Menopause hormone therapy: what do we know today?
Posted by on November 21, 2014 - 2:08pm

Today, Many women live beyond age 80 and as a result may be postmenopausal for over 30 years. Each woman has a unique range of symptoms.  Hormone therapy has been widely prescribed since the early 60s despite limited research to relieve unpleasant menopausal symptoms.  However,  alarms were raised in the 1990's that have led to a whole battery of new research on hormone therapy that continues to this day.

So what is the current status of hormonal therapy as a treatment option?   Researchers now know that the timing, dosage, path of metabolism, mode of delivery, drug combination, and years of use all matter and need to be measured against each woman’s risk profile.   New genetic and molecular tools enable us to determine how  individuals may respond differently to  the same medications and hormones.     Doctors have better ways to determine risks for the chronic conditions of aging and how they may be impacted when estrogen drops during menopause.   Non-hormonal options are slowly coming on the market, but these, too, may need the test-of-time to determine if they work without side effects and are not always a better alternative.

Doctors do know much more today that they did when hormone therapy was first used and have begun “personalizing” the treatment approach to relieving menopause symptoms as new findings are published.  Individualization is key, and research continues as new diagnostic tools for efficacy and risk are discovered.   In the meantime, women should realize that ALL medicines we take---from aspirin to antibiotics to cold medicine--carry different levels of risk for each person. In fact, many medications beyond hormone therapy, have been studied primarily in males!

In many cases, hormone therapy,  is a relatively safe and effective drug for some women who are experiencing severe symptoms. Learn all you can about your own risk profiles, assess the severity of your symptoms, and find a clinician who keeps up on the latest research to discuss options.    An excellent on-line tool to help you assess your risk and explore the latest interventions can be found at  menopausenu.org

 

 

 

Global Female Condom Day
Posted by on November 20, 2014 - 2:51pm

This year, September 16 marked Global Female Condom Day. Compared to other forms of birth control, female condoms are not widely known about, although they have many advantages. The most important aspect about female condoms is that they are the only woman-initiated birth control product that protects women from both pregnancy and STI’s. While male condoms protect against both of these conditions, a woman does not have complete control over their use as she does with a female condom.

Other benefits of female condoms include:

  • They are non-hormonal for women unable to use hormonal birth control

  • They are latex-free for those with latex allergies

  • There are a variety of brands sold over-the-counter

  • Their design allows for pleasure enhancement for men and women during intercourse

Female condoms have the potential to prevent unwanted pregnancy, especially in countries and regions where prescription birth control and other forms of women-initiated birth control, like IUDs, are not readily available. Additionally, they could be instrumental in reducing HIV/AIDS and other STI rates by giving women more control over protection during intercourse.

The first step to achieving more widespread use of the female condom is education and awareness. For more information on the female condom, click here.

Sources:

Widsom, Phylisa. “It’s Global Female Condom Day! 6 Reasons why the Female Condom is Worth Reconsidering (Hint: It’s not that Scary).”  Bustle.com. 16 September 2014. 

National Female Condom Coalition. 

Why isn't there a 'viagra' for women??
Posted by on November 19, 2014 - 3:57pm

Ads for ED drugs like Viagra and Cialis run across our TVs , newspapers and social media sites every day.   Will there ever be a similar product for women?   Here is an UPDATE from Our Bodies, Ourselves.

We encourage you to send us your comments!!

Skin care tips for middle agers
Posted by on November 14, 2014 - 11:15am

Keeping skin healthy is important, especially as people get older, according to Bethanee J. Schlosser, MD, PhD, FAAD, assistant professor of dermatology and director of Women’s Skin Health at Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago. Dr. Schlosser is also on the Leadership Council of the Women's Health Research Institute.  Read some helpful tips  HERE.

Source: Digital Journal November 12, 2014

Research Finds Minor Cosmetic Surgery Safe
Posted by on November 12, 2014 - 4:15pm

Minimally invasive cosmetic procedures, including fillers, neurotoxins and laser and energy device procedures are exceedingly safe and have essentially no risk of serious adverse events, reports a new Northwestern Medicine® study that analyzed more than 20,000 procedures around the country.

This is believed to be the first large, multi-center study that prospectively analyzed the rate of adverse events among tens of thousands of cosmetic procedures done at many centers around the United States by experienced dermatologists. These procedures are used to decrease the visible facial signs of aging.

When side effects -- such as bruising, redness, swelling, bumpiness or skin darkening -- occur, they are usually minor and go away on their own, the authors report. Such minor adverse events occurred in fewer than 1 percent of patients.

For many years, there was a perception that minimally invasive cosmetic procedures are safer than larger, more invasive cosmetic procedures.  However, there was little evidence to back up this belief.

The new study, published in JAMA Dermatology Nov. 5, was led by Murad Alam, M.D., professor of dermatology at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and a physician at Northwestern Memorial Hospital.

Read more

Treating Women Differently: A CME Course on sex based medicine
Posted by on November 12, 2014 - 3:57pm

Sex differences matter when it comes to clinical care and as researchers better define those differences, clinics are beginning to implement sex-based medicine.   NorthwesternMedicine is leading the way and is hosting a half-day CME symposium featuring experts in the fields of Cardiology, Dermatology, Neurology, Psychiatry and Pelvic Health on November 21, 2014 in Chicago.   To learn more and to register, CLICK HERE.

Parenthood after Cancer: changing the future through science
Posted by on November 6, 2014 - 10:18am
 The following essay by Institute Director Woodruff was published this month in Science2034.

In 2007, I was asked by the Medical Sciences Graduate Students Association at the University of Calgary to participate in a symposium called “Pushing the Boundaries – Advances That Will Change the World in 20 Years.” My presentation topic was oncofertility—a word I had just coined to describe the intersection of two disciplines, oncology and fertility—and I was thrilled to share my thoughts and passion for this new field and the goal of helping young women with cancer protect their future reproductive health.

Oncofertility was just an idea 10 years ago. Today it is a distinct field of medicine, offering new hope to cancer patients who will survive their disease and have fertility options that prior generations lacked.  In the last year alone, 90 percent of young cancer patients at my institution received information about fertility as part of their cancer care. I cannot describe just how monumental this shift is for medical practice, with reproductive specialists and oncologists working together to improve patient care.  For the patients at my institution, the discussions taking place between these two very different disciplines have led to interventions—banking eggs, sperm, embryos or tissue—with the goal of preserving the option to have a future family. For some of our cancer survivors, that future is now, and they are the proud parent of a child they thought they might not be able to have.

Bench to bedside to babies – oncofertility – is now part of the normal lexicon of centers of excellence around the globe as oncologists and reproductive specialists make fertility after cancer a priority at the time of diagnosis. Yet, when I delivered my remarks in Calgary less than a decade ago, I presented this kind of collaborative patient care as the future of medicine. So, what is my prediction for 2034?

Simply put, within the next 20 years, I expect to preside over the elimination of my field.

It sounds odd to create and then hope to eliminate an entire field of science and medicine, but that is my prediction and my hope.  Let me tell you why.  Even as science has created a medical arsenal of early diagnostics (genetic and blood-based), and more effective chemotherapeutics and radiation therapy approaches, I believe there is much more to come. Through science we will create new, smarter therapeutics that will treat the disease without causing collateral damage to the ovary and testes.  We are learning more and more about the way the female egg and the male sperm respond to toxic drugs. Additionally, new technologies to better target drugs and radiation, as well as biologics that are specific to the disease, are on the horizon. Couple these technological advancements with a concerted effort to identify the triggers of cancer and to refocus our efforts on preventive measures that will either reduce the incidence of disease or diagnose it earlier and we will achieve better outcomes for patients. All of these advances – in cancer prevention, diagnosis, and treatment – will one day make it possible to address cancer without affecting future reproductive health, making the word oncofertility obsolete.

So, by 2034, I hope to once again become a regular reproductive scientist, continuing to work out the complexities of oocyte quality, ovarian follicle biology, and reproductive health; knowing that young women and men with cancer around the world need not worry about their ability to have a family one day; looking back fondly on the days when we needed oncofertility; and recognizing how continuing advances in cancer research allowed us to ultimately place oncofertility within the archives of medical history.

Dr. Teresa Woodruff is the Thomas J. Watkins Professor of Obstetrics & Gynecology, the Vice Chair of Research (OB/GYN), the Chief of the Division of Reproductive Science in Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine and Professor of Molecular Biosciences at the Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences at Northwestern University. She is also the Director of the Northwestern University Women’s Health Research Institute.  Her work has been supported by the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation.

NIH Moves carefully on Sex Equity in Research
Posted by on November 4, 2014 - 4:49pm

The recent announcement by the NIH that it would change its funding decisions to address the lack of female animals and cells in early bench research, was indeed good news.  Yet, to date, no funding rules have changed.  To be fair, the NIH did issue a request for information from the research community so they could better understand the barriers to inclusion.  They are now reviewing those comments.

According to an Oct. 28 article in the Scientific American,  "once in place and codified, the requirement would be a major shift for the nations' biomedical labs, many of which study mostly or exclusively male animals.   One estimate found that pharmacology studies include five times as many male animals as female ones..."

The announcement did shake up the scientific community and has generated plenty of  excuses ---too costly to include both sexes, not all conditions will have sex differences, etc.   It behooves the NIH to carefully consider all public comments and come up with thoughtful guidelines to insure inclusion but not hamper scientific progress.   We also need to remember that sex differences are not just about females. A drug may not work well in women but it could be a lifesaver for  men---and this alone would justify the importance of good science that includes and analyzes outcomes reported by sex!

Those of us who have been advocating to include more females in research are impatient (it's been over 20 years since the NIH required the inclusion of women in clinical trials!!!--a goal not quite reached!!)...however, it is important that we define  rules that are fair, enforceable, manageable and result in the best science  "our tax dollars  can buy!"

 

New report card on state rankings in women's health
Posted by on October 30, 2014 - 3:54pm

The Alliance for a Just Society recently released the 2014 Women's Health Report Card that rates the 50 U.S. states on issues related to health coverage, access to care, and health outcomes.   The Alliance is a group of 14 racial and economic justice organizations around the U.S.    This report uses different methodology than early reports entitled "Making the Grade on Women's Health" published in 2000, 2004 and 2007 and 2010 by the National Women's Law Center and the Oregon Health and Science University.

Just two states, Massachusetts and Connecticut, received A's in all three categories.   Twelve states received D or F in all three categories.   Our WHRI home state of Illinois received an overall B rating.  The entire report is available from the Alliance website.   To just view the table chart for all fifty states, click Here.

Pioneer research often lacked informed consent
Posted by on October 30, 2014 - 10:09am

The Conversation, an online newsletter originally based in the United Kingdom and Australia, recently launched its US edition.  On Oct. 30 they published an interesting "conversation" about the history behind the "father of modern gynecology" that discusses his early work on surgical repair of obstetrical fistulas.   Like much early experimental medical procedures, it was often the poorest, most vulnerable women who were used as subjects (in this case slaves) so the lack of consent is concerning.  Yet these "experiments" often ended up helping people in the greatest need.   It is an interesting ethical discussion that has value for young researchers and doctors.  Informed consent today is much more regulated and monitored with legal oversight.  The article in its entirety can be accessed HERE.

Pages