Bio-identical hormone therapy is a poorly-defined term for using a set of hormones that are molecularly identical to natural hormones in the body. Proponents of this treatment claim that bio-identical hormones are safer and more effective than conventional hormone therapy for treating the symptoms of menopause, however there is no evidence to support these claims. Furthermore, hormones are expected to have the same risk and benefits as approved drugs for which there is an evidence base as well as extensive research and regulation. Many medical organizations, both in the US and internationally, have issued statements raising concerns about the claims made about bio-identical hormones.
This story does a good job of raising awareness about this issue, although it should have noted that many women don’t experience symptoms in the same way and that treatment with bio-identical hormones or traditional hormones should only be used by women who are bothered by their symptoms and not if they are trying to prevent heart disease.
The story could have been greatly improved by coming down harder on the proponents of bio-identical hormones. While the story includes a debate on whether there is evidence to support the use of bio-identical hormones, in doing so, it gives the impression that there really is a debate. Bio-identical hormone supporters claim that there have been dozens of clinical trials showing a benefit. However, a 2007 systematic review found "a dearth of scientific evidence to support these claims". The story should have been more critical of the evidence base to support the use of bio-identical hormones.
This is a subject sure to attract attention, given the wide range of troublesome symptoms experienced by many women during the menopausal transition. It is important for women to be aware of the potential risks of uNPRoven therapies, including bioidentical hormone preparations, that may be "prescribed" by alternative health clinics.
The story describes the cost of two bio-identical hormone products. There are many products available so costs may vary widely.
The story does not quantify the potential benefits of either bio-identical or conventional hormones. There was much talk about efficacy by the Holtorf Medical Clinic Director, all about patient perception. At the least, the story could have pointed out that patients who self-refer to such alternative care clinics (and often pay out of pocket for these services) may be more likely to report benefit from the treatment.
The story does not quantify the potential harms of bio-identical or conventional hormones. The story does rightly point out that there is no real reason to assume that bio-identical hormones are any safer than conventional hormones. There was some mention of blood clots and uterine issues, but this was not clearly delineated. Harm is one of the major concerns about any estrogen or estrogen-like compounds, and the health risks could be more serious than with other supplements.
The story includes a debate on whether there is evidence to support the use of bio-identical hormones. However, in doing so, it gives the impression that there really is a debate. Bio-identical hormone supporters claim that there have been dozens of clinical trials showing a benefit. However, a 2007 systematic review found "a dearth of scientific evidence to support these claims". The story should have been more critical of the evidence base to support the use of bio-identical hormones. This is the biggest drawback to this article, which was otherwise pretty good. The story really didn’t get at the problem of shaky to absent scientific evidence of efficacy.
The story doesn’t exaggerate the seriousness or prevalence of menopause. However, it should have noted that many women don’t experience symptoms in the same way and that treatment with bio-identical hormones or traditional hormones should only be used by women who are bothered by their symptoms and not if they are trying to prevent heart disease. The story also could have countered some of the suggested symptoms of menopause – such as "fuzzy thinking" – which are not clearly associated with menopause in epidemiologic studies. For these two reasons, we lean toward an unsatisfactory score on this criterion.
The story quotes two independent experts who provide valuable, differing opinions on the value of bio-identical hormones.
The story does compare bio-identical hormones with its most important alternative, conventional hormones.
Bio-identical hormones are clearly available in many formulations.
Bio-identical hormones have been around for some time, although they grew in popularity within the past 10 years, particularly after the publication of the results of the Women’s Health Initiative. The story didn’t make any inappropriate claims of novelty.
Because the story quotes two independent experts, the reader can assume the story does not rely solely on a press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
I miss @HealthNewsRevu popping up in my feed. Loved seeing this one today.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/06/zombie-health-care-news/
#healthcare #journalism #ethics #conflictofinterest
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.