Current Issue
Volume: 122
Number: 4
Index: July 2010
Clinical Focus: Neurological disorders and depression
Call For Papers
September 2010
Clinical Focus: ADHD, Allergies, Immunization, and Diabetes
  • Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder:
    • ADHD
      • Treating children, adolescents, and adults
      • Pharmacotherapy options
      • Switching medication dosages
      • Treating ADHD in patients with concomitant disorders
      • Clinical trial developments
    • Oppositional defiant disorder
  • Immunization and pediatrics:
    • Vaccinations for infants, children, and adults:
      • HPV
      • Meningococcal
      • Influenza
    • Physical examinations for back-to-school
    • Allergy medications
    • Treating asthma in children and adolescents
  • Diabetes:
    • Juvenile diabetes
    • New drug developments for type 1 and type 2 diabetes
    • Pen devices
    • Managing diabetes in patients with concomitant disorders:
      • Obesity
      • Metabolic syndrome
      • Cardiovascular disease
      • Chronic kidney disease
      • Hypertension
    • Clinical trials, DPP-4 inhibitors, and investigational drugs
    • Diabetes in different patient populations:
      • African Americans
      • Hispanics
    • Diabetic complications:
      • Hypoglycemia
      • Macrovascular
      • Nephropathy Ocular
Submission deadline: August 02
Fast-Track deadline: August 10
About
Fast-Track peer review is available for those papers requiring immediate review (for an additional fee). Complete peer review is finalized in 1-2 weeks and comments are provided to the author within 72 hours of their receipt by the editorial office. Authors are asked to submit a revised manuscript within 10-12 days. Accepted manuscripts are processed within 2-3 weeks, published online within 3 business days of final author approval, and in print in the next available issue.
Submissions
*NEW* Submit your FAST-TRACK manuscript online today. It's fast, it's easy! Just follow the detailed instructions, fill in all the required fields, and upload your manuscript.
Get started NOW!
Contacts
Libraries:
sitelicenses@postgradmed.com

Reprints:
reprints@postgradmed.com

Subscriptions:
subscriptions@postgradmed.com

Supplements:
supplements@postgradmed.com

Document Delivery Services 1946-2010:
documentdelivery@postgradmed.com

Editorial:
editor-in-chief@postgradmed.com editorial@postgradmed.com

Website:
support@postgradmed.com

Managing Director:
John Elduff
Phone: 610-889-3732
Fax: 1-866-297-3168
j.elduff@postgradmed.com

General Information
Phone: 610-889-3730
Fax: 1-866-297-3168
1235 Westlakes Drive
Suite 320
Berwyn, PA 19312
September 8, 2010
Index - Table of Content - Article Abstract
Related Articles
  1. The Bioidentical Hormone Debate:
    Are Bioidentical Hormones (Estradiol, Estriol, and Progesterone) Safer or More Efficacious than Commonly Used Synthetic Versions in Hormone Replacement Therapy?
  2. Prevention, Screening, and Management of Osteoporosis:
    An Overview of the Current Strategies
  3. Inflammatory Arthritis:
    An Overview for Primary Care Physicians
Weekly Poll
Advertisement image
doi: 10.3810/pgm.2009.01.1949
Postgraduate Medicine: Volume 121: No.1
The Bioidentical Hormone Debate:
Are Bioidentical Hormones (Estradiol, Estriol, and Progesterone) Safer or More Efficacious than Commonly Used Synthetic Versions in Hormone Replacement Therapy?
Kent Holtorf, MD
Abstract: 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.

(read)

Back to the table of contents for the January 2009 issue