This story provides a good overview of a meta-analysis of non-hormonal treatments for bothersome hot flashes in menopausal women. Dr. Heidi Nelson, the lead author of the study, appropriately cautions the reader that these treatment options were for women who were very bothered by hot flashes, and that hot flashes and other symptoms of menopause are a normal part of aging, so not everyone needs to take a prescription. While this is an appropriate caveat, lifestyle changes as non-hormonal treatment (e.g. dressing in cool, layered clothing, exercise, not smoking) are either not mentioned, in the case of smoking, or dismissed as ineffective for many women.
The number and severity of hot flashes varies by woman, and these hot flashes can be experienced as more severe by some women and not very bothersome by others. As the article reports, about 50% of women have hot flashes during menopause and of these, only 20% seek treatment. The story does an excellent job presenting the results of the JAMA article and discussing the efficacy of both hormonal and non-hormonal treatments along with warnings about the potential side effects for each option and the lack of long-term data on these medications for treatment of hot flashes. There is an appropriate comparison of the average reduction in hot flashes with hormonal and non-hormonal treatments.
Most medications discussed here are available with a prescription, but they are not currently FDA approved for the treatment of hot flashes. There is no mention of the cost of either hormonal or non-hormonal treatments, which would be important information if these drugs are to be taken daily (or several times a day for some medications) for months or even years.
Natural supplements such as soy and red clover were not very effective as treatments for hot flashes, though they are available without a prescription. These supplements are not regulated and their active ingredient (i.e. plant estrogens) may vary by manufacturer, which is not mentioned in the story. These supplements have not been studied as well as prescription hormone therapy and they may have some of the same negative health effects as hormone therapy. Also, these plant estrogens should not be taken by women with a history of breast cancer.
No mention of the cost of hormonal or non-hormonal treatments, which would be important to note if they are taken daily (or several times a day for some medications) for several months or years.
Absolute reduction in number of hot flashes per day is presented for non-hormonal treatments and these are compared to the number of hot flashes with hormone treatment.
Mentions side effects of the non-hormonal treatment under study, as well as the risks associated with hormone replacement therapy. There is no mention of the incidence of these side effects. However, this was a meta-analysis of 43 studies, so side effects varied by medication and each study.
There is adequate description and some evidence presented from this meta-analysis of non-hormonal treatments to reduce the number and severity of bothersome hot flashes.
Does not appear to be disease mongering. In fact, the closing line addresses this issue head-on: “We hate to medicalize a natural process,” Dr. Nelson said, but she added that severe symptoms should not be dismissed. “We want to take it seriously, but not everybody needs to be on prescription drugs for it.”
The study was not funded by any of the drug manufacturers with medications under study in the review. Principal investigators have no financial ties to drugs mentioned in the study, though the story does not mention this.
Satisfactorily presents several non-hormonal options for treatment. However, lifestyle related non-hormonal treatment (e.g. cool, layered clothing, exercise, not smoking) is either not mentioned or presented as ineffective options for women with hot flashes.
Medications listed in the story are available with a prescription, but they are not yet FDA approved for the treatment of hot flashes. Supplements such as soy and red clover are available without a prescription, however, these are not regulated and the active ingredient (i.e. plant estrogens) in these supplements may vary by manufacturer.
The story notes that the use of anti-depressants and certain blood pressure and anti-seizure medications as non-hormonal treatment for hot flashes is not new. However, these prescription medications are not yet FDA approved for this treatment.
Not enough information to determine if this relies on a JAMA press release. Language is very similar to the introduction of the journal article and only study authors and the physican who wrote a JAMA editorial on the study are cited.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
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
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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.
You might also like