22/12/2009

A comprehensive review of the safety and efficacy of bioidentical hormones for the management of menopause and related health risks
 Moskowitz D.
Altern Med Rev. 2006 Sep;11(3):208-23
Numerous forms of estrogens and progestins are utilized for the treatment of menopausal complaints and associated conditions that occur temporally. Although known to be different with respect to molecular structure, receptor affinity, metabolism, and other physiological traits, most have been treated as if they were clinically identical. The majority of these hormone preparations, commonly referred to as hormone replacement therapy (HRT), should perhaps be more aptly referred to as hormone substitution therapy, as most of the therapies utilized do not exactly match those produced in the body. Research indicates these synthetic hormones vary clinically in safety and efficacy. As such, women and their physicians have, in increasing numbers, been opting for the use of bioidentical hormones; i.e., those that match the structure and function of hormones produced in the body. With greater utilization and research surrounding bioidentical hormones, the differences can now begin to be fully assessed and appreciated. This article reviews the disparities between synthetic and bioidentical estrogens and progestins/progesterone with respect to safety and efficacy; special attention is devoted to clinical outcomes in the breast, endometrium, bone, cardiovascular system, and brain. The studies reviewed suggest bioidentical progesterone does not have a negative effect on blood lipids or vasculature as do many synthetic progestins, and may carry less risk with respect to breast cancer incidence. Studies of both bioidentical estrogens and progesterone suggest a reduced risk of blood clots compared to non-bioidentical preparations. Bioidentical hormone preparations have demonstrated effectiveness in addressing menopausal symptoms. The author advocates for continued research on bioidentical hormones and concludes there is currently sufficient evidence to support their preferred use over that of their synthetic cousins.
PMID: 17217322

The bioidentical hormone debate: are bioidentical hormones (estradiol, estriol, and progesterone) safer or more efficacious than commonly used synthetic versions in hormone replacement therapy
Holtorf K.
Postgrad Med. 2009 Jan;121(1):73-85
Holtorf Medical Group, Inc., Torrance, CA, 90505, USA. kholtorf@cox.net.
Background: The use of bioidentical hormones, including progesterone, estradiol, and estriol, in hormone replacement therapy (HRT) has sparked intense debate. Of special concern is their relative safety compared with traditional synthetic and animal-derived versions, such as conjugated equine estrogens (CEE), medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), and other synthetic progestins. Proponents for bioidentical hormones claim that they are safer than comparable synthetic and nonhuman versions of HRT. Yet according to the US Food and Drug Administration and The Endocrine Society, there is little or no evidence to support claims that bioidentical hormones are safer or more effective. Objective: This paper aimed to evaluate the evidence comparing bioidentical hormones, including progesterone, estradiol, and estriol, with the commonly used nonbioidentical versions of HRT for clinical efficacy, physiologic actions on breast tissue, and risks for breast cancer and cardiovascular disease. Methods: Published papers were identified from PubMed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases, which included keywords associated with bioidentical hormones, synthetic hormones, and HRT. Papers that compared the effects of bioidentical and synthetic hormones, including clinical outcomes and in vitro results, were selected. Results: Patients report greater satisfaction with HRTs that contain progesterone compared with those that contain a synthetic progestin. Bioidentical hormones have some distinctly different, potentially opposite, physiological effects compared with their synthetic counterparts, which have different chemical structures. Both physiological and clinical data have indicated that progesterone is associated with a diminished risk for breast cancer, compared with the increased risk associated with synthetic progestins. Estriol has some unique physiological effects, which differentiate it from estradiol, estrone, and CEE. Estriol would be expected to carry less risk for breast cancer, although no randomized controlled trials have been documented. Synthetic progestins have a variety of negative cardiovascular effects, which may be avoided with progesterone. Conclusion: Physiological data and clinical outcomes demonstrate that bioidentical hormones are associated with lower risks, including the risk of breast cancer and cardiovascular disease, and are more efficacious than their synthetic and animalderived counterparts. Until evidence is found to the contrary, bioidentical hormones remain the preferred method of HRT. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to delineate these differences more clearly.
PMID: 19179815

Bioidentical hormone therapy: a review
Boothby LA, Doering PL, Kipersztok S.

Columbus Regional Drug Information Center, Columbus, GA, USA. lisa.boothby@crhs.net
OBJECTIVE: The terms "natural" or "bioidentical" hormone therapy (NHT) are used to describe hormone treatment with individually compounded recipes of certain steroids in various dosage forms, including dehydroepiandrosterone, pregnenolone, testosterone, progesterone, estrone, estradiol, and estriol. Based on the results of a person's salivary hormone levels, the final composition of the compounded dosage form is individualized to that specific person. Proponents claim that NHT is better tolerated than manufactured products. This paper is intended to review the concept of NHT and to determine whether there is sufficient scientific evidence to support its use. DESIGN: A literature search was performed in Medline using the following MeSH terms and key words: drug combinations; progestational hormones; hormone replacement therapy; endometrium; estrogen replacement therapy; climacteric; menopause; estradiol; estrogens; progesterone; drug monitoring; and drug compounding. Current Contents, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Lexis Nexis, Google, Medscape, MD Consult, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched with key words. RESULTS: There are a few observational studies and clinical trials comparing conventional hormone therapy with bioidentical hormone therapy. Studies generally lacked adequate study design, including small sample sizes and comparison of inequivalent doses, to prove safety and efficacy. Little evidence was found to support individualized hormone dosing based upon saliva hormone concentrations. CONCLUSION: Evidence suggests that, although individualized hormonal products may decrease some symptoms of menopause, it seems they have no proven advantage over conventional hormone therapies and their use is not supported by evidence regarding pharmacokinetics, safety, and efficacy.
PMID: 15167316