Risks and benefits of hormone therapy after menopause for cognitive decline and dementia: A conceptual review.

OBJECTIVE: The effects on the brain of hormone therapy after the onset of menopause remain uncertain. The effects may be beneficial, neutral, or harmful. We provide a conceptual review of the evidence. METHODS: We 1) provide a brief history of the evidence, 2) discuss some of the interpretations of the evidence, 3) discuss the importance of age at menopause, type of menopause, and presence of vasomotor symptoms, and 4) provide some clinical recommendations. RESULTS: The evidence and the beliefs about hormone therapy and dementia have changed over the last 30 years or more. Five recent observation studies suggested that hormone therapy is associated with an increased risk of dementia, and the association appears not to change with the timing of initiation of therapy. These harmful associations may be explained by a causal effect of hormone therapy on the brain or by several confounding mechanisms. We suggest that the use of hormone therapy should be customized for different subgroups of women. It may be important to subgroup women based on age at onset of menopause, type of menopause, and presence or absence of vasomotor symptoms. In addition, the effects may vary by type, dose, route, and duration of administration of estrogens and by the concurrent use of progestogens. DISCUSSION: The relation of hormone therapy with the risk of dementia is complex. Hormone therapy may have beneficial, neutral, or harmful effects on the brain. Hormone therapy should be guided by the clinical characteristics of the women being treated.

Use of menopausal hormone therapy beyond age 65 years and its effects on women's health outcomes by types, routes, and doses.

OBJECTIVES: The study aims to assess the use of menopausal hormone therapy beyond age 65 years and its health implications by types of estrogen/progestogen, routes of administration, and dose strengths. METHODS: Using prescription drug and encounter records of 10 million senior Medicare women from 2007-2020 and Cox regression analyses adjusted for time-varying characteristics of the women, we examined the effects of different preparations of menopausal hormone therapy on all-cause mortality, five cancers, six cardiovascular diseases, and dementia. RESULTS: Compared with never use or discontinuation of menopausal hormone therapy after age 65 years, the use of estrogen monotherapy beyond age 65 years was associated with significant risk reductions in mortality (19% or adjusted hazards ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.79-0.82), breast cancer (16%), lung cancer (13%), colorectal cancer (12%), congestive heart failure (CHF) (5%), venous thromboembolism (3%), atrial fibrillation (4%), acute myocardial infarction (11%), and dementia (2%). For the use of estrogen and progestogen combo-therapy, both E+ progestin and E+ progesterone were associated with increased risk of breast cancer by 10%-19%, but such risk can be mitigated using low dose of transdermal or vaginal E+ progestin. Moreover, E+ progestin exhibited significant risk reductions in endometrial cancer (45% or adjusted hazards ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.50-0.60), ovarian cancer (21%), ischemic heart disease (5%), CHF (5%), and venous thromboembolism (5%), whereas E+ progesterone exhibited risk reduction only in CHF (4%). CONCLUSIONS: Among senior Medicare women, the implications of menopausal hormone therapy use beyond age 65 years vary by types, routes, and strengths. In general, risk reductions appear to be greater with low rather than medium or high doses, vaginal or transdermal rather than oral preparations, and with E2 rather than conjugated estrogen.

Menopausal hormone therapy and risk of venous thromboembolism: The story so far.

Menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) is known to increase the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), which includes deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and less frequently cerebral vein thrombosis, but the absolute risk for a given patient is very low. After starting MHT, the risk of VTE seems to be at its highest, declining to the non-HRT user baseline level of risk after stopping. Whether estrogen-only or estrogen-progestin HRT combination is linked to a similar risk of VTE is unclear from the available evidence. The aim of this study is to evaluate the risks of developing VTE in relation to different types as well as different modes of administration of MHT through a database search including PubMed, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, and others in order to provide the women carers with the up-to-date and evidence-based guidelines and recommendations while counseling the post-menopausal women enquiring on use of hormonal therapies either to alleviate the menopausal symptoms or to prevent the long-term sequelae of estrogen deficiency.

On sait que l'hormonothérapie ménopausique (MHT) augmente le risque de thromboembolie veineuse (TEV), qui comprend la thrombose veineuse profonde, l'embolie pulmonaire et, moins fréquemment, la thrombose veineuse cérébrale, mais le risque absolu pour un patient donné est très faible. Après le début du MHT, le risque de TEV semble être à son plus haut niveau, diminuant jusqu'au niveau de risque de base des non-utilisatrices de THS après l'arrêt. Les preuves disponibles ne permettent pas de savoir si un THS à base d'œstrogène seul ou d'association œstroprogestative est lié à un risque similaire de TEV. Le but de cette étude est d'évaluer les risques de développer une TEV par rapport à différents types ainsi qu'à différents modes d'administration du MHT grâce à une recherche dans des bases de données comprenant PubMed, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library et autres afin de fournir aux femmes les soignants avec les lignes directrices et recommandations à jour et fondées sur des preuves tout en conseillant les femmes ménopausées qui se renseignent sur l'utilisation de thérapies hormonales, soit pour soulager les symptômes de la ménopause, soit pour prévenir les séquelles à long terme d'une carence en œstrogènes.

Use of progestogens and the risk of intracranial meningioma: national case-control study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the risk of intracranial meningioma associated with the use of selected progestogens. DESIGN: National case-control study. SETTING: French National Health Data System (ie, Système National des Données de Santé). PARTICIPANTS: Of 108 366 women overall, 18 061 women living in France who had intracranial surgery for meningioma between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2018 (restricted inclusion periods for intrauterine systems) were deemed to be in the case group. Each case was matched to five controls for year of birth and area of residence (90 305 controls). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Selected progestogens were used: progesterone, hydroxyprogesterone, dydrogesterone, medrogestone, medroxyprogesterone acetate, promegestone, dienogest, and intrauterine levonorgestrel. For each progestogen, use was defined by at least one dispensation within the year before the index date (within three years for 13.5 mg levonorgestrel intrauterine systems and five years for 52 mg). Conditional logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratio for each progestogen meningioma association. RESULTS: Mean age was 57.6 years (standard deviation 12.8). Analyses showed excess risk of meningioma with use of medrogestone (42 exposed cases/18 061 cases (0.2%) v 79 exposed controls/90 305 controls (0.1%), odds ratio 3.49 (95% confidence interval 2.38 to 5.10)), medroxyprogesterone acetate (injectable, 9/18 061 (0.05%) v 11/90 305 (0.01%), 5.55 (2.27 to 13.56)), and promegestone (83/18 061 (0.5%) v 225/90 305 (0.2 %), 2.39 (1.85 to 3.09)). This excess risk was driven by prolonged use (≥one year). Results showed no excess risk of intracranial meningioma for progesterone, dydrogesterone, or levonorgestrel intrauterine systems. No conclusions could be drawn concerning dienogest or hydroxyprogesterone because of the small number of individuals who received these drugs. A highly increased risk of meningioma was observed for cyproterone acetate (891/18 061 (4.9%) v 256/90 305 (0.3%), odds ratio 19.21 (95% confidence interval 16.61 to 22.22)), nomegestrol acetate (925/18 061 (5.1%) v 1121/90 305 (1.2%), 4.93 (4.50 to 5.41)), and chlormadinone acetate (628/18 061 (3.5%) v 946/90 305 (1.0%), 3.87 (3.48 to 4.30)), which were used as positive controls for use. CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged use of medrogestone, medroxyprogesterone acetate, and promegestone was found to increase the risk of intracranial meningioma. The increased risk associated with the use of injectable medroxyprogesterone acetate, a widely used contraceptive, and the safety of levonorgestrel intrauterine systems are important new findings.

Abnormal Uterine Bleeding Associated With Hormonal Contraception.

Abnormal uterine bleeding is a common and bothersome symptom in people using hormonal contraception, and it can lead to discontinuation of reliable methods of contraception and unintended pregnancies. Clinicians should counsel individuals about the potential for abnormal bleeding at initiation of the contraceptive method. After considering and excluding other potential causes of abnormal uterine bleeding, clinicians can offer treatment options specific to each hormonal contraceptive method. This article includes algorithms to help clinicians treat abnormal uterine bleeding in people using levonorgestrel intrauterine devices, depo-medroxyprogesterone acetate, progestin implant, progestin-only pills, and combined hormonal contraception. For patients with levonorgestrel intrauterine devices, physicians should first ensure that the device is correctly placed within the uterus, then consider nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs as a first-line treatment for abnormal uterine bleeding; estradiol can be used if nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are ineffective. For depo-medroxyprogesterone acetate or progestin implant users, combined oral contraceptives or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs may be considered. For patients using norethindrone progestin-only pills, changing to drospirenone progesterone-only pills may help reduce the bleeding. In people using combined hormonal contraception, it may be helpful to increase estrogen content from 20 mcg to 35 mcg per day, decrease the hormone-free interval (from seven to four or five days) in people using cyclic contraception, or start a trial of low-dose doxycycline. For continuous combined contraception users, adding a hormone-free interval of four or five days can help regulate bleeding patterns.

Hormonal Contraceptive Use Is Associated With a Decreased Incidence of Hypothyroidism.

OBJECTIVE: Hypothyroidism is one of the most common endocrine disorders affecting 5 to 10 times more women than men. Given this higher incidence in women, it is possible that hormonal differences or medications more commonly used by women may play a role in the risk of developing hypothyroidism. We hypothesized that hormonal contraception affects the risk of developing hypothyroidism. METHODS: Using the TriNetX database, we developed a case-control study and identified women aged 18 to 45 years in 4 distinct groups: (1) estrogen-progestin contraceptive (EPC) use, (2) progestin-only contraceptive (POC) use, (3) progestin-containing intrauterine device (IUD) use, and (4) controls. For each group, we ascertained data including the diagnosis of hypothyroidism, alcohol use, tobacco use, and body mass index. RESULTS: We identified 18 578 patients with sufficient data: EPC use, n = 5849; POC use, n = 5052; IUD use, n = 1000; and controls, n = 6677. A total of 118 individuals (1.8%) in the control group and 165 individuals (1.4%) who received hormonal contraception developed hypothyroidism. After using a logistic model to account for cofounding variables, all forms of hormonal contraception (EPC, POC, and IUD) had a protective effect against the diagnosis of hypothyroidism. POC and IUD uses had the greatest protective effect, with odds ratios of 0.14 and 0.12, respectively. EPC had a less pronounced but still significant effect, with an odds ratio of 0.30 (P < .001). CONCLUSION: This study of >18 000 women and the risk of developing hypothyroidism demonstrates a protective effect of hormonal contraceptive use. Our data, both unadjusted and adjusted using a logistic model to account for cofounding variables, suggest that the use of hormonal contraception, in any form, decreases the risk of developing hypothyroidism.

Progestins as a Contributing Factor to Hepatocellular Adenoma: A Case Series and Literature Review.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To explore the role of progestins as potential contributing factors for the development of hepatocellular adenoma (HA) METHODS: We describe 3 cases of adolescents and young adults who developed HA while on norethindrone (NET), as well as their management. In addition, we provide a comprehensive literature review on the association between progestins and HA. RESULTS: Since 1983, 16 cases of HA in patients on progestins have been reported. Ten patients were on NET and 5 on a prodrug of NET (4 on norethindrone acetate [NETA] and 1 on lynestrenol). One individual had a norgestrel implant. Eight subsequently ceased all hormones: 4 experienced a size reduction, and 3 had complete resolution of their HA. Among our patients, 1 ceased NET and instead had a levonorgestrel intrauterine device inserted, and another swapped from NET to oral medroxyprogesterone acetate. Both experienced complete resolution of their HA. The third ceased NET and underwent a hysterectomy, with size reduction of her HA. CONCLUSION: These cases and the literature review suggest an association between progestin exposure, in particular NET and its prodrugs, and the development of HA. The pathophysiology is unknown but may include peripheral conversion of NET and NETA to ethinyl estradiol or a specific action of 19-nortestosterone derivatives on hepatocytes, especially those with higher systemic doses compared with the levonorgestrel intrauterine device. There are no case reports relating to other forms of progestins, such as 17-hydroxyprogesterone, which may be important when considering alternative therapeutic options in females requiring effective menstrual management who have comorbidities.

Contraceptives and Thrombosis: An Intertwined Revolutionary Road.

The development of oral contraceptives (OCs) began in 1921 and continued in the following years until the first regulatory approval from the Food and Drug Administration was granted in 1960. However, it took several years to realize that OCs presented an important but not frequent risk of venous thrombosis. Several reports ignored this dangerous effect and only in 1967 the Medical Research Council clearly stated this as an important risk. Later, research led to the formulation of second-generation OCs containing progestins, which nevertheless presented an increased thrombotic risk. In early 1980s, OCs containing third-generation progestins were introduced into the market. Only in 1995, it became clear that these new compounds induced a higher thrombotic risk than that related to the second-generation progestins. It appeared clear that the modulating action of progestins was against the procoagulant activity of estrogens. Lastly, at the end of the 2000s, OCs containing natural estrogens and a fourth-generation progestin (dienogest) became available. The prothrombotic effect of those natural products was not different from that of preparations containing second-generation progestins. Moreover, research over the years has produced much data on risk factors associated with OCs use such as age, obesity, cigarette smoking, and thrombophilia. These findings allowed us to better assess the individual thrombotic risk (both arterial and thrombotic) of each woman before offering an OC. Furthermore, research has shown that in high-risk people the use of single progestin is not dangerous as far as thrombosis is concerned. In conclusion, the OCs road has been long and difficult but has led to a great and unthinkable scientific and social enrichment since the 1960s.

Breast cancer risk association with postmenopausal hormone therapy: Health Insurance Database in South Korea-based cohort study.

CONTEXT: Although many physicians have been concerned that the menopausal hormones used currently in clinical practice may affect the risk of breast cancer, there are currently few informative updated studies about the associations between menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) and the risk of breast cancer. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the association between the risk of breast cancer and MHT using the National Health Insurance Database in South Korea (HISK) cohort between 2002 and 2019 retrospectively. METHODS: Postmenopausal women over 40 years of age from 2003 to 2011 were selected as the subject population, and their follow-up data were collected until 2019. We analyzed the risk and mortality of breast cancer according to the type of MHT received, namely, tibolone, combined estrogen plus progestin by manufacturer (CEPM), oral estrogen, combined estrogen plus progestin by physician (CEPP), or topical estrogen. RESULTS: The risk of breast cancer increased in the CEPM group [hazard ratio (HR) 1.439, 95% CI 1.374-1.507, P-value < .001] in comparison with the non-MHT group. However, no significant associations were found between the use of tibolone, oral estrogen, CEPP, or topical estrogen and breast cancer risk in comparison with the non-MHT group (HR 0.968, 95% CI 0.925-1.012; HR 1.002, 95% CI 0.929-1.081; HR 0.929, 95% CI 0.75-1.15; HR 1.139, 95% CI 0.809-1.603). The mortality rate from breast cancer is lower in the MHT group in comparison with the non-MHT group, indicating that significant associations were found for tibolone, CEPM, and oral estrogen (HR 0.504, 95% CI 0.432-0.588; HR 0.429, 95% CI 0.352-0.522; HR 0.453 95% CI 0.349-0.588, P-value < .001). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the risk of breast cancer is increased by drugs in the CEPM group but not by tibolone, oral estrogen, CEPP, or topical estrogen. The mortality rate from breast cancer is lower with MHT (tibolone, CEPM, oral estrogen) than without MHT.

Menopausal hormone therapy increases the risk of gallstones: Health Insurance Database in South Korea (HISK)-based cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) increases the risk of gallstones and gallbladder cancer. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Data from the Korea National Health Insurance Corporation was obtained between January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2019. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were divided into MHT and non-MHT groups; the MHT group was analyzed in detail by dividing participants into tibolone, combined estrogen plus progestin by the manufacturer (CEPM) or physician (CEPP), oral estrogen alone, and topical estrogen subgroups. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The incidence of gallstones and gallbladder cancer was compared between the two groups. RESULTS: This study enrolled 1,004,034 and 381,711 patients in the non-MHT and the MHT groups, respectively. The incidence of gallstones was 2.6% in the non-MHT group and 3.4%, 2.6%, 3.4%, 3.2%, and 4.4% in the tibolone, CEPM, oral estrogen alone, CEPP, and topical estrogen groups, respectively. Cox proportional hazard analysis revealed that all hormones increased the risk of gallstones ([tibolone] hazard ratio [HR]: 1.347, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.309-1.387, [CEPM] HR: 1.146, 95% CI: 1.1-1.19, [oral estrogen alone] HR: 1.241, 95% CI: 1.18-1.305, [CEPP] HR: 1.164, 95% CI: 1.01-1.341, [topical estrogen] HR: 1.602, 95% CI: 1.295-1.983). However, the risk of gallbladder cancer did not change with any hormone therapy. CONCLUSIONS: All types of MHT including tibolone, increased the risk of gallstones. This risk was the highest with topical estrogen, which may be a result of selection bias due to concerns regarding the adverse effects of CEE and MPA.

Menopausal hormone therapy and central nervous system tumors: Danish nested case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Use of estrogen-containing menopausal hormone therapy has been shown to influence the risk of central nervous system (CNS) tumors. However, it is unknown how the progestin-component affects the risk and whether continuous versus cyclic treatment regimens influence the risk differently. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Nested case-control studies within a nationwide cohort of Danish women followed for 19 years from 2000 to 2018. The cohort comprised 789,901 women aged 50 to 60 years during follow-up, without prior CNS tumor diagnosis, cancer, or contraindication for treatment with menopausal hormone therapy. Information on cumulative exposure to female hormonal drugs was based on filled prescriptions. Statistical analysis included educational level, use of antihistamines, and use of anti-asthma drugs as covariates. During follow-up, 1,595 women were diagnosed with meningioma and 1,167 with glioma. The median (first-third quartile) follow-up time of individuals in the full cohort was 10.8 years (5.0 years to 17.5 years). Compared to never-use, exposure to estrogen-progestin or progestin-only were both associated with increased risk of meningioma, hazard ratio (HR) 1.21; (95% confidence interval (CI) [1.06, 1.37] p = 0.005) and HR 1.28; (95% CI [1.05, 1.54] p = 0.012), respectively. Corresponding HRs for glioma were HR 1.00; (95% CI [0.86, 1.16] p = 0.982) and HR 1.20; (95% CI [0.95, 1.51] p = 0.117). Continuous estrogen-progestin exhibited higher HR of meningioma 1.34; (95% CI [1.08, 1.66] p = 0.008) than cyclic treatment 1.13; (95% CI [0.94, 1.34] p = 0.185). Previous use of estrogen-progestin 5 to 10 years prior to diagnosis yielded the strongest association with meningioma, HR 1.26; (95% CI [1.01, 1.57] p = 0.044), whereas current/recent use of progestin-only yielded the highest HRs for both meningioma 1.64; (95% CI [0.90, 2.98] p = 0.104) and glioma 1.83; (95% CI [0.98, 3.41] p = 0.057). Being an observational study, residual confounding could occur. CONCLUSIONS: Use of continuous, but not cyclic estrogen-progestin was associated with increased meningioma risk. There was no evidence of increased glioma risk with estrogen-progestin use. Use of progestin-only was associated with increased risk of meningioma and potentially glioma. Further studies are warranted to evaluate our findings and investigate the influence of long-term progestin-only regimens on CNS tumor risk.

A new progestin-only pill (POP): the impact of drospirenone-only pill 4 mg 24 + 4 on coagulation markers and bleeding patterns.

PURPOSE: Progestin-only pills (POPs), compared to combined, are not associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism, but are associated with a poor cycle control. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of a new POP [4 mg drospirenone (DRSP) for 24 days with a 4-day hormone-free interval] on some coagulation markers (both procoagulant and fibrinolytic) and to describe its impact on bleeding patterns. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a prospective trial, based on serum evaluation of following coagulation markers and tests: Factor (F) X, F VIII, F V, INR, aPTT, Protein S and antithrombin III. A 'bleeding diary' was used to categorise women as having (1) unscheduled bleeding, (2) scheduled bleeding and (3) amenorrhoea. Thirty patients were followed for six 28-day intake cycles, with a follow-up at the end of the 3rd and 6th cycles. RESULTS: There was a significant decrease of F X (p = 0.03) (-5.7% at cycle 6). No significant changes have been observed for F VII, F V and INR. A significant increase in aPTT (p = 0.01 at 3 cycles), Protein S (p = 0.0006 at 3 cycles) and antithrombin III (p < 0.0001 at 3 cycles) was recorded. This non-deteriorating coagulation impact was associated with a significant and progressive reduction of days of scheduled and unscheduled bleeding in users between cycles 4 and 6 (from 1.3 ± 0.2 days at cycle 4 to 0.8 ± 0.1 days at cycle 6 and from 2.6 ± 0.4 days at cycle 4 to 0.6 ± 0.2 days at cycle 6, respectively, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: DRSP 24 + 4 use was associated with a non-deteriorating effect on coagulation markers and a significant progressive reduction of days of scheduled and unscheduled bleeding.

Contraception with DRSP 24 + 4 was associated with a non-deteriorating effect on coagulation markers and a significant progressive reduction of days of scheduled and unscheduled bleeding.

[Meningioma under progestin treatment : what attitude to adopt ?] / Méningiome sous traitement progestatif : quelle attitude adopter ?

The risks of meningioma associated with the use of cyproterone acetate at high doses (25 to 100 mg/day) have been known since 2007. Recently, two additional molecules have been incriminated: nomegestrol acetate and chlormadinone acetate. The higher the cumulative dose and the longer the treatment duration, the bigger the risk of meningioma (12-fold after 5 years of treatment for nomegestrol acetate, and 7-fold after 3.5 years of treatment for chlormadinone acetate). Nevertheless, these medications have many indications that demonstrate their importance in the daily practice of the general practitioner, of the gynecologist and of the reproductive endocrinologist. Therefore, caution is required when introducing a powerful progestin that is incriminated in the long term at high doses. If the benefit/risk balance favours the initiation of progestin therapy, it is recommended to use the minimal effective dose and to limit the duration of use. Clinical and brain imaging monitoring should also be performed. Finally, if a meningioma develops on progestin, it is recommended that any medication containing a progesterone agonist be suspended.

Les risques de méningiome liés à la consommation de l'acétate de cyprotérone à de fortes doses (25 à 100 mg/jour) sont connus depuis 2007. Récemment, deux molécules supplémentaires ont été incriminées : l'acétate de nomégestrol et l'acétate de chlormadinone. Le risque de développer un méningiome est d'autant plus important que la dose cumulée est grande et que la prescription se prolonge dans le temps (risque multiplié par 12 à partir de 5 ans de traitement pour l'acétate de nomégestrol, et multiplié par 7 à partir de 3,5 ans de traitement par acétate de chlormadinone). Néanmoins, ces médications possèdent de nombreuses indications témoignant de leur importance dans la pratique quotidienne du médecin généraliste, du gynécologue et de l'endocrinologue de la reproduction. Dès lors, la vigilance est de mise lors de l'introduction d'un progestatif puissant incriminé à long terme et à haute dose. Si la balance bénéfices/risques plaide en faveur de l'instauration d'un traitement par progestatif, il est recommandé d'utiliser la dose minimale efficace et d'en limiter la durée d'utilisation. Une surveillance clinique et par imagerie cérébrale systématique est vivement recommandée. Enfin, en cas de détection d'un méningiome, il est recommandé de suspendre toute médication contenant un agoniste de la progestérone.

Navigating a plethora of progesterone receptors: Comments on the safety/risk of progesterone supplementation in women with a history of breast cancer or at high-risk for developing breast cancer.

Progesterone and progestin agonists are potent steroid hormones. There are at least three major types of progesterone receptor (PR) families that interact with and respond to progesterone or progestin ligands. These receptors include ligand-activated transcription factor isoforms (PR-A and PR-B) encoded by the PGR gene, often termed classical or nuclear progesterone receptor (nPR), membrane-spanning progesterone receptor membrane component proteins known as PGRMC1/2, and a large family of progestin/adipoQreceptors or PAQRs (also called membrane PRs or mPRs). Cross-talk between mPRs and nPRs has also been reported. The complexity of progesterone actions via a plethora of diverse receptors warrants careful consideration of the clinical applications of progesterone, which primarily include birth control formulations in young women and hormone replacement therapy following menopause. Herein, we focus on the benefits and risk of progesterone/progestin supplementation. We conclude that progesterone-only supplementation is considered safe for most reproductive-age women. However, women who currently have ER + breast cancer or have had such cancer in the past should not take sex hormones, including progesterone. Women at high-risk for developing breast or ovarian cancer, either due to their family history or known genetic factors (such as BRCA1/2 mutation) or hormonal conditions, should avoid exogenous sex hormones and proceed with caution when considering using natural hormones to mitigate menopausal symptoms and/or improve quality of life after menopause. These individuals are urged to consult with a qualified OB-GYN physician to thoroughly assess the risks and benefits of sex hormone supplementation. As new insights into the homeostatic roles and specificity of highly integrated rapid signaling and nPR actions are revealed, we are hopeful that the benefits of using progesterone use may be fully realized without an increased risk of women's cancer.

Over-the-Counter Progestin-Only Oral Contraceptives.

This JAMA Patient Page describes progestin-only oral contraceptive pills, which recently have been approved to be sold over the counter.

Lack of evidence that progesterone in ovulatory cycles causes breast cancer.

A recent Perspective article asserted that progesterone secretion during ovulatory cycles is the cause of breast cancer. However, we challenge most of the evidence developed in this publication. First, there is a lack of evidence that progesterone is mutagenic for breast cells. Cause of a cancer should mean initiation by mutation, as opposed to promotion. Second, subclinical ovulatory disturbances occur rather frequently in normal-length menstrual cycles. Third, the authors attribute a potential carcinogenic effect to progesterone secreted during menstrual cycles but not to progesterone during pregnancy. They did not discuss breast cancer evidence from progesterone/progestin therapeutics. They argue that in genetic primary amenorrhea, a hypothetic lower risk of breast cancer could be due to the lack of progesterone, despite the progesterone/progestin in hormone replacements these women receive. Fourth, they advocate a regulatory effect of progesterone on several genes potentially involved in cancer genesis. In particular, they attribute a lower risk of breast cancer in women with Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome to a defect in the progesterone-stimulated Wnt4 gene. However, this defect is only present in a small subset. Thus, the postulated progesterone breast cancer risk is unconvincing, which we discuss point by point in this commentary.

Comparison of thromboembolism outcomes in patients with sickle cell disease prescribed hormonal contraception.

Patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) are at a risk of thromboembolism (TE), and use of hormonal contraception can further increase that risk. This study aims to assess patterns of hormonal contraceptive use and compare risk of contraception-related TE between combined hormonal contraceptives (CHCs) and progestin-only contraceptives (POCs). Patients with SCD aged between 12 and 44 years with a new prescription of a hormonal contraceptive in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Medicaid Analytic eXtract database (2006-2018) were followed up to 1 year. We identified 7173 new users: 44.6% initiated CHC and 55.4% initiated POC. Combined oral contraceptive pills (OCPs; 36.5%) and progestin-only depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (33.9%) were the most frequently prescribed agents. A total of 1.8% of contraception users had a new diagnosis of TE within 1 year of the first identified contraception prescription. There were no significant differences in TE event rates between CHC and POC users (17.2 and 24.7 events per 1000 person-years, respectively). In patients prescribed OCP, there were no differences in TE event rates based on estrogen dose or progestin generation. Transdermal patch had a 2.4-fold increased risk of TE as compared with that of OCP. Although limited by the retrospective study design and use of administrative claims data, this study found no significant differences in TE rates between new users of CHC and POC in patients with SCD. Careful evaluation of underlying TE risk factors should be considered for each patient with SCD before initiation of hormonal contraception.