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.

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.

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.

[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.

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.

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.

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.

Progestogen Hypersensitivity.

Progestogen hypersensitivity (PH) is a heterogeneous disease characterized by diverse cutaneous manifestations, bronchospasm, and/or anaphylaxis. Possible triggers include ovarian progesterone and exogenous progestogens. The timing of symptoms is critical to diagnose PH: during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle for the endogenous form and after exposure to progestins for exogenous PH. Diagnostic modalities such as progesterone skin testing have low sensitivity and specificity for PH. When exogenous PH is suspected, the allergist should consider a progestogen challenge. Treatment strategies should be tailored for each patient, including symptom-directed therapies, ovulation suppression, and progesterone desensitization. Future studies should explore the mechanisms of PH, validation of diagnostic criteria, and standardization of treatment strategies.

Former long-term use of combined hormonal contraception and glucose metabolism disorders in perimenopausal women: A prospective, population-based cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Current use of combined hormonal contraceptives worsens glucose tolerance and increases the risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus at late fertile age, but the impact of their former use on the risk of glucose metabolism disorders is still controversial. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a prospective, longitudinal birth cohort study with long-term follow-up consisting of 5889 women. The cohort population has been followed at birth, and at ages of 1, 14, 31 and 46. In total, 3280 (55.7%) women were clinically examined and 2780 also underwent a 2-h oral glucose tolerance test at age 46. Glucose metabolism indices were analyzed in former combined hormonal contraceptive users (n = 1371) and former progestin-only contraceptive users (n = 52) and in women with no history of hormonal contraceptive use (n = 253). RESULTS: Compared with women with no history of hormonal contraceptive use, those who formerly used combined hormonal contraceptives for over 10 years had an increased risk of prediabetes (odds ratio [OR] 3.9, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.6-9.2) but not of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Former progestin-only contraceptive use was not associated with any glucose metabolism disorders. The results persisted after adjusting for socioeconomic status, smoking, alcohol consumption, parity, body mass index and use of cholesterol-lowering medication. CONCLUSIONS: Former long-term use of combined hormonal contraceptives was associated with a significantly increased risk of prediabetes in perimenopausal women, which potentially indicates a need of screening for glucose metabolism disorders in these women.

Menopausal hormone therapy and dementia: nationwide, nested case-control study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the association between use of menopausal hormone therapy and development of dementia according to type of hormone treatment, duration of use, and age at usage. DESIGN: Nationwide, nested case-control study. SETTING: Denmark through national registries. PARTICIPANTS: 5589 incident cases of dementia and 55 890 age matched controls were identified between 2000 and 2018 from a population of all Danish women aged 50-60 years in 2000 with no history of dementia or contraindications for use of menopausal hormone therapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Adjusted hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals for all cause dementia defined by a first time diagnosis or first time use of dementia specific medication. RESULTS: Compared with people who had never used treatment, people who had received oestrogen-progestogen therapy had an increased rate of all cause dementia (hazard ratio 1.24 (95% confidence interval 1.17 to 1.33)). Increasing durations of use yielded higher hazard ratios, ranging from 1.21 (1.09 to 1.35) for one year or less of use to 1.74 (1.45 to 2.10) for more than 12 years of use. Oestrogen-progestogen therapy was positively associated with development of dementia for both continuous (1.31 (1.18 to 1.46)) and cyclic (1.24 (1.13 to 1.35)) regimens. Associations persisted in women who received treatment at the age 55 years or younger (1.24 (1.11 to 1.40)). Findings persisted when restricted to late onset dementia (1.21 (1.12 to 1.30)) and Alzheimer's disease (1.22 (1.07 to 1.39)). CONCLUSIONS: Menopausal hormone therapy was positively associated with development of all cause dementia and Alzheimer's disease, even in women who received treatment at the age of 55 years or younger. The increased rate of dementia was similar between continuous and cyclic treatment. Further studies are warranted to determine whether these findings represent an actual effect of menopausal hormone therapy on dementia risk, or whether they reflect an underlying predisposition in women in need of these treatments.

Retrospective Analysis of Sugammadex Use in Adolescent Females on Progestin-Containing Contraceptives.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Sugammadex, a novel neuromuscular blockade reversal agent, functions as a steroid binder postulated to decrease hormone exposure used within progestin-containing contraceptive medications. Thus, alternative non-medication contraceptive methods are recommended to prevent unplanned pregnancies. The study aims were to evaluate sugammadex use in adolescent females prescribed a progestin-containing contraceptive and positive pregnancy screening frequency. We hypothesized that sugammadex use is infrequent in this population and no pregnancy screens would be positive. METHODS: This is a retrospective observational cohort study utilizing the TriNetX electronic health record database of female subjects aged 12-21 years reported to be prescribed sugammadex. The data collected were analyzed for demographic characteristics, International Classification of Diseases 9th and 10th edition diagnostics, medication, procedural codes, progestin-containing medication timing, and timing of pregnancy screening. RESULTS: We included 18,686 subjects (contraceptive group, 2017 [10.8%], and no contraceptive group, 16,669 [89.2%]). Both groups had similar frequencies of pregnancy screening (contraceptive group, 54 [2.7%], vs no contraceptive group, 366 [2.2%]). Of the contraceptive group, 1 (0.05%) subject, 17 years of age, was confirmed to have a positive pregnancy screen 35 days after surgery. CONCLUSION: We found that sugammadex may be administered to adolescent females prescribed progestin-containing contraceptives, but positive pregnancy screens are rare. Effective counseling, use of nonhormonal contraceptives 7 days after sugammadex administration, and the theoretical reproductive risks of this agent may have contributed to these findings. Continued counseling after sugammadex use in the adolescent population is recommended to avoid the occurrence of unplanned pregnancies.