The story presents bioidentical hormones as a new option for relieving bothersome symptoms of menopause such as hot flashes, cold sweats and vaginal discomfort. The story accurately reports that the active ingredients of these supposedly “natural” hormones are the same ones used in synthetic hormone replacement therapy (HRT). However, these hormones are not as well-regulated or well-tested as synthetic versions.
The story provides no evidence that bioidentical hormones are more effective or safer than traditional HRT. Positive testimonials from a physician employee of a bioidentical hormone supplier, a celebrity and women who have experienced reduced menopausal symptoms with bioidentical hormones are not a substitute for quantitative evidence. The comment that a hormone product can be tailored to a woman's chemistry is not proven. Additionally, the story does not mention the cost of bioidenticals, which are typically about $50/month, similar to the cost of conventional HRT. Any physician can provide a prescription for bioidentical hormones in a routine office visit.
The story appropriately stresses that menopause is a natural part of aging and not a disease which necessitates medical intervention. The story also mentions that short-term use of HRT in any form should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Unless symptoms are very bothersome, many women do not need to take HRT to ease symptoms common in menopause.
While the bioindentical hormones are marketed as a natural alternative to balancing hormones and easing bothersome symptoms of hormonal fluctuations during menopause, the story fails to mention the least risky “natural” interventions for managing symptoms of menopause, such as exercise and wearing loose, cool clothing to prevent discomfort from hot flashes and cold sweats. The story also does not mention non-hormonal, evidence-based pharmaceutical options for managing symptoms. However, using these medications for treatment of hot flashes would be considered an off-label prescription. (See a previous review of a story on this topic.)
The story does not mention the cost of bioidenticals, which are typically about $50/month, similar to the cost of conventional HRT. On the website of a company mentioned, BodyLogicMD, costs are estimated at $200-400 for an initial visit, $125 to $250 for a follow-up visit (recommended every 3 months) and $30-$100 a month for the hormones themselves, this is not a good benchmark for costs of bioidentical hormone treatment. The BodyLogicMD site touts specific physicians in 6 states who provide an exam, testing, and prescription, but any physician can provide a prescription for bioidentical hormones at a routine office visit.
The story provides no quantitative data about the safety or efficacy of bioidentical hormones. Positive testimonials from a physician employee of a bioidentical supplier, a celebrity and women who have experienced fewer menopausal symptoms are not a substitute for quantitative evidence. The comment that a unique "natural" hormone product can be tailored to a woman's chemistry is not proven.
The story provides appropriate caveats that the bioidentical hormones are not carefully regulated by the FDA and they may pose the same health risks to some women as synthetic HRT (i.e. increased risk of breast cancer and heart disease). The story mentions that until definitive data exist, we do not know if these hormones are safe.
The story provides no evidence that bioidentical hormones are more effective or less risky than synthetic hormone replacement medications. There is poor balance – not even an expert to counter the claims of the proponents, let alone other evidence. (For example, the North American Menopause Society's official published position is that bioidentical hormones should not be assumed to be any safer than conventional HRT.)
The story appropriately stresses that menopause is a natural part of aging and not a disease which necessitates medical intervention. Unless symptoms are very bothersome, many women do not need to take hormone therapy replacement (HRT) to ease symptoms common in menopause, such as hot flashes, cold sweats and vaginal dryness and discomfort.
Susan Love is the only unbiased expert commenting on safety. There are two other highly biased experts speaking in favor of bioidentical hormones. The reporter's comments provide important counterweight. But the balance of the piece is thrown off by the inclusion of two quotes from a representative of BodyLogicMD, a distributor of bioidentical hormone therapy. And the story never mentions that the company is, indeed, a distributor of bioidentical hormone therapy.
The story does mention that traditional hormone therapy should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Short-term use is not risky for every woman if the benefits of reduced symptoms outweigh increased risks of breast cancer and heart disease. What is not mentioned are less risky lifestyle changes and evidence-based, non-hormonal pharmaceutical options for dealing with menopausal symtoms. In randomized controlled trials, certain anti-depressant and anti-seizure medications have been shown to reduce hot flashes and other symptoms of menopause in some women. (See a review of a previous story on this topic.) Specifically, the story does not talk about the least invasive treatments for managing symptoms of menopause such as exercise, vaginal creams, and wearing loose, cool clothing to prevent discomfort from hot flashes and cold sweats.
The story does not mention where bioindentical hormones are available. However, the story mentions that 3,000 pharmacies in the U.S. fill orders for custom-made hormonal compounds. The story mentions these hormones are not well-regulated and we are not told if you need a prescription.
The story presents bioidentical hormones as a newer option to relieve bothersome symptoms of menopause. The story accurately reports that the active ingredients of these "newer" hormones are the same ones used in synthetic hormone replacement therapy (HRT).
We can't judge if the story relied solely or largely on a news release. Several sources were quoted, although two of the quotes came from a representative of a company promoting these products.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Don’t believe everything you hear, kids.
“What in the world justifies rushing a 348-word story to publication on a Sunday without doing extra research and reporting? Just because a scientist said it? COVID-19 journalism that devolves to that level of dreck is dangerous.”
🔥👇 https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1268175065478320131
.@Reuters: why rush to publish a 348-word story claiming #COVID19 is losing potency without doing extra research and reporting? Just because a scientist said it? #COVID19 journalism that devolves to that level of dreck is dangerous. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2020/06/reuters-report-is-another-classic-case-study-in-how-not-to-cover-covid-19-news/
For some time our website has been subjected to malicious hacker attacks from several countries. So many that we were forced to block entry. We revisit the severity of attack regularly. When it eases, we will lift the blockade. Thanks for your understanding.
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