTE, awareness about VTE is poor among both patients and physicians, and appropriate prophylaxis is underutilized, she said.

The key to improved primary prevention of VTE, Dr. Cushman continued, is greater attention to modifiable behavioral risk factors, along with more use of prophylactic medication when needed.

The traditional cardiovascular risk factors, like hypertension, smoking, and hyperlipidemia, aren’t relevant to VTE risk. But obesity and sedentary lifestyle have come to be recognized as important modifiable risk factors. In one study of more than 30,000 Americans, the risk of VTE was shown to be reduced by 40% in individuals who exercised at least four times per week, compared with the physically inactive.

And in an analysis led by Dr. Cushman of nearly 21,000 participants over age 45 years with 12.6 years of follow-up in the Longitudinal Investigation of Thromboembolism Etiology (LITE), the investigators found that greater levels of all body size measures – not just body mass index, but calf circumference, waist-hip ratio, hip circumference, and others – were associated with increased VTE risk. These associations weren’t affected by levels of circulating biomarkers for inflammation or hypercoagulability, suggesting that it’s obesity per se, with its associated adverse impact on blood flow caused by physical factors, that explains the mechanism underlying obesity as a risk factor for VTE (Thromb Res. 2016 Aug;144:127-32).

At the meeting’s opening ceremonies, AHA President Ivor Benjamin, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, presented Dr. Cushman with the AHA Population Research Prize. She was honored for her “critically acclaimed research utilizing biomarker assessments in population studies to elucidate pathways of disease etiology for the three most common vascular diseases – coronary heart disease, stroke, and venous thromboembolism – as well as their risk factors,” said Dr. Benjamin.

Dr. Cushman reported having no financial conflicts regarding her D-dimer study, which was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

[email protected]

Expert Commentary

Bhupathiraju SN, Grodstein F, Stampfer MJ, et al. Vaginal estrogen use and chronic disease risk in the Nurses’ Health Study. Menopause. December 17, 2018. doi: 10.1097/GME.0000000000001284.

GSM, a chronic and often progressive condition, occurs in almost 50% of postmenopausal women and has been shown to impair sexual function and quality of life.¹ Symptoms include vaginal dryness, vulvar or vaginal itching, dyspareunia, urinary urgency or frequency, and increased urinary tract infections. Although lubricants or vaginal moisturizers may be sufficient to treat GSM, targeted hormonal therapy may be needed to improve the symptoms and resolve the underlying cause, due to vaginal hormone loss.

Despite lack of any observational or clinical trial evidence for chronic health disease risks related to low-dose vaginal estrogen use, there remains an US Food and Drug Administration boxed warning on the package label for low-dose vaginal estrogen related to risks of heart disease, stroke, venous thromboembolism, pdementia, and breast cancer. The objective of the investigation by Bhupathiraju and colleagues was to evaluate associations between vaginal estrogen use and health outcomes, including CVD (myocardial infarction, stroke, and pulmonary embolism/deep vein thrombosis), cancer (total invasive, breast, endometrial, ovarian, and colorectal), and hip fracture.

Details of the study

The prospective analysis included 896 postmenopausal current users of vaginal estrogen in the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS; 1982­­–2012), compared with 52,901 nonusers. Eighteen years of follow-up was evaluated. Users of systemic hormone therapy were excluded from the analysis. For the NHS, self-reported data were collected every 2 years on questionnaires for vaginal estrogen use and health outcomes. Investigators used medical records to confirm health outcomes.

After adjusting for covariates, no significant differences in risks were found for CVD, cancer, and hip fracture between users and nonusers of vaginal estrogen, regardless of hysterectomy status.

Key findings

After adjusting for multiple variables (including age, race, physical activity, age at menopause, hysterectomy, aspirin use, parental history of cancer, etc), health outcomes for CVDs, all cancers, and hip fracture were:

• myocardial infarction: hazard ratio (HR), 0.73 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47–1.13)
• stroke: HR, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.56–1.29)
• pulmonary embolism/deep vein thrombosis: HR, 1.06 (95% CI, 0.58–1.93)
• hip fracture: HR, 0.91 (95% CI, 0.60–1.38)
• all cancers: HR, 1.05 (95% CI, 0.89–1.25).

Continue to: Health outcomes for specific invasive cancers

Health outcomes for specific invasive cancers (risk for endometrial cancer included only women with an intact uterus) were:

• invasive breast cancer: HR, 1.07 (95% CI, 0.78–1.47)
• ovarian cancer: HR, 1.17 (95% CI, 0.52–2.65)
• endometrial cancer: HR, 1.62 (95% CI, 0.88–2.97)
• colorectal cancer: HR, 0.77 (95% CI, 0.45–1.34).

Study strengths and weaknesses

A causal relationship cannot be proven as the study was observational. However, a strength included the 18 years of follow-up. Women used vaginal estrogen for an average of 3 years, which provided longer-term safety data than available 12-month clinical trial data. Data were collected through self-report on questionnaires every 2 years, which is a drawback; however, participants were registered nurses, who have been shown to provide reliable health-related information. Comparisons between therapies were not possible as data were not collected about type or dosage of vaginal estrogen. Available therapies during the NHS included vaginal estrogen tablets, creams, and an estradiol ring, with higher doses available during earlier parts of the study than the lower doses commonly prescribed in current day.

Overall

The findings from this long-term follow-up of the NHS provide support for the safety of vaginal estrogen for treatment of GSM. No statistically significant increased health risks were found for users of vaginal estrogen, similar to earlier reported findings from the large Women’s Health Initiative.² Low-dose vaginal estrogen is recommended for treatment of GSM by The North American Menopause Society, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Endocrine Society.

Absorption of low-dose vaginal estrogen preparations appears minimal, and they are effective and generally safe for the treatment of GSM for women at any age. Progesterone is not recommended with low-dose vaginal estrogen therapies, based primarily on randomized clinical trial safety data of 12 months.³ Postmenopausal bleeding, however, needs to be thoroughly evaluated. For women with breast cancer, include the oncologist in decision making about the use of low-dose vaginal estrogen.

Expert Commentary

Bhupathiraju SN, Grodstein F, Stampfer MJ, et al. Vaginal estrogen use and chronic disease risk in the Nurses’ Health Study. Menopause. December 17, 2018. doi: 10.1097/GME.0000000000001284.

GSM, a chronic and often progressive condition, occurs in almost 50% of postmenopausal women and has been shown to impair sexual function and quality of life.¹ Symptoms include vaginal dryness, vulvar or vaginal itching, dyspareunia, urinary urgency or frequency, and increased urinary tract infections. Although lubricants or vaginal moisturizers may be sufficient to treat GSM, targeted hormonal therapy may be needed to improve the symptoms and resolve the underlying cause, due to vaginal hormone loss.

Despite lack of any observational or clinical trial evidence for chronic health disease risks related to low-dose vaginal estrogen use, there remains an US Food and Drug Administration boxed warning on the package label for low-dose vaginal estrogen related to risks of heart disease, stroke, venous thromboembolism, pdementia, and breast cancer. The objective of the investigation by Bhupathiraju and colleagues was to evaluate associations between vaginal estrogen use and health outcomes, including CVD (myocardial infarction, stroke, and pulmonary embolism/deep vein thrombosis), cancer (total invasive, breast, endometrial, ovarian, and colorectal), and hip fracture.

Details of the study

The prospective analysis included 896 postmenopausal current users of vaginal estrogen in the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS; 1982­­–2012), compared with 52,901 nonusers. Eighteen years of follow-up was evaluated. Users of systemic hormone therapy were excluded from the analysis. For the NHS, self-reported data were collected every 2 years on questionnaires for vaginal estrogen use and health outcomes. Investigators used medical records to confirm health outcomes.

After adjusting for covariates, no significant differences in risks were found for CVD, cancer, and hip fracture between users and nonusers of vaginal estrogen, regardless of hysterectomy status.

Key findings

After adjusting for multiple variables (including age, race, physical activity, age at menopause, hysterectomy, aspirin use, parental history of cancer, etc), health outcomes for CVDs, all cancers, and hip fracture were:

• myocardial infarction: hazard ratio (HR), 0.73 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47–1.13)
• stroke: HR, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.56–1.29)
• pulmonary embolism/deep vein thrombosis: HR, 1.06 (95% CI, 0.58–1.93)
• hip fracture: HR, 0.91 (95% CI, 0.60–1.38)
• all cancers: HR, 1.05 (95% CI, 0.89–1.25).

Continue to: Health outcomes for specific invasive cancers

Health outcomes for specific invasive cancers (risk for endometrial cancer included only women with an intact uterus) were:

• invasive breast cancer: HR, 1.07 (95% CI, 0.78–1.47)
• ovarian cancer: HR, 1.17 (95% CI, 0.52–2.65)
• endometrial cancer: HR, 1.62 (95% CI, 0.88–2.97)
• colorectal cancer: HR, 0.77 (95% CI, 0.45–1.34).

Study strengths and weaknesses

A causal relationship cannot be proven as the study was observational. However, a strength included the 18 years of follow-up. Women used vaginal estrogen for an average of 3 years, which provided longer-term safety data than available 12-month clinical trial data. Data were collected through self-report on questionnaires every 2 years, which is a drawback; however, participants were registered nurses, who have been shown to provide reliable health-related information. Comparisons between therapies were not possible as data were not collected about type or dosage of vaginal estrogen. Available therapies during the NHS included vaginal estrogen tablets, creams, and an estradiol ring, with higher doses available during earlier parts of the study than the lower doses commonly prescribed in current day.

Overall

The findings from this long-term follow-up of the NHS provide support for the safety of vaginal estrogen for treatment of GSM. No statistically significant increased health risks were found for users of vaginal estrogen, similar to earlier reported findings from the large Women’s Health Initiative.² Low-dose vaginal estrogen is recommended for treatment of GSM by The North American Menopause Society, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Endocrine Society.

Absorption of low-dose vaginal estrogen preparations appears minimal, and they are effective and generally safe for the treatment of GSM for women at any age. Progesterone is not recommended with low-dose vaginal estrogen therapies, based primarily on randomized clinical trial safety data of 12 months.³ Postmenopausal bleeding, however, needs to be thoroughly evaluated. For women with breast cancer, include the oncologist in decision making about the use of low-dose vaginal estrogen.

Expert Commentary

Bhupathiraju SN, Grodstein F, Stampfer MJ, et al. Vaginal estrogen use and chronic disease risk in the Nurses’ Health Study. Menopause. December 17, 2018. doi: 10.1097/GME.0000000000001284.

GSM, a chronic and often progressive condition, occurs in almost 50% of postmenopausal women and has been shown to impair sexual function and quality of life.¹ Symptoms include vaginal dryness, vulvar or vaginal itching, dyspareunia, urinary urgency or frequency, and increased urinary tract infections. Although lubricants or vaginal moisturizers may be sufficient to treat GSM, targeted hormonal therapy may be needed to improve the symptoms and resolve the underlying cause, due to vaginal hormone loss.

Despite lack of any observational or clinical trial evidence for chronic health disease risks related to low-dose vaginal estrogen use, there remains an US Food and Drug Administration boxed warning on the package label for low-dose vaginal estrogen related to risks of heart disease, stroke, venous thromboembolism, pdementia, and breast cancer. The objective of the investigation by Bhupathiraju and colleagues was to evaluate associations between vaginal estrogen use and health outcomes, including CVD (myocardial infarction, stroke, and pulmonary embolism/deep vein thrombosis), cancer (total invasive, breast, endometrial, ovarian, and colorectal), and hip fracture.

Details of the study

The prospective analysis included 896 postmenopausal current users of vaginal estrogen in the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS; 1982­­–2012), compared with 52,901 nonusers. Eighteen years of follow-up was evaluated. Users of systemic hormone therapy were excluded from the analysis. For the NHS, self-reported data were collected every 2 years on questionnaires for vaginal estrogen use and health outcomes. Investigators used medical records to confirm health outcomes.

After adjusting for covariates, no significant differences in risks were found for CVD, cancer, and hip fracture between users and nonusers of vaginal estrogen, regardless of hysterectomy status.

Key findings

After adjusting for multiple variables (including age, race, physical activity, age at menopause, hysterectomy, aspirin use, parental history of cancer, etc), health outcomes for CVDs, all cancers, and hip fracture were:

• myocardial infarction: hazard ratio (HR), 0.73 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47–1.13)
• stroke: HR, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.56–1.29)
• pulmonary embolism/deep vein thrombosis: HR, 1.06 (95% CI, 0.58–1.93)
• hip fracture: HR, 0.91 (95% CI, 0.60–1.38)
• all cancers: HR, 1.05 (95% CI, 0.89–1.25).

Continue to: Health outcomes for specific invasive cancers

Health outcomes for specific invasive cancers (risk for endometrial cancer included only women with an intact uterus) were:

• invasive breast cancer: HR, 1.07 (95% CI, 0.78–1.47)
• ovarian cancer: HR, 1.17 (95% CI, 0.52–2.65)
• endometrial cancer: HR, 1.62 (95% CI, 0.88–2.97)
• colorectal cancer: HR, 0.77 (95% CI, 0.45–1.34).

Study strengths and weaknesses

A causal relationship cannot be proven as the study was observational. However, a strength included the 18 years of follow-up. Women used vaginal estrogen for an average of 3 years, which provided longer-term safety data than available 12-month clinical trial data. Data were collected through self-report on questionnaires every 2 years, which is a drawback; however, participants were registered nurses, who have been shown to provide reliable health-related information. Comparisons between therapies were not possible as data were not collected about type or dosage of vaginal estrogen. Available therapies during the NHS included vaginal estrogen tablets, creams, and an estradiol ring, with higher doses available during earlier parts of the study than the lower doses commonly prescribed in current day.

Overall

The findings from this long-term follow-up of the NHS provide support for the safety of vaginal estrogen for treatment of GSM. No statistically significant increased health risks were found for users of vaginal estrogen, similar to earlier reported findings from the large Women’s Health Initiative.² Low-dose vaginal estrogen is recommended for treatment of GSM by The North American Menopause Society, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Endocrine Society.

Absorption of low-dose vaginal estrogen preparations appears minimal, and they are effective and generally safe for the treatment of GSM for women at any age. Progesterone is not recommended with low-dose vaginal estrogen therapies, based primarily on randomized clinical trial safety data of 12 months.³ Postmenopausal bleeding, however, needs to be thoroughly evaluated. For women with breast cancer, include the oncologist in decision making about the use of low-dose vaginal estrogen.