Lisa Jarvis: A shocking number of doctors don’t understand menopause

posted in: Society | 0

A new analysis of a controversial study affirms something menopause experts have long argued: For many women, the benefits of short-term hormone replacement therapy outweigh their risks.

The news drops at a time when menopause is having a moment. Celebrities from Halle Berry to Gwyneth Paltrow are talking openly about their journeys, while businesses, the medical establishment and the government are waking up to the needs of the 75 million women in the U.S. experiencing perimenopause, menopause or are postmenopausal.

But it’s a moment that must be backed by solid data, not guesswork. A recent AARP survey estimates that menopause costs the U.S. about $1.8 billion in worker productivity losses and $24 billion in related health care.

To be clear, hormones are not a panacea, nor are they the right choice for every woman. But the messaging around the use of estrogen and progestin has been so muddled for so long that the treatment has become emblematic of the overall state of health care for women who have passed their reproductive years.

Women entering midlife simply aren’t being given straightforward, accurate information from their doctors — too often, they’re told nothing at all, or worse, given the wrong message.

All of the confusion began back in 2002, when the world of women’s health was rocked by the abrupt cessation of a large study called the Women’s Health Initiative. Designed to understand whether hormones could lower a woman’s risk of certain diseases, the researchers instead found treatment was raising the risk of heart disease, strokes and breast cancer. The message was that women taking hormones should stop them and others shouldn’t start.

That altered the course of care, depriving a generation of women from therapy that is known to treat common menopause symptoms, like hot flashes, night sweats, vaginal dryness and bone loss.

The new data, shared in the Journal of the American Medical Association, came from following the women enrolled in the study for 20 years. Researchers found that decades on, hormone therapy could offer meaningful benefits while posing few risks for women in the early stages of menopause. It is also safe to use for most women in their 60s and 70s who are experiencing more severe symptoms, like hot flashes and night sweats.

Importantly, HRT did not increase the risk of heart attacks. Nor did short-term use of both estrogen and progestin raise the risk of breast cancer. Moreover, since the Women’s Health Initiative was halted, a raft of newer products have emerged to offer different delivery methods — often at much lower doses — that might further minimize their health risks, though the authors noted more study is needed.

For menopause experts, this update feels like old news. But having it stated in plain language in a medical journal is still a big deal.

Not all doctors have kept up with the times. Lisa Larkin, president of The Menopause Society, says she regularly hears from women whose physicians refuse to prescribe HRT, with one recently telling her that her doctor claimed to adhere to a “hormone-free practice.”

The lingering divisiveness was underscored by a series of editorials published in March in The Lancet arguing that menopause is a natural process that has become over-medicalized. The editors focus their critique on HRT, suggesting companies are appropriating “feminist narratives” to push hormone therapy without acknowledging the risks.

Of course, we should be wary of movements that want to turn a normal life process into a disease or sell us something to fix a problem they’ve invented. But the authors go on to perpetuate myths about the universal dangers of HRT — now firmly debunked. And just because symptoms are “natural” doesn’t mean they aren’t uncomfortable or disruptive — or undeserving of treatment.

Rather than being over-treated, most women “are left to navigate their perimenopausal and menopausal years with no medical guidance whatsoever,” as a group of Stanford University menopause specialists noted in their response to The Lancet.

Doctors in the U.S. aren’t sufficiently educated to offer women good advice. One survey of U.S. medical trainees found that only 7% said they felt sufficiently trained to help women during menopause. Another survey of OB-GYN trainees found that less than a third were exposed to a menopause curriculum during their residency. Yes, you read that right: Even some gynecologists aren’t offered guidance on ushering women through perimenopause and menopause.

That’s left women to fill in the blanks themselves. They might find solace in the upswell of specialists taking to social media to put out accurate information about menopause. Or they could consult a cluster of new books (from “The Menopause Manifesto” to “The New Menopause”) that empower women with solid information and the right questions to ask.

Still, I worry about how much work we are putting on patients. Menopause is a transition that affects half the population; women shouldn’t have to rely on social media, which can have as many charlatans as true experts, nor should they have to sift through the medical studies themselves.

A few burgeoning efforts could help. President Joe Biden’s recent executive order creating a fund to close the knowledge gap around women’s health includes money for improving our understanding of and care for menopause. And Congress should pass a bill introduced recently by a bipartisan group of senators intended to support training, research and awareness around menopause with $275 million over five years.

It’s a start. For a transition that half the population will experience, it should not be so hard to have a thoughtful conversation with a knowledgeable physician.

Lisa Jarvis is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering biotech, health care and the pharmaceutical industry. Previously, she was executive editor of Chemical & Engineering News.

Related Articles

Opinion |


Cory Franklin: Was Sweden’s COVID-19 approach superior to that of the U.S.?

Opinion |


Trudy Rubin: The biggest story last week was not Stormy Daniels or campus protests

Opinion |


Thomas Friedman: Biden’s real mistake in pausing military aid to Israel

Opinion |


Tyler Cowen: No, low-skilled immigrants don’t cost taxpayers money

Opinion |


Seth Greenland: Have we learned nothing? The protester’s taunt, ‘Go back to Poland,’ is grotesque

Daniel DePetris: Vladimir Putin has much to celebrate. But the Russian people don’t

posted in: Politics | 0

Russian President Vladimir Putin, the man who plunged Russia into a war that has proved far costlier than he anticipated, is riding high at the moment.

Last week, Putin formally took office for a fifth term after a presidential election that the United States, Europe and international monitors widely regarded as illegitimate. The inauguration ceremony was, shall we say, Putin-esque. The 71-year-old, modern-day Russian czar strolled into the grand hall past the honor guard with a spring in his step, inherently confident in his decisions and even more confident of his stature as the only person in Russia today to keep the country secure.

“You, the citizens of Russia, have confirmed that the country is on the right course,” Putin told the delegates during his inauguration speech. Of course, the dissidents, journalists and anti-war protesters locked up in Russia’s penal system would beg to differ.

It’s not a mystery as to why Putin is feeling pretty good with himself. Compare today with last year, and the difference is rather stark. Last summer, the normally decisive strongman was thrust into the biggest challenge of his nearly quarter century in power when Yevgeny Prigozhin, the mercenary leader of the Wagner Group, ordered thousands of his militiamen to storm back into Russia to depose the Russian defense establishment. The Russian security forces were largely missing in action; Prigozhin’s troops shot down several Russian military helicopters and came within 150 miles of Moscow. Putin, caught unprepared, had to cut a deal with Prigozhin to turn his troops around and stop the mutiny. All of this came as Russian troops in Ukraine were in the beginning stages of defending against a Ukrainian counteroffensive.

Now, however, Putin doesn’t have these immediate troubles. Prigozhin, who caused the Kremlin so much grief last year, is dead, the victim of an August plane crash the U.S. intelligence community concluded was orchestrated by Putin’s inner circle. The Wagner Group, which at times competed with the Russian army for men, is now under the control of the Russian state. The war in Ukraine still isn’t a bright spot for Putin, but it’s brighter than it was last year. Over the weekend, Russian forces took nine villages in northern Ukraine, forcing thousands of civilians to flee and prompting Col. Gen. Oleksandr Syrskyi, Ukraine’s top military commander, to admit that the situation had ” significantly worsened” for Ukrainian forces.

Things aren’t particularly bad for the Russian economy, at least over the short term. Putin’s economic team has managed to adapt to the U.S. and European sanctions enacted after the invasion of Ukraine more than two years ago. The ruble, which lost much of its value in the weeks after the invasion, has recouped losses and has been quite stable this year. The Russian oil industry, the lifeblood of the Russian economy, has largely balanced out its losses in Western markets by pumping more to the East, with China and India more than happy to scoop up the discounts Moscow is offering. Russia’s fossil fuel export revenues actually increased in March as sea-born crude rose by 13%.

The International Monetary Fund predicts Russia’s gross domestic product will increase by 3.2% this year, which if true would mean that Russia’s growth rate will exceed America’s.

It all sounds pretty uplifting from Putin’s perspective. But what’s good for Putin isn’t necessarily good for Russia or the Russian people as a whole.

Take the Russian economy, for instance. While it’s true that growth figures are on the upswing and Russian crude is still being exported around the world, there is no such thing as permanence in economics. Indeed, Russia’s economic upswing is a bit deceptive because it’s intricately tied to the price of crude and the war in Ukraine. Crude can be notoriously volatile as any car owner in the summer can attest.

For a petro-state like Russia, a few months of low crude prices can translate into tens of billions of dollars in losses, putting added strain on the budget and forcing the government to adopt one of three strategies: lower spending, raise taxes or run a deficit. Over the long term, crude will become less vital to the global economy as countries around the world invest in green-energy technology, forcing Putin (or whoever eventually replaces him) to diversify on the fly.

Banking productivity on the war isn’t exactly a winning strategy, either. Sure, it’s paying off at the moment as the Russian military industrial complex is in full swing churning out artillery shells, tanks, planes and armored personnel carriers. But how long can this last, particularly when Russia is losing its workforce in the trenches of Ukraine? Putin is trapped in a paradox of his own making: Continuing the war is a boon to the Russian economy, but over time, the economy suffers because men who in more peaceful times would be working back in Russia are instead dying in Ukraine.

The Russians are in effect sacrificing their future for the present, worsening a three-decade-long demographic crisis in the process. The future is coming quickly. Even as the IMF gave the Russian economy high marks this year, it projected Russian growth to decrease by more than 40% in 2025.

Putin may be loving life right now. But he is digging a big hole for the country he claims to love so much. And his successor will eventually have to find a way to climb out of it.

Daniel DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities and a foreign affairs columnist for the Chicago Tribune.

Related Articles

Opinion |


Cory Franklin: Was Sweden’s COVID-19 approach superior to that of the U.S.?

Opinion |


Trudy Rubin: The biggest story last week was not Stormy Daniels or campus protests

Opinion |


Thomas Friedman: Biden’s real mistake in pausing military aid to Israel

Opinion |


Tyler Cowen: No, low-skilled immigrants don’t cost taxpayers money

Opinion |


Seth Greenland: Have we learned nothing? The protester’s taunt, ‘Go back to Poland,’ is grotesque

PWHL: Minnesota ties semifinal series in double OT

posted in: News | 0

The first three games of Minnesota’s best-of-five Professional Women’s Hockey League semifinal playoff series against Toronto featured a shutout, with Toronto winning the first two games and Minnesota the third.

The pattern continued Wednesday night at Xcel Energy Center, but this time it took two overtimes to declare a winner.

Minnesota’s Claire Botorac scored at 4:27 of the second overtime as Minnesota beat Toronto, 1-0.

Butorac banged in the rebound of a shot from the point that caromed into the slot off the back boards.

Minnesota’s win sets up a deciding Game 5 on Friday night at Coca-Cola Coliseum in Toronto. The eventual series winner will play Boston in a best-of-five series for the inaugural PWHL championship.

“Honestly, my linemates did most of the work,” Butorac said of the winning goal. “I got in on the good change from the line before us, and I picked up that rebound in the front of the net.

“We knew it was going to be a dirty goal. Just happy to finish.”

Minnesota coach Ken Klee commended his team for finding a way to tie the series after losing the first two games and facing elimination.

“When you’re season’s on the line and you’re back at home, that’s a good feeling,” Klee said. “You can take it as pressure or, hey, we’ve played well at home all year. I think breaking through in Game 3 was good for our confidence and being excited to play hockey, knowing we can win games.

“Tonight, I loved our first period, I loved our third period. They took it to us a little in the second, which you’re going to expect. They’re a good team. But I’m super proud of our team. Even when we gave up chances we kept going, we stayed positive.”

Toronto played without Natalie Spooner, the league’s leading scorer, who sustained a knee injury in Game 3. Spooner will miss the remainder of the postseason.

Toronto’s offense definitely was limited. It managed only 11 shots on goal through three periods, while Minnesota had 23.

Neither team was able to produce much offense in a scoreless first period, with Minnesota holding a 5-3 edge in shots on goal. Minnesota had the two best scoring chances of the period, and they came from its top line.

Grace Zumwinkle fired a slap shot from the top of the right-wing circle at 11:39 that got through Toronto goaltender Kristen Campbell, but the puck slid just wide of the far post. With just over four minutes to play in the period, Campbell made a good stop on a shot from in tight by Taylor Heise.

Toronto put on some offensive pressure early in the second period and came close to taking the lead when Hannah Miller’s shot from the slot hit the outside of the left post.

Minnesota went on the first power play of the game at 3:22 of the period, but it lasted only 55 seconds, when Denisa Krizova was sent off for tripping.

It proved to be another period dominated by tight checking. Toronto had six shots on goal in the period, Minnesota four.

Minnesota got another power-play opportunity at 6:57 of the third period, but it was Toronto that got the best scoring opportunity. Minnesota goaltender Maddie Rooney made a clutch left pad save to deny Kaitlin Willoughby from in tight.

Minnesota defender Sophie Jaques got a good scoring chance 13 minutes into the period, but Campbell stopped her with a glove save on a rising shot.

Minnesota outshot Toronto 14-2 in the third period.

Related Articles

Sports |


PWHL Minnesota beats Toronto 2-0 to extend playoff series

Sports |


Minnesota wants to flip the script in PWHL playoffs against Toronto

Sports |


Women’s hockey: Toronto blanks Minnesota, takes 2-0 playoff lead

Sports |


Turnbull scores twice as Toronto cruises past Minnesota 4-0 in first-ever PWHL playoff game

Sports |


PWHL playoffs: Minnesota seeking reversal of fortunes against top-seed Toronto

St. Paul Saints strike out 12 times in 6-0 loss to Omaha Storm Chasers

posted in: News | 0

Five Omaha pitchers combined to hold the St. Paul SaInts to four hits while striking out 12 in a 6-0 win Wednesday night at CHS Field, keeping St. Paul from its first three-game winning streak of the season.

Storm Chasers starting pitcher Luis Cessa allowed two hits and struck out out five with one walk over five innings, and he was followed by an equally dominant stretch of relievers: Walter Pennington (one inning, one hit, three strikeouts), Evan Sisk (one inning, no hits, one strikeout), Carlos Hernandez (one inning, one hit, two strikeouts) and Will Klein (one inning, 0 hits, one strikeout).

The Storm Chasers scored five runs in the second inning, sending nine hitters to the plate against Saints starter Louie Varland. Varland pitched five innings, allowing six runs (five earned) on seven hits with six strikeouts and one walk.

The Saints loaded the bases against Pennington in the sixth inning, but he struck out two to end the threat.

Twins center fielder Byron Buxton, in the first game of a rehab stint after being out since May 1 with knee pain, started in center field and went 0 for 3 with two strikeouts.

DaShawn Keirsey Jr. went 2 for 3 with a double for the Saints.