Eligibility criteria for using menopausal hormone therapy in breast cancer survivors: a safety report based on a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IMPORTANCE: Menopause hormone therapy (MHT) effectively alleviates menopausal symptoms. However, it is generally not recommended for breast cancer survivors, although the scientific evidence is scarce. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to establish eligibility criteria for use of the MHT in breast cancer survivors based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. EVIDENCE REVIEW: We conducted exhaustive literature searches until June 2022 in MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, and EMBASE, using a tailored strategy with a combination of controlled vocabulary and search terms related to breast cancer survivors and MHT. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane and Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions tools. The quality of the evidence was graded according to grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations criteria (A, high; B, moderate; C, low; and D, very low). We categorized MHT use into four levels: category 1 (no restrictions on use), category 2 (the benefits outweigh the risks), category 3 (the risks generally outweigh the benefits), and category 4 (MHT should not be used). FINDINGS: A total of 12 studies met the eligibility criteria. Analysis of the three randomized clinical trials using combined MHT or tibolone revealed no significant differences concerning tumor recurrence (relative risk [RR], 1.46; 95% CI, 0.99-2.24). A combined analysis of randomized clinical trials, prospective, and retrospective trials found no elevated risk of recurrence (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.54-1.33) or death (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.38-2.19). The eligibility criteria for patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive tumors fell into categories 3B and 3C for combined MHT or estrogen alone and 4A for tibolone. For HR-negative tumors, the category was 2B and 2C. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Our findings suggest that MHT could be a viable treatment alternative for breast cancer survivors experiencing menopausal symptoms, especially those with HR-negative tumors. Personalized management is recommended for each peri/postmenopausal woman facing a diminished quality of life because of menopause symptoms. Further randomized trials are needed before considering changes to current standards of care.

Associations between Menopausal Hormone Therapy and Colorectal, Lung, or Melanoma Cancer Recurrence and Mortality: A Narrative Review.

Objective: to develop eligibility criteria for use in non-gynecological cancer patients. Methods: We searched all the articles published in peer-reviewed journals up to March 2021. We utilized the PICOS standards and the following selection criteria: menopausal women with a history of non-gynecological and non-breast cancer who underwent hormone replacement therapy (HRT) using various preparations (oestrogens alone or in combination with a progestogen, tibolone, or tissue selective oestrogen complex) and different routes of administration (including oral, transdermal, vaginal, or intra-nasal). We focused on randomized controlled trials as well as relevant extension studies or follow-up reports, specifically examining recurrence and mortality outcomes. Results: Women colorectal cancer survivors who use MHT have a lower risk of death from any cause than those survivors who do not use MHT. Women who are skin melanoma survivors using MHT have a longer survival rate than non-MHT survivors. There is no evidence that women lung cancer survivors who use MHT have a different survival rate than those who do not use MHT. Conclusions: MHT is safe for women who have a history of colorectal, lung, or skin melanoma cancers.

Eligibility criteria for Menopausal Hormone Therapy (MHT): a position statement from a consortium of scientific societies for the use of MHT in women with medical conditions. MHT Eligibility Criteria Group.

This project aims to develop eligibility criteria for menopausal hormone therapy (MHT). The tool should be similar to those already established for contraception A consortium of scientific societies coordinated by the Spanish Menopause Society met to formulate recommendations for the use of MHT by women with medical conditions based on the best available evidence. The project was developed in two phases. As a first step, we conducted 14 systematic reviews and 32 metanalyses on the safety of MHT (in nine areas: age, time of menopause onset, treatment duration, women with thrombotic risk, women with a personal history of cardiovascular disease, women with metabolic syndrome, women with gastrointestinal diseases, survivors of breast cancer or of other cancers, and women who smoke) and on the most relevant pharmacological interactions with MHT. These systematic reviews and metanalyses helped inform a structured process in which a panel of experts defined the eligibility criteria according to a specific framework, which facilitated the discussion and development process. To unify the proposal, the following eligibility criteria have been defined in accordance with the WHO international nomenclature for the different alternatives for MHT (category 1, no restriction on the use of MHT; category 2, the benefits outweigh the risks; category 3, the risks generally outweigh the benefits; category 4, MHT should not be used). Quality was classified as high, moderate, low or very low, based on several factors (including risk of bias, inaccuracy, inconsistency, lack of directionality and publication bias). When no direct evidence was identified, but plausibility, clinical experience or indirect evidence were available, "Expert opinion" was categorized. For the first time, a set of eligibility criteria, based on clinical evidence and developed according to the most rigorous methodological tools, has been defined. This will provide health professionals with a powerful decision-making tool that can be used to manage menopausal symptoms.

Effectiveness of an antioxidant preparation with N-acetyl cysteine, alpha lipoic acid and bromelain in the treatment of endometriosis-associated pelvic pain: LEAP study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of an antioxidant preparation with N-acetyl cysteine, alpha lipoic acid and bromelain on endometriosis-associated pelvic pain. STUDY DESIGN: Multicenter, open-label, non-comparative clinical trial in a representative sample of women with endometriosis-associated pelvic pain. RESULTS: In total, 398 patients with a mean age of 34.6 ±â€¯7.2 years were treated with a combination of N-acetyl cysteine, alpha lipoic acid and bromelain for 6 months. At baseline, 92.7% of the patients had pain intensity > 4 on the visual analogue scale (VAS); at 3 months of treatment, this percentage decreased to 87.2% (p = 0.074) and at 6 months the percentage was 82.7% (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Women with endometriosis who wish to become pregnant and are treated with a preparation containing N-acetyl cysteine, alpha lipoic acid and bromelain experienced a significant improvement in endometriosis-associated pelvic pain and required lower intake of rescue analgesics.

Development and validation of the SEC-QOL questionnaire in women using contraceptive methods.

OBJECTIVES: Develop and validate a Spanish society of contraception quality-of-life (SEC-QOL) questionnaire to assess the impact of contraceptive methods on the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of women. METHODS: SEC-QOL was developed following a standardized procedure including review of the literature, interviews with contraception users, and the administration of a pilot questionnaire to 187 women. SEC-QOL consists of 19 items and includes five dimensions. To validate the questionnaire, a multicenter, observational, prospective study was conducted in Spain. The following three study groups were defined: group A (n = 129) comprised women using effective contraceptive methods; group B (n = 251), comprised women about to start using an effective method; and group C (n = 73) comprised women using no or poorly effective contraception. All women attended baseline and final visits (4 ± 1 months). Participants completed the SEC-QOL, psychological well-being index, EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire, and perceived health state questionnaires. RESULTS: At baseline, women from group A had a better HRQOL in all SEC-QOL dimensions, except for breast symptoms. Heavier menstrual bleeding, more androgenic and breast symptoms, menstrual pain, and not using hormonal contraceptive methods were associated with lower HRQOL. SEC-QOL scores showed moderate correlations to psychological well-being index and slightly lower correlation to EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire scores. At follow-up, HRQOL had improved in all groups; most markedly in group B, which obtained an average effect size of 0.59. The minimum important difference was established as a 3.4-point change in the global SEC-QOL score. SEC-QOL obtained a Cronbach's α of 0.88 and an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.82. CONCLUSIONS: SEC-QOL is a valid, reliable, and sensitive to change questionnaire for use in daily clinical practice and future research projects on contraception.