Debate Over Hormone Replacement Therapy Warning Labels Heats Up
In a recent gathering of the Food and Drug Administration panel, Dr. JoAnn Pinkerton, an obstetrician, made a strong plea to reconsider the black box warnings on hormone replacement therapies. Her message was direct: “Please stop harming women,” urging that these warnings deter women from using treatments that can significantly ease menopausal symptoms.
Pinkerton’s appeal resonated among the 12 specialists, including various obstetrics and women’s health experts, who called for the removal of warning labels from low-dose estrogen therapies. These medications are primarily used to alleviate menopause and perimenopause symptoms and are administered locally, unlike systemic treatments.
The FDA’s black box warning represents the highest level of caution for prescription drugs, but Pinkerton and her colleagues believe it is unwarranted for low-dose estrogen treatments. Commonly prescribed to combat issues like urinary tract infections, vaginal dryness, and intercourse pain during menopause, these treatments have been deemed by Pinkerton as not posing the high risks suggested by the warnings.
“The boxed warning is not supported by science,” Pinkerton stated, critiquing the exaggerated risk portrayal. She recalled a patient who, after reading the alarming warning, discarded her prescribed treatment due to fears of severe health risks.
A Shift in Perceptions Regarding Hormone Replacement Therapy
Views on hormone therapy safety have evolved since 2002 when a large-scale women’s health study, the Women’s Health Initiative, was paused over concerns linking hormone therapy with cancer and stroke risks. Subsequent research has suggested these risks were overstated, particularly regarding cancer.
The medical community’s stance on when and how to prescribe hormone therapy has changed over the years, with many advocating for an update to reflect current understanding. Dr. Marty Makary, the current FDA commissioner, is among those pushing for this change, motivated in part by personal family experiences with menopause treatments.
“Fifty million-plus women have not been offered the incredible potential health benefits of hormone replacement therapy,” Makary emphasized, attributing this to outdated medical beliefs.
While some experts, like Dr. Monica Christmas, support removing the black box label for low-dose vaginal estrogen treatments, they remain cautious about systemic estrogen due to its different risk profile.
“For the vast majority of people, the risk is low, even for systemic hormone therapy,” Christmas noted, while acknowledging that it is not risk-free. The warning label, she argues, can foster important discussions about the therapies’ risks and benefits.
Unconventional FDA Panel Raises Eyebrows
The recent FDA panel differed from the agency’s usual approach, which typically involves a thorough scientific evaluation. This led to criticism from experts like Adriane Fugh-Berman, a pharmacology professor at Georgetown University, who called the session “theater, not scientific evaluation.” She expressed concerns over the lack of a comprehensive process, including public input and a diverse expert panel.
Despite the unusual proceedings, some experts appreciated the spotlight on hormone therapy. Dr. Rachel Rubin, a panel member and urologist specializing in sexual medicine, welcomed the FDA’s attention to the issue, describing it as a step toward realizing long-held aspirations in the field.
While the debate continues, experts like Christmas caution against an overly optimistic view of hormone therapy without a thorough risk assessment. “Hormone therapy has become synonymous with menopause,” she remarked, advising women to explore other options before committing to hormone treatments.
—
Read More Michigan News
