Dangers of Hormone Replacment Therapy

I know there is solid literature on the the dangers of hormone replacement therapy during menopause and I'm surprised that there is neither discussion nor dissent on the page. I'm adding a few links here and will work on documenting them better so they can be incorporated into the page itself:

1) CBS News reported in 2003 that [1] at least one Women's Health Initiative study was halted because the therapy was correlated with an increase in breast cancer while providing no benefit against heart disease and stroke.

2) The Women's Health Initiative of the NIH has a comprehensive Q&A about the findings of their study: http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/whi/whi_faq.htm

References

  1. ^ http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/25/earlyshow/health/main560448.shtml

Amanda bee (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These studies showed Wyeth's proprietary preparations were dangerous. NIH-funded studies have shown that bio-identical esterified estrogens, for example, did not cause the clots caused by Wyeth's PremPro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.105.0.154 (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ad copy via censorship of Premarin / PremPro dangers

The fact that cancer rates dropped after women massively stopped taking Premarin and PremPro, with footnotes, has been removed.

Cancer rates massively dropped.


What's left now is this bowdlerized paragraph, with the salient drop in cancer rates deleted:

After the increased clotting found in the first WHI results was reported in 2002, a large number of women who had been taking the proprietary mixtures of equine estrogens and progestins studied (Prempro) ceased filling their prescriptions. Some simply stopped all hormones, and others switched to bioidentical hormones.[citation needed] The number of Prempro prescriptions filled was abruptly cut almost in half. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.142.251 (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about men?

Isn't there HRT for the andropause or for biological men whose levels are too low?--87.162.48.4 (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wyeth blanketed the scientific literature with pro- PremPro "Reviews" without revealing sponsorship.

Drug Maker Said to Pay Ghostwriters for Journal Articles By DUFF WILSON Published: December 12, 2008

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/12/business/13wyeth.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

... "One article was published as an “Editors’ Choice” feature in May 2003 in The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, more than a year after a big federal study called the Women’s Health Initiative linked Wyeth’s Prempro, a combination of estrogen and progestin, to breast cancer. The May 2003 article said there was “no definitive evidence” that progestins cause breast cancer and added that hormone users had a better chance of surviving cancer."

By covertly controlling the literature, Wyeth put itself in a position to obscure the risks of its proprietary equine xenoestrogens and chemically-altered progestins, and thus maintain market share by selling them through doctors who had not been impartially informed of the risks to women who were also in the dark.

Crucially, this body of controlled literature could be written to obscure the higher risks of Wyeth's proprietary preparations in comparison with bio-identical human hormone supplementation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.105.0.154 (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Menopausal hormone therapy” not “hormone replacement therapy" is the term now preferred by the NIH

According to the New York Times,

"The National Institutes of Health ultimately decided to start using the term “menopausal hormone therapy” instead of “hormone replacement therapy,” says Marcia L. Stefanick, a professor of medicine at the Stanford University medical school who was principal investigator on the Women’s Health Initiative study at her institution."[1]

References

  1. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/business/13drug.html?em=&pagewanted=all Menopause, as Brought to You by Big Pharma By NATASHA SINGER and DUFF WILSON Published: December 12, 2009

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.61.219 (talk) 23:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wyeth's documents reveal deflecting doctors and users from cancer concerns of PremPro

According to the New York Times, court documents obtained via freedom of information request paint Wyeth as company that

"over several decades, spent tens of millions of dollars on influential physicians, professional medical societies, scientific publications, courses and celebrity ads, inundating doctors and patients with a sea of positive preventive health messages that plaintiffs' lawyers say deflected users' attention from cancer concerns."

Over 13,000 people have sued Wyeth over cancer allegedly caused by Prempro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdcntx (talk • contribs) 22:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wyeth acted with reckless disregard to the risk of injury in marketing dangerous Premarin

Another Loss for Pfizer in Drug Suits

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/business/24wyeth.html?fta=y

By DUFF WILSON

Published: November 23, 2009


"... On Monday a jury in Philadelphia Common Pleas Court awarded $28 million in punitive damages to Donna Kendall of Decatur, Ill., whose breast cancer was found after she had taken hormone drugs for 11 years. The jury had already given her $6.3 million in compensatory damages.
Punitive damages in Pennsylvania require a finding of “wanton and reckless” conduct. The jurors heard testimony that Wyeth paid consultants and ghostwriters of medical journal articles to play down concerns about breast cancer, as well as testimony that Pharmacia did not study known risks. The punitive award was split $16 million for Wyeth and $12 million for Pharmacia.
After that ruling was made public, Sandra M. Moss, the judge who leads the complex litigation program at the Philadelphia court, unsealed a $75 million punitive damage award from last month in a case brought against Wyeth by Connie Barton of Peoria, Ill. She was also awarded $3.7 million in compensatory damages previously made public."


"... Esther E. Berezofsky, a lawyer for one of the women who won the awards in Philadelphia said Monday, 'This is just the tip of the iceberg.'
She said that in cases that had reached jury judgments, women with breast cancer had won damages in 10 of the 12 hormone drug cases, although many are on appeal. Ms. Berezofsky also said a federal appeals court decision in St. Louis this month had significantly improved plaintiffs’ chances of receiving punitive damages and winning appeals.
In that decision, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit overturned an award of $27 million for an Arkansas woman, citing improper testimony by an expert witness. But the court ordered a new trial on punitive damages. The judges’ ruling said 'there was sufficient evidence upon which a jury could conclude that Wyeth acted with reckless disregard to the risk of injury.'" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.61.214 (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TSEC - Tissue Selective Estrogen Complex

To whom it may concern,

There is no page on wikipedia about potential future HRT related therapies such as TSEC.

I don't know enough about TSEC nor do I have the time to write an article. But anything is greatly appreciated.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.29.19 (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike PremPro, which causes heart attacks & strokes, the study group receiving hormone replacement replacement with estradiol (a bioidentical hormone) and norethisterone acetate had lower risk of CAD ) - PMID 11486242

PMID 11486242

Sanderson, Haines, Yeung, Yip, Tang, Yim, Jorgensen, Woo.

Anti-ischemic action of estrogen-progestogen continuous combined hormone replacement therapy in postmenopausal women with established angina pectoris: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group trial.

J Cardiovasc Pharmacol.

2001 Sep;38(3):372-83.

Abstract

The benefit of treating postmenopausal women with established cardiovascular disease with combined estrogen-progestogen hormone replacement therapy (HRT) is controversial. This study investigated the effect of treatment with estradiol and norethisterone acetate on exercise tolerance and on the frequency and severity of ischemic attacks in postmenopausal women with stable angina pectoris. A total of 74 Chinese women were recruited for this 16-week double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. They were randomly allocated into two groups; one group received placebo/placebo/placebo and the other group received placebo/estrogen-progestogen/placebo. Estrogen-progestogen continuous combined HRT increased both time to 1-mm ST depression (99.1 s, p < 0.05) compared with a mean decrease of 22.9 s with placebo (p < 0.05), and total exercise duration also showed a significant increase (32.7 s, p < 0.05) after treatment compared with placebo (2.5 s, p < 0.05). In addition, the total number of ischemic events/24 h during ambulatory electrocardiographic monitoring decreased by 0.82 events after treatment (p < 0.05) compared with an increase in the placebo group (0.94), a highly significant difference (p = 0.006). These results suggest that the administration of this particular combined hormone replacement preparation may have a beneficial effect on myocardial ischemia in postmenopausal women with established coronary disease.

If the evidence provided by this large observational study showing the relatively lower risk of women receiving bioidentical progesterone is less than conclusive, it is evidence. And thus it undercuts the assertion that there is "no" evidence of a superior risk profile for bioidentical progesterone.

Ocdnctx (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Superior compliance and efficacy of continuous combined oral estrogen-progestogen replacement therapy in postmenopausal women. PMID 7503183

Comment: patient acceptance is directly related to quality of life, as well as improved health outcomes. The women on the continuous progestogen regimen had similar improvement in climacteric symptoms, with less discontinuation pointing to better higher quality of life (less bleeding). They also increased bone mineral density, while those in the intermittent progesterone or the placebo groups did not.

PMID 7503183

Dören, Reuther, Minne, Schneider

Superior compliance and efficacy of continuous combined oral estrogen-progestogen replacement therapy in postmenopausal women.

Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995 Nov;173(5):1446-51.

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität, Münster, Germany.


Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

We assessed compliance, relief of climacteric symptoms, and impact on lumbar bone mineral density in two groups of 140 patients treated with a sequential estrogen-progestogen or a continuous combined replacement therapy in comparison with controls.

STUDY DESIGN:

Patients were randomized to 2 mg of estradiol valerate daily and 5 mg of medroxyprogesterone acetate daily for 12 days per month sequentially to induce withdrawal bleeding (group A) or 2 mg of estradiol, 1 mg of estriol, and 1 mg of norethisterone acetate daily continuously to maintain amenorrhea (group B) or a control group (group C).

RESULTS:

Compliance was 93% after 1 year and 73% after 2 years in group B and 66% and 49% in group A after 1 and 2 years, respectively. Improvement of climacteric symptoms was similar in groups A and B. Uterine bleeding in 24% of patients in group A and 3% in group B was the most frequent reason for discontinuation of drug intake. Only continuous combined therapy (group B) increased bone mineral density after 1 and 2 years compared with baseline: +13% and 17% (p = 0.01). In groups A and C no significant changes in bone mineral density were recorded. Compliance was unrelated to the age of menopause.

CONCLUSION:

Continuous combined therapy is superior to sequential estrogen progestogen replacement in compliance and prevention of bone loss but not with regard to relief of climacteric symptoms.


—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdnctx (talk • contribs) 15:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before continuous combined therapy, complex hyperplasia was found in 21 women but all had normal histological results after nine months on continuous combined hormone replacement

"… Before the continuous combined therapy was started, complex hyperplasia was detected in 21 women who had taken sequential hormone replacement therapy before the study and in one who had taken unopposed oestrogen. All of these women had normal results on histological examination of endometrial tissue after nine months of treatment with continuous combined hormone replacement therapy, and hyperplasia did not recur after up to five years of treatment."

PMID 12153918

doi: 10.1136/bmj.325.7358.239

Full Free Text:

http://www.bmj.com/content/325/7358/239.1.full

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC117635/?tool=pubmed


Wells, Sturdee, Barlow, Ulrich, O'Brien, Campbell, Vessey, Bragg.

Effect on endometrium of long term treatment with continuous combined oestrogen-progestogen replacement therapy: follow up study.


Academic Unit of Pathology, Section of Oncology and Pathology, Division of Genomic Medicine, University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield S10 2RX, UK. m.wells@sheffield.ac.uk

BMJ. 2002 Aug 3;325(7358):239. Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

To determine effects of five years of treatment with an oral continuous combined regimen of 2 mg 17beta-oestradiol and 1 mg norethisterone acetate on endometrial histology in postmenopausal women.

DESIGN:

Follow up study in postmenopausal women. Setting: 31 menopause clinics in the United Kingdom.

PARTICIPANTS:

534 postmenopausal women, all with an intact uterus, who had completed nine months of treatment with oral continuous combined 2 mg 17beta-oestradiol and 1 mg norethisterone acetate agreed to take part in a long term follow up study. Women were assigned to different groups on the basis of the treatment status immediately before entering the original study: 360 women had taken sequential oestrogen-progestogen hormone replacement therapy, 164 had taken no hormone replacement therapy, and 10 had taken unopposed oestrogen therapy. Methods: Endometrial aspiration specimens were taken before the women started the continuous combined regimen, after 9 and 24-36 months, and at the end of the five year treatment period or on withdrawal from the study.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE:

Results of endometrial histology.

RESULTS:

The duration of treatment with continuous combined hormone replacement therapy was 4.4 (range 1.1-5.9) years. Data on endometrial specimens were available for 526 women after nine months of treatment, 465 women after 24-36 months of treatment, and 398 women who completed the five years treatment (345 women) or were withdrawn between the two latter visits for biopsies (53 women). No cases of endometrial hyperplasia or malignancy were detected at biopsy; 69% of women had an endometrium classified as atrophic or unassessable on completion of the study or withdrawal from it. Before the continuous combined therapy was started, complex hyperplasia was detected in 21 women who had taken sequential hormone replacement therapy before the study and in one who had taken unopposed oestrogen. All of these women had normal results on histological examination of endometrial tissue after nine months of treatment with continuous combined hormone replacement therapy, and hyperplasia did not recur after up to five years of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS:

Long term treatment (for up to five years) with continuous combined hormone replacement therapy containing oestradiol 2 mg and norethisterone 1 mg daily was associated with neither endometrial hyperplasia nor malignancy. In women who had complex hyperplasia during previous sequential or unopposed regimens, the endometrium returned to normal during treatment with continuous combined hormone replacement therapy. These findings provide reassurance about the long term safety of this continuous combined regimen in terms of the endometrium.

Comment in BMJ. 2002 Aug 3;325(7358):231-2. Full Free Text of Comment: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1123759/?tool=pubmed

Ocdnctx (talk • contribs) 15:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Cochrane review: hyperplasia risk low dose estrogen continuously combined with 1 mg norethisterone acetate or 1.5 mg medroxyprogesterone acetate is not significantly different from placebo

"Unopposed estrogen is associated with increased risk of endometrial hyperplasia at all doses, and durations of therapy between one and three years. For women with a uterus the risk of endometrial hyperplasia with hormone therapy comprising low dose estrogen continuously combined with a minimum of 1 mg norethisterone acetate or 1.5 mg medroxyprogesterone acetate is not significantly different from placebo (1mg NETA: OR=0.04 (0 to 2.8); 1.5mg MPA: no hyperplasia events)."

Furness, Roberts, Marjoribanks J, Lethaby A, Hickey M, Farquhar C.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Apr 15;(2):CD000402.

Hormone therapy in postmenopausal women and risk of endometrial hyperplasia.

PMID 19370558

Full Free Text: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD000402/frame.html;jsessionid=BA2F3152FB46AD13F3D77A151F87787C.d02t01

Obstetrics & Gynaecology, University of Auckland , 85 Park Rd, Grafton , Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand. suefurness@gmail.com

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Declining circulating estrogen levels around the time of the menopause can induce unacceptable symptoms that affect the health and well being of women. Hormone therapy (both unopposed estrogen and estrogen/progestogen combinations) is an effective treatment for these symptoms, but is associated with risk of harms. Guidelines recommend that hormone therapy be given at the lowest effective dose and treatment should be reviewed regularly. The aim of this review is to identify the minimum dose(s) of progestogen required to be added to estrogen so that the rate of endometrial hyperplasia is not increased compared to placebo.

OBJECTIVES:

The objective of this review is to assess which hormone therapy regimens provide effective protection against the development of endometrial hyperplasia and/or carcinoma.

SEARCH STRATEGY:

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group trials register (searched January 2008), The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2008), MEDLINE (1966 to May 2008), EMBASE (1980 to May 2008), Current Contents (1993 to May 2008), Biological Abstracts (1969 to 2008), Social Sciences Index (1980 to May 2008), PsycINFO (1972 to May 2008) and CINAHL (1982 to May 2008). Attempts were made to identify trials from citation lists of reviews and studies retrieved, and drug companies were contacted for unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA:

Randomised comparisons of unopposed estrogen therapy, combined continuous estrogen-progestogen therapy and/or sequential estrogen-progestogen therapy with each other or placebo, administered over a minimum period of twelve months. Incidence of endometrial hyperplasia/carcinoma assessed by a biopsy at the end of treatment was a required outcome. Data on adherence to therapy, rates of additional interventions, and withdrawals due to adverse events were also extracted.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:

In this substantive update, forty five studies were included. Odds ratios were calculated for dichotomous outcomes. The small numbers of studies in each comparison and the clinical heterogeneity precluded meta analysis for many outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS:

Unopposed estrogen is associated with increased risk of endometrial hyperplasia at all doses, and durations of therapy between one and three years. For women with a uterus the risk of endometrial hyperplasia with hormone therapy comprising low dose estrogen continuously combined with a minimum of 1 mg norethisterone acetate or 1.5 mg medroxyprogesterone acetate is not significantly different from placebo (1mg NETA: OR=0.04 (0 to 2.8); 1.5mg MPA: no hyperplasia events).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:

Hormone therapy for postmenopausal women with an intact uterus should comprise both estrogen and progestogen to reduce the risk of endometrial hyperplasia.

Update of

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(3):CD000402.

PMID 19370558

Ocdnctx (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JAMA study: Conjugated Equine Estrogen (CEE) group OR 1.78 higher for clots compared with bioidentical esterified estrogen group. PMID 15467060

Esterified Estrogens and Conjugated Equine Estrogens and the Risk of Venous Thrombosis

Conclusion
Our finding that conjugated equine estrogen but not esterified estrogen was associated with venous thrombotic risk needs to be replicated and may have implications for the choice of hormones in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women.

JAMA. 2004;292:1581-1587. Vol. 292 No. 13, October 6, 2004

FULL FREE TEXT:

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=199532

PMID 15467060

Move info here from Menopause?

There is a long section in the Menopause article about HRT as used for menopause. I don't currently know whether or not it contains some info that is not in this article. However, since we have this article and it is in pretty good shape, I am thinking that the section in the Menopause article should be cut down a lot, and the reader referred to this article for more info. Does anyone have an opinion on that suggestion? Would anyone who knows a fair amount about this topic like to make the transfer of info (or deletion of info) or like to help with that editing, assuming they think it is a good idea to do this? Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unequal risks for breast cancer associated with different hormone replacement therapies: results from the E3N cohort study PMC 2211383

Unequal risks for breast cancer associated with different hormone replacement therapies: results from the E3N cohort study

Progesterone, which is bioidentical, combined with estrogen, did not raise breast cancer risk (RR 1.00), in sharp contrast to most non-bioidentical progestagens (RR 1.69). The estrogen–dydrogesterone combination was closer to the risk of bioidentical estrogen, (RR 1.16)

Agnès Fournier, Franco Berrino, Françoise Clavel-Chapelon

"The association of estrogen-progestagen combinations with breast cancer risk varied significantly according to the type of progestagen: the relative risk was 1.00 (0.83–1.22) for estrogen–progesterone, 1.16 (0.94–1.43) for estrogen–dydrogesterone, and 1.69 (1.50–1.91) for estrogen combined with other progestagens."
...
"These findings suggest that the choice of the progestagen component in combined HRT is of importance regarding breast cancer risk; it could be preferable to use progesterone or dydrogesterone."


PMC 2211383

HALMS: HALMS201813

estrogen alone use by postmenopausal women with prior hysterectomy in the WHI trial did not substantially interfere with breast cancer detection and statistically significantly decreased the risk of breast cancer.

Underscores that the non-bioidentical progestin MPA used in the WHI study was the cause of the raised breast cancer risk seen in the women given MPA, and not the proprietary equine estrogen used (Premarin).


Rowan T. Chlebowski, Garnet L. Anderson

Menopausal Hormone Therapy and Breast Cancer

J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012;104(7):517-527.

Abstract

… In the WHI trial evaluating estrogen plus progestin in postmenopausal women with an intact uterus, combined hormone therapy statistically significantly increased the risk of breast cancer and hindered breast cancer detection, leading to delayed diagnosis and a statistically significant increase in breast cancer mortality. By contrast, estrogen alone use by postmenopausal women with prior hysterectomy in the WHI trial did not substantially interfere with breast cancer detection and statistically significantly decreased the risk of breast cancer. ...

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/761673

Strange title - is this "postmenopausal hormone therapy"?

Currently this Wikipedia article is titled, "Hormone replacement therapy (menopause)". Is this content about "postmenopausal hormone therapy"? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bluerasberry and Doc James, regarding this move, "hormone replacement therapy" is the WP:Common name for this topic. I addressed Medgirl131 about this last year. Given the common name, why should we go with "postmenopausal hormone therapy" as the title? Even "Menopausal hormone therapy" would be a better title since this therapy is not solely for postmenopausal women. I'd also like to know why Bluerasberry found the title odd, unless referring to the parentheses. I'm thinking that this needs to go through the WP:Requested moves process. Will link to the matter at WP:Med. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking that this article should either be titled "Hormone replacement therapy" (and that the Hormone replacement therapy page, which is hardly any different than a disambiguation page, should be moved to "Hormone replacement therapy (disambiguation)") or the article should be titled "Menopausal hormone therapy." But again, when sources state "hormone replacement therapy," they are usually talking about it in relation to menopause. Not in relation to transgender treatment or anything else. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Flyer22 Reborn moving to HRT sounds reasonable as that is the main meaning with the current HRT article moved to a disambig. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Flyer22 Reborn: I thought the parentheses were odd. I can support another title.
We have another article, Hormone replacement therapy, which is the placeholder for explaining the general concept and redirecting to other types of hormone replacement therapy. I just checked the audience traffic. The main article got about 15,000 views last month while each of the three subtopics got about 4,000 views last month. This is supporting evidence that the topic are of equal interest and that no one of them should get the article title "hormone replacement therapy" in favor of the others, assuming that all of them use this name.
I would agree to a move if anyone demonstrated a common name. I am not sure what names are used for this topic. Maybe "menopausal hormone therapy" works. "Postmenopausal hormone therapy" is a term in use but probably not a concept to separate from "menopausal hormone therapy". Here are some sources which use "postmenopausal hormone therapy":
This is a weak case for "postmenopausal hormone therapy". Google shows another paper cited by 670 others which uses "menopausal Hormone Therapy". Other popular and recent papers use that name, so that could be the right name. Should we go with "menopausal hormone therapy", or should we look more at the other hormone therapy concepts more to see which names are best for each of them? Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bluerasberry, look at the literature on "hormone replacement therapy." The overwhelming majority of the time that term is used, it's in reference to menopause. Even a simple search on regular Google shows this. The transgender aspect is not really "replacement therapy" since it's not replacing something that was there (at least when thinking of "replacement" as "restoration"). The transgender titles were recently changed so that they don't have "replacement" in them anyway. The only other listing on the Hormone replacement therapy page (which, again, is a page that is essentially a disambiguation page already) is androgen replacement therapy. It's easy to see that androgen replacement therapy is not what is usually meant by the words "hormone replacement therapy." I'm quite sure that the vast majority of our readers who look at the Hormone replacement therapy page are looking for the menopausal topic. On a side note: Since this page is on my watchlist, there is no need to ping me to it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Flyer22 Reborn: This issue is getting complicated. I can agree with you that the medical focus and use is about treatment of menopausal women. I am less certain about how to reconcile the traffic numbers. It could be that women are less likely to seek information about hormone therapy and that the popular media is directly lots of people to read about transgender issues.
Can you help me interpret the Wikipedia traffic? My read on this is that all these topics are of near equal popularity among our readers. If that is the case, and if all of these have lately been called "hormone replacement therapy", then I would want to see some reason about why to favor one topic over the others.
Our current taxonony is hormone therapy --> hormone replacement therapy --> menopause + transgender. I would not object to your sorting things out upstream to eliminate this downstream ambiguity, but while we are associating all these topics together as instances of hormone replacement therapy, I am not seeing a reason to make a choice. What do you think? Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bluerasberry, hey again. Like I noted before, there is no need to ping me to this page. I don't see this title topic as complicated. We should be adhering to WP:Common name and WP:Primary topic. I can cite source upon source that defines "hormone replacement therapy" as solely referring to menopause. What sources are there restricting hormone replacement therapy to transgender hormone therapy, or solely to androgen replacement therapy? What sources are there saying that all three fall under "hormone replacement therapy"? You stated, "The main article got about 15,000 views last month while each of the three subtopics got about 4,000 views last month." By "main article," I take it you mean the Hormone replacement therapy article? If so, that to me does not prove that the other two aspects are as popular. What that shows me is that "hormone replacement therapy," which almost always refers to menopause, is the far more popular topic. The other two topics (not three since this page is one of the three listings there) are simply not referred to as hormone replacement therapy (not usually). It makes sense to me that this page, without its common name title, would get views equal to the other two pages. I don't know what exactly is going on with the traffic, which might also be due to how we are using wikilinks for the hormone stuff, and I'd rather not go by our own original research on that. As you may remember, we did a test sometime back to see what the primary meaning of testosterone was, although I already knew what the primary meaning was and stated so. We can do the same in this case, by moving this article to "Hormone replacement therapy" and seeing which article gets the most views, but I'd rather not do a test. I'd rather just move the article. We can still observe, but yeah. Plus, after that, if someone is going to argue that "Hormone replacement therapy" gets the most views because editors are looking for the other two aspects as much as the menopause aspect, what's the point? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A quick inquiry with a famous web search engine indicates that, in the trans* context, "hormone therapy" is somewhat more common than "hormone replacement therapy". If "HRT" is reserved for the general concept, it would be possible to clearly disambiguate these pages with titles such as Postmenopausal hormone replacement therapy and Hormone therapy for transgender. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:54, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Flyer I need to leave this one to you. There is an on-wiki precedent for calling multiple treatments "hormone replacement therapy" but I do not see evidence that this was ever correct by the source material. I am too unsure to take a position on details but also I think any outcome to exit ambiguity and into more clear terms would be useful to readers.
I am committed to some other projects right now and cannot talk this through to the end. Even if I did carry this discussion further I suspect your position would be the correct choice at the end because you are making a good case from several directions. You have my support to proceed with the title changes you are recommending. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think hormone replacement therapy is a better title for this. Replacement seems to indicate the replacement of endogenous hormones. Trans hormone therapy is the administration of different hormones, and I don't think it referring to in the same way. Natureium (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
agree w/ Natureium--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James, it appears that we have a consensus to move the article to "Hormone replacement therapy." As for the one currently titled "Hormone replacement therapy," maybe it should be deleted since the other two listings there are not usually called that? Or maybe that article should be moved to "Hormone therapy"? Natureium, any thoughts on what to do with the other article? Should we call it "Hormone replacement therapy (disambiguation)," "Hormone therapy," delete it, or what? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy with whatever people decide. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's a sort-of list at Hormone therapy and I think merging the 2 would be best. Natureium (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Natureium, ah, so we already have a Hormone therapy article. I think I forget about that. So you are proposing that we merge the stuff currently seen at the Hormone replacement therapy article to the Hormone therapy article, and retitle "Postmenopausal hormone therapy" so that it's "Hormone replacement therapy"? If so, I agree. And, again, we have consensus to go ahead and rename this article "Hormone replacement therapy." Via email, I know that Medgirl131 would be okay with that too. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Doc James, per above, and as seen here and here, I merged the content that was in the Hormone replacement therapy article to the Hormone therapy article, and redirected "Hormone replacement therapy" here. All that is left to do is to retitle the "Postmenopausal hormone therapy" article "Hormone replacement therapy," and have "Postmenopausal hormone therapy" redirect here. This requires administrative action. I cannot do it myself. And there currently is no option for me to move this article anyway. I'm sure the option exists for administrators. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:13, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did you think about whether the talk pages should move as well? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move it aswell and add the three old comments below. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone and moved the old article/talk page history to preserve it at Hormone replacement and Talk:Hormone replacement. Graham87 10:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From old talk page

Hormone replacement therapy (testosterone)

Just to serve notice that such an article is needed, jaybe titled Hormone replacement therapy (men) or Hormone replacement therapy (males) since boys are often prescribed for dwarfism etc. I redirect Testosterone replacement therapy here because none of the entries here are suitable; transgering is not replacement of testosterone, it is induction....this could probably be raised on a WikiProject talkpage, I just don't know which one and where to look.Skookum1 (talk) 17:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that can redirect to Testosterone's subsection - where Testosterone replacement therapy redirects to. Seems like it should have a separate article, though, because of the others listed here.Skookum1 (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be replaced with a disambiguation page

The meager information and stub-level quality here adds little, but delays or diverts persons seeking information about specific hormone therapies, especially for menopause.

If the article is kept, a scope note is needed at the top, with a link to Hormone replacement therapy (menopause), which is what the overwhelming majority of searchers are looking for. Estrogen Therapy should also redirect to a disambiguation page or to Hormone replacement therapy (menopause).

Test blocker or Testosterone blocker

Anyone know what this is? Do we have an article about it? Could it redirect here in a section? Janae Marie Kroc mentions it in an interview and I was not sure where to link to explain it. Seems like estrogen supplementation and testosterone blocking would be two halves of the same coin in MtF hormonal treatments.

Is the opposite true? Are estrogen blockers (is est blocker ever used for short?) used in addition to test supplementation in FtM transitions? 184.145.18.50 (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiovascular Effects

What are the mechanisms by RTC acts?--Emmymorri98 (talk) 05:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The lead

I enjoy sandwiches, keep in mind that the lead is meant to summarize the article per WP:Lead. It shouldn't be too short.

I removed your "more sections" tag since the article has enough sections and since too many sections can make an article look bigger than it actually is from the table of contents and make the article more difficult to navigate through. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As for organization of the article, keep WP:MEDSECTIONS in mind. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Flyer22 Reborn, I agree it does need to be reorganized and worked on further. Thus far was focusing on clearing out primary research and relocating and simplifying the extreme detail regarding the WHI that was in the intro before. Those header tags weren't mine actually, but I agree about that as well. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I enjoy sandwiches, my mistake; I see that you didn't add the "more sections" tag. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I have continued to work on the article and trimmed a lot of the primary research and updated with more recent opinion and better reviews from more impactful journals. Also reorganized sections as per medsections. There is still much to do. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 06:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of transgender hormone therapy?

I notice this article has no mention of hormone replacement therapy for transgender people. I am aware that a separate article exists at Transgender hormone therapy; however, I wonder if there should be some mention of the topic within this article, possibly even within the lead section. Within transgender communities, it is common for hormone therapy for trans women to be called HRT, and it was my assumption that trans HRT is relatively similar to menopausal HRT in terms of the medications that are typically used. However, I am not very knowledgeable about this field, so I wanted to ask for others' input instead of making any bold changes. Could others more knowledgeable about this field please weigh in? Thanks, IagoQnsi (talk) 06:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See the #Strange title - is this "postmenopausal hormone therapy"? discussion above. If you present some WP:MEDRS-compliant source showing hormone replacement therapy referring to transgender hormone therapy, we will consider adding something to the article about it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime, you can add a WP:See also section in the article for the Transgender hormone therapy article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Does the Journal of Medical Ethics count? See Ashley, F. (2019). Gatekeeping hormone replacement therapy for transgender patients is dehumanising. Journal of medical ethics, 45(7), 480-482. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2018-105293 Woood (talk) 01:47, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move of Transgender hormone therapy (male-to-female)

A proposal to rename Transgender hormone therapy (male-to-female) (as well as the parallel article "Transgender hormone therapy (female-to-male) ) is being discussed. Your feedback would be appreciated at Talk:Transgender hormone therapy (male-to-female)#Requested move 15 February 2021. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion and editing

Significantly expanded the article with WHI updates to 2021, HRT use for patients after different cancers (ovarian, colorectal, etc), neurodegenerative disorders, cyclic/continuous regimen differences, increased FDA regulatory overight for bioidentical compounding, and persistent uncertainty over bioidentical hormone therapy including Richard Neapolitan's intricate Cox regression analysis in PLoS One. Going forward I intend to broaden sections discussing androgenic therapy and sexual dysfunction as these have been ignored almost entirely. I excluded Holtorf's review as it was a poor analysis in a borderline journal financial bias with significant financial conflicts of interest. I do not have access to the National Academies of Sciences chapter from 2020, so if anyone else does would like to see this added. Stil much work to do. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article is transphobic

Why is there no mention of hormone replacement therapy used in transgender people I use HRT as I am transgender — Preceding unsigned comment added by Transgenderkai (talk • contribs) 09:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Transgenderkai: I don't know much about this topic, but I think Transgender hormone therapy contains what you're looking for. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • C • L) 09:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 March 2023

Hormone replacement therapy → Hormone replacement therapy (menopausal) – The current wiki page titled "Hormone replacement therapy" is primarily focused on the use of HRT in menopausal women. To better serve readers and improve clarity, I propose moving the page to "Hormone replacement therapy (menopausal)" to clearly differentiate it from HRT used for other purposes, such as transgender hormone therapy. By doing so, readers will more easily find the information they need on a specific topic without confusion. Born25121642 (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Categories