User:Riverpa/Sandbox

Sandbox Some random guy who thinks IM BEETTER

=Anti-aging= As lately as 1998, a Wyeth-ghostwritten research article called for the use of estrogen therapy for anti-aging purposes:



Uses
As one of several treatment options, BHRT may be prescribed to reduce the symptoms of menopause, as recommended by mainstream medicine. FDA approval of various products comprised of bioidentical hormones in standard dosages brought these options to the US market in the 1990s.

BHRT is also promoted, especially by people lacking medical credentials, as providing benefits beyond menopausal symptom relief, including for anti-aging and disease prevention, though there is no evidence to support these claims. Internet pharmacies have promoted the use of individual or compounded bioidentical hormones for purposes as diverse as the prevention of Alzheimer's disease and the restoration of sexual libido, with little to no scientific foundation. Compounded BHRT is not expected to offer benefits beyond increased bone density, the only demonstrated benefit of CHRT.

Doesn't belong
In 2002, the Women's Health Initiative study (WHI), which was designed to confirm widely-believed benefits beyond menopausal relief, was terminated prematurely after preliminary data indicated increased risks of breast cancer, heart attacks and strokes in older women given CHRT. The early termination of the WHI study and subsequent publicity of these previously unappreciated risks led to a decline in prescriptions for CHRT. BHRT has since been strongly promoted as a natural alternative with fewer risks than CHRT, though there is no evidence to support this claim.

Modes of Treatment
Transdermal hormones are often available in the US without a prescription. Absorption rates of transdermal hormone preparations are variable, making dosage recommendations unreliable.

Criticisms
The primary differences between CHRT and compounded BHRT as popularly promoted involve testing of blood or saliva-bound estrogen levels, use of individualized compounding rather than standard doses, dosing to attain certain levels in the body rather than to relieve symptoms, and the use of hormones for purposes other than relief of menopausal symptoms. Proponents of compounded BHRT have been criticized by many mainstream medical sources for making unsubstantiated claims about its effectiveness for a variety of purposes, and for promoting it as more safe and "natural" than CHRT.

Advocates for BHRT have claimed that commonly compounded BHRT preparations are not commercially available, which is not true. Customized compounding does not actually provide customized results since it is aimed at producing a single hormone profile, which has not been demonstrated to be better than CHRT and does not consider the rate at which individuals will differ in the activity, metabolism and excretion of the hormones.

Salivary testing and compounding
BHRT is frequently associated with testing of saliva to establish a baseline hormone level, and compounding of the substances by pharmacists, on the advice of doctors, to produce preparations and blood-levels of hormones that are individualized to the patients. There is no research that demonstrates there is any benefit to either of these practices. Though promoters of BHRT claim that saliva testing can be used to "customize" the level of hormones for individuals, and tests are used to determine which hormones are supposed to be deficient and require supplementation, there is no scientific basis to support the use of saliva testing as estrogens are secreted in pulses within and across days resulting in varying saliva levels. Certain compounding formulations also attempt to use a single profile for all women, with no evidence that a specific profile is beneficial in all cases and no recognition that women differ in their sensitivity to hormones and rate of metabolization. Customizing based on testing also does not account for much of the effects and synthesization of hormones occurs within tissues rather than in the blood, and therefore blood or saliva levels of hormones may not necessarily reflect actual biological activity. Other concerns include lack of evidence that samples are stable during storage and transportation, poor reproducibility of results, and considerable variability between assays. There are also no studies that link symptoms with blood or saliva levels of hormones. The FDA recommends instead adjusting hormone therapy based on the symptoms of the patient,  and there is no reason to adjust the dosing or monitor patients receiving BHRT. Skeptics of BHRT have also pointed out that there is also no certainty regarding what level of hormones should be found in the body.

Although promoted as a way of customizing treatment, hormone therapy does not require customization. and the use of testing to determine the amount of hormones administered could result in the dose used being higher than the minimum recommended level to alleviate symptoms or the administration of unnecessary hormones to asymptomatic women resulting in greater risks to the patient. In addition, analysis of the material used to promote BHRT suggests that rather than basing hormone doses on saliva results, practitioners are actually adjusting the dose based on symptoms. Health practitioners customize the care of their patients on an ongoing basis by choosing the medication, dose and administration route individually, using approved medications that have a demonstrated safety record and are not subject to the errors and inconsistencies of custom-prepared combinations. In addition, the different bioidentical preparations result in mixtures with different strengths and practitioners using compounded formulations may be unaware of the total dose of hormones their patients receive.

Boothby, Doering and Kipersztok summarize the issue as being a poor effort to apply principles of pharmacokinetics to achieve individualized dosing for drugs that do not require it.

Saliva testing has not been shown to accurately measure blood-bound hormone levels. The FDA recommends the lowest dose of hormones that effectively relieve symptoms and does not recommend custom-compounding, blood or saliva testing.

Lack of evidence for claims
Bioidentical hormones have been advertised, marketed and promoted as a risk-free panacea that is safer than standard HRT. Literature reviews by private practitioners who sell bioidentical preparations suggest benefits and advantages in the use of BHRT over conventional counterparts,  but there is significant skepticism over claims made about BHRT and there is no peer-reviewed evidence that compounded bioidentical hormones are safer or more effective than FDA-approved formulations or that they carry less risk. The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warned that claims about compounded BHRT products are unsupported by medical evidence, unlike claims about manufactured, FDA-approved products. The chief medical editor of Endocrine Today called compounded BHRT a "marketing concept" with no scientific backing, and the FDA warned that pharmacies use these terms to imply that the drugs are natural and have the same effects as endogenous hormones. Some also claim that compounded BHRT can prevent or treat diseases such as stroke, Alzheimer’s disease, breast cancer and heart disease. There is no credible evidence to support these claims. Bioidentical hormones and compounded BHRT are expected to have the same risks and benefits as CHRT, though the latter benefits from years of study and regulation, while compounded BHRT has no scientific data to support claims of superior safety or efficacy. The following specific claims have been made for the effectiveness of bioidentical hormones and compounded BHRT, with varying evidence to support or contradict them:

In 2006 actress Suzanne Somers released the book Ageless: The Naked Truth About Bioidentical Hormones, which endorsed the use of bioidentical hormones. The book was criticized by a group of doctors who, though generally supportive of the use of bioidentical hormones, state that more research is required, and object to protocols mentioned in the book on the basis of their potential danger, as well as the lack of qualification of the promotors. Somers' book may have raised the profile of BHRT for the growing number of menopausal women, but also may cause confusion in making unsubstantiated claims for BHRT, and in referring to bioidentical hormones as non-drug products with fewer risks. Bioidentical hormones have also been discussed on The Oprah Winfrey Show, with Somers as a guest.

Bioidentical hormone proponents Erika Schwartz and Kent Holtorf criticized a 2008 review of literature on bioidentical hormones for addressing only compounded bioidentical hormones, and not reviewing FDA-approved bioidentical products, which they believe added to the existing confusion. Michael Cirigliano and Judi Chervenak have stated in reviews of literature on BHRT that large-scale, peer-reviewed studies should be used to establish the safety, efficacy and beliefs about the use of bioidentical hormones.

M. Sarah Rosenthal, Director of the University of Kentucky Program for Bioethics and Patients’ Rights, has stated that she believes BHRT is an experimental therapy that is often prescribed by practitioners who sell the products, and are thus in an unethical position of conflict of interest. Rosenthal has also described problematic issues with BHRT including patients receiving information from popular books while lacking the scientific literacy to separate rhetoric from evidence about hormone replacement, illegitimate claims of a "big pharam" conspiracy to suppress bioidentical prescribing, the extra and unnecessary cost of the products that are often not covered by insurance plans, and the inaccurate depiction of bioidentical prescribing as "cutting edge science" rather than unproven alternative medicine.

"Natural" claims
Bioidentical hormones are frequently marketed as being "natural", or more natural than conventional HRT. Women who purchase compounded BHRT are more likely to associate the term "natural" with the idea that the hormones are derived from plant sources. The source and extraction processes used to create bioidentical and nonbioidentical hormones from plants are exactly the same - most are produced through conversion of diosgenin (extracted from soy or yam plants) into progesterone which is used as a hormone chemical precursor. Natural is also used to refer to the hormones being molecularly identical to those found endogenously. The Harvard Women's Health Watch, published by Harvard Medical School, states that the "natural' part of the marketing of BHRT may be a euphemism for "unregulated" rather than safe and state that the term "natural" can technically be used to indicate any product with an animal, plant, or mineral source, and as such applies to hormones that are not bioidentical, including Premarin (a non-bioidentical hormone extracted from the urine of pregnant horses), as well as to the molecules extracted from soybean and yam sources.

Cost
Compounded BHRT is more expensive than conventional, FDA-approved HRT and is often not covered by health insurance plans.