Researches of Hormone

How to evaluate the risk-benefit ratio of the low-dose hormone replacement therapy?

Since the results of the women health initiative study showing an overall negative risk-benefit ratio with 0.625 mg of conjugated estrogens plus 2.5 mg of medroxyprogesterone acetate, the use of the lowest effective dose of steroids in hormone replacement therapy (HRT) is recommended.

A low-dose regimen appears to induce less side effects such as breast tenderness or leg pain than do higher dose preparations. The decrease in hot flashes with low-dose estrogens, range 60-70%, is less than the 80-90% reduction with standard dosing. But this mean that 60-70% of menopausal women do not need higher doses. The same applies to bone preservation which is dose dependent: the number of non-respondant women will be higher than with standard doses. However, randomized double-blind, placebo controls trials have defined positive effects on bone of low doses of HRT with adequate calcium and Vitamin D in elderly women. The use of bone densitometry and of biochemical markers of bone turnover is mandatory in women using low or ultra-low-dose preparations. In spite of the lack of trials conducted with low-dose HRT, this treatment seems to be safer:

• The plasma levels of estradiol are lower; as far as breast cancer risk is concerned, the decrease of this subrogate marker is considered as favourable;
• The increase in breast density is less pronounced;
• The nurses's health study found a dose relationship for stroke, with no increase in risk with low-dose of estrogens;
• The effects on subrogate markers of cardiovascular risk seem to be more favourable. Beside the low-dose HRT, one must consider some other facts:
• The "critical window" theory: it is biologically plausible that HRT, if started early after the menopause can slow the progression of coronary atherosclerosis;
• The way of administration of HRT: some observational studies have shown no increase in the risk of venous thromboembolism risk among women treated with transdermal estrogens;
• The progestogen used: a French cohort study recently performed found no increase in breast cancer risk with the use of micronized progesterone meanwhile the increase in risk observed with other progestogens was similar to the findings of the WHI study.

In the future, it is conceivable that more comprehensive pharmacogenomic studies will lead to effective algorithms for individualizing the right dose of steroids to be used in HRT.

Pituitary abscess

Pituitary abscess is a rare disease, but one with potentially high mortality and morbidity. We present a 46-year-old man with progressive visual disturbance and general malaise for 1 year. Endocrine studies revealed hypopituitarism, and magnetic resonance imaging revealed a pituitary lesion with suprasellar extension. We attempted to excise the lesion using a transsphenoidal approach, but pus in the pituitary fossa was found at operation, and no tumour was identified. The culture yielded coagulase-negative Staphylococcus. Antibiotics were administered for 3 weeks, and the patient made a good postoperative recovery. He required life-long hormone replacement therapy. After one and a half years of follow-up, he was well and had no evidence of focal or systemic infection. We review the literature regarding pituitary abscess and discuss the appropriate treatment and possible pathological mechanism.

The prescription of hormone replacement therapy in Spain: Differences between general practitioners and gynaecologists.

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine the frequency with which hormone replacement therapy (HRT) was prescribed and to identify physician-related factors associated with the prescription of HRT in Spain.

Study design: A descriptive cross-sectional survey based on a personal interview with a structured questionnaire was conducted in April 2005 with physicians aged 25-65 years. A total of 2700 doctors were asked to participate in this prospective study (1350 GY and 1350 GP). This number included 270 gynaecologists (GY group) and 270 general practitioners (GP group).

Results: Only 10% of gynaecologists and 19.4% of GPs had never prescribed HRT. The reasons given for not prescribing HRT were adverse effects and the fear of cancer among GPs and adverse effects and social alarm in the GY group. Phytoestrogens were the most commonly used alternative; however, GPs were more willing to use antidepressants and benzodiazepines than GYs. The frequency of HRT prescription in symptomatic women was significantly higher among GYs. The main reasons for prescribing HRT were climacteric complaints and improvement in life quality for GYs and, climacteric complaints and the prevention of osteoporosis for GPs. Seventy-eight percent of GYs prescribing hormones referred a high degree of satisfaction with HRT, whereas only 50% of GPs expressed a similar attitude.

Conclusions: Concern for HRT prescription in Spain is high. Adverse effects and the fear of cancer are negative conditioning factors in the prescription of HRT, whereas climacteric complaints, quality of life and the prevention of osteoporosis are positive conditioning factors. GYs are more willing to use HRT than GPs. This contrast may reflect the indecision of GPs regarding the preventive value of HRT.