The 2017 Hormone Therapy Position Statement of The North American Menopause Society (NAMS) updates the 2012 Hormone Therapy Position Statement of The North American Menopause Society and identifies future research needs. An Advisory Panel of clinicians and researchers expert in the field of women's health and menopause was recruited by NAMS to review the 2012 Position Statement, evaluate new literature, assess the evidence, and reach consensus on recommendations, using the level of evidence to identify the strength of recommendations and the quality of the evidence. The Panel's recommendations were reviewed and approved by the NAMS Board of Trustees.Hormone therapy (HT) remains the most effective treatment for vasomotor symptoms (VMS) and the genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) and has been shown to prevent bone loss and fracture. The risks of HT differ depending on type, dose, duration of use, route of administration, timing of initiation, and whether a progestogen is used. Treatment should be individualized to identify the most appropriate HT type, dose, formulation, route of administration, and duration of use, using the best available evidence to maximize benefits and minimize risks, with periodic reevaluation of the benefits and risks of continuing or discontinuing HT.For women aged younger than 60 years or who are within 10 years of menopause onset and have no contraindications, the benefit-risk ratio is most favorable for treatment of bothersome VMS and for those at elevated risk for bone loss or fracture. For women who initiate HT more than 10 or 20 years from menopause onset or are aged 60 years or older, the benefit-risk ratio appears less favorable because of the greater absolute risks of coronary heart disease, stroke, venous thromboembolism, and dementia. Longer durations of therapy should be for documented indications such as persistent VMS or bone loss, with shared decision making and periodic reevaluation. For bothersome GSM symptoms not relieved with over-the-counter therapies and without indications for use of systemic HT, low-dose vaginal estrogen therapy or other therapies are recommended.This NAMS position statement has been endorsed by Academy of Women's Health, American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, American Association of Nurse Practitioners, American Medical Women's Association, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Asociación Mexicana para el Estudio del Climaterio, Association of Reproductive Health Professionals, Australasian Menopause Society, Chinese Menopause Society, Colegio Mexicano de Especialistas en Ginecologia y Obstetricia, Czech Menopause and Andropause Society, Dominican Menopause Society, European Menopause and Andropause Society, German Menopause Society, Groupe d'études de la ménopause et du vieillissement Hormonal, HealthyWomen, Indian Menopause Society, International Menopause Society, International Osteoporosis Foundation, International Society for the Study of Women's Sexual Health, Israeli Menopause Society, Japan Society of Menopause and Wom...

Exposure to toxic environmental chemicals during pregnancy and breastfeeding is ubiquitous and is a threat to healthy human reproduction. There are tens of thousands of chemicals in global commerce, and even small exposures to toxic chemicals during pregnancy can trigger adverse health consequences. Exposure to toxic environmental chemicals and related health outcomes are inequitably distributed within and between countries; universally, the consequences of exposure are disproportionately borne by people with low incomes. Discrimination, other social factors, economic factors, and occupation impact risk of exposure and harm. Documented links between prenatal exposure to environmental chemicals and adverse health outcomes span the life course and include impacts on fertility and pregnancy, neurodevelopment, and cancer. The global health and economic burden related to toxic environmental chemicals is in excess of millions of deaths and billions of dollars every year. On the basis of accumulating robust evidence of exposures and adverse health impacts related to toxic environmental chemicals, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) joins other leading reproductive health professional societies in calling for timely action to prevent harm. FIGO recommends that reproductive and other health professionals advocate for policies to prevent exposure to toxic environmental chemicals, work to ensure a healthy food system for all, make environmental health part of health care, and champion environmental justice.

No abstract

The PPI seems to be performing as intended, with students showing growth in performance across the three years of the MD program. Additional benefits are that many more students now self-refer for remediation (based on low PPI scores) and that the consistent relative performances of individual students across test administrations allow for the identification of students who have severe and persistent problems.

This review was designed to determine from the best evidence whether there is an association between postmenopausal hormonal treatment and breast cancer risk. Also, if there is an association, does it vary according to duration and cessation of use, type of regimen, type of hormonal product or route of administration; whether there is a differential effect on risk of lobular and ductal cancer; and whether hormone treatment is associated with breast cancers that have better prognostic factors? Data sources for the review included Medline, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Cochrane Library, 2005) and reference lists in the identified citations. Eligible citations addressed invasive breast cancer risk among postmenopausal women and involved use of the estrogen products with or without progestin that are used as treatment for menopausal symptoms. Abstracted data were demographic groupings, categories of hormone use, categories of breast cancer, two-by-two tables of exposure and outcome and adjusted odds ratios, relative risks (RRs) or hazard rates. Average estimates of risk were weighted by the inverse variance method, or if heterogeneous, using a random effects model. The average risk of invasive breast cancer with estrogen use was 0.79 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 0.61-1.02] in four randomized trials involving 12 643 women. The average breast cancer risk with estrogen-progestin use was 1.24 (95% CI = 1.03-1.50) in four randomized trials involving 19 756 women. The average risks reported in recent epidemiological studies were higher: 1.18 (95% CI = 1.01-1.38) with current use of estrogen alone and 1.70 (95% CI = 1.36-2.17) with current use of estrogen-progestin. The association of breast cancer with current use was stronger than the association with ever use, which includes past use. For past use, the increased breast cancer risk diminished soon after discontinuing hormones and normalized within 5 years. Reasonably adequate data do not show that breast cancer risk varies significantly with different types of estrogen or progestin preparations, lower dosages or different routes of administration, although there is a small difference between sequential and continuous progestin regimens. Epidemiological studies indicate that estrogen-progestin use increases risk of lobular more than ductal breast cancer, but the number of studies and cases of lobular cancer remains limited. Among important prognostic factors, the stage and grade in breast cancers associated with hormone use [corrected] do not differ significantly from those in non-users, but breast cancers in estrogen-progestin users are significantly more likely to be estrogen receptor (ER) positive. In conclusion, valid evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) indicates that breast cancer risk is increased with estrogen-progestin use more than with estrogen alone. Epidemiological evidence involving more than 1.5 million women agrees broadly with the trial findings. Although new studies are unlikely to alter the key findings about overall br...