Physicians continue to underwhelmingly prescribe low-dose vaginal estrogen for GSM
Kingsberg SA, Krychman M, Graham S, Bernick B, Mirkin S. The Women's EMPOWER survey: identifying women's perceptions on vulvar and vaginal atrophy and its treatment. J Sex Med. 2017;14(3):413-424.
GSM is seriously underrecognized and undertreated.2,8,14 It has a major impact on women's lives--a silent epidemic affecting women's quality of life, sexual health, interpersonal relationships, and even physical health in terms of increased risk of urinary tract infections and urinary symptoms. Unfortunately, patients are reluctant to mention the problem to their clinicians, and they do not clearly recognize it as a medical condition that has available treatment options. Clinicians also rarely receive adequate training in the management of this condition and how to discuss it with their patients. Given busy schedules and time constraints, addressing this topic often falls through the cracks, representing a missed opportunity for helping our patients with safe and effective treatments. In a recent study by Kingsberg and colleagues, an astoundingly low percentageof women with GSM symptoms received treatment.
Details of the study
The study authors evaluated women's perceptions of GSM and available treatment options. US women aged 45 and older who reported GSM symptoms were surveyed. Of 1,858 women with a median age of 58 (range, 45-90), the study authors found that 50% had never used any treatment; 25% used over-the-counter medications; 18% were former users of GSM treatments; and 7% currently used prescribed GSM therapies.
When GSM was discussed, women were more likely than their clinicians to initiate the conversation. The main reason for women not mentioning their symptoms was the perception that GSM symptoms were a natural and inevitable part of aging. Hormonal products were perceived by women as having several downsides, including risk of systemic absorption, messiness of local creams, and the need to reuse an applicator. Overall, clinicians recommended vaginal estrogen therapy to only 23% and oral HTs to 18% of women.
The results of the study are consistent with results of earlier surveys of menopausal women. Although the survey included nearly 2,000 women, it has the potential for selection biases inherent to most Internet-based surveys. In addition, the respondents tended to be white and have higher socieconomic status, with limited representation from other groups.
Calls for the current boxed warning to be revised
GSM is highly prevalent among postmenopausal women; the condition has adverse effects on quality of life and sexual health.2,8,14 Safe and effective treatments are available but are underutilized.1,8,15,16 A current boxed warning appears on low-dose vaginal estrogen--class labeling that appears on all medications in the class of estrogen or HT, regardless of dose or route of administration. These warnings are based on findings from the WHI and other studies of systemic estrogen or estrogen plus progestin, which demonstrated a complex pattern of risks and benefits of HT (including increased risk of venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, stroke, and breast cancer [with estrogen plus progestin]).
These findings, however, do not appear to be relevant to low-dose vaginal estrogen, given minimal if any systemic absorption and much lower blood levels of hormones than found with systemic HT. Blood levels of estradiol with low-dose vaginal estrogen remain in the normal postmenopausal range, compared to several-fold elevations in hormone levels with systemic HT.8,15,16 Additionally, observational studies of low-dose vaginal estrogen, as well as short-term randomized clinical trials, show no evidence of an increased risk of venous thromboembolic events, heart disease, stroke, breast cancer, or dementia--the listed possible adverse effects in the boxed warning. The current warning is based on extrapolating findings from systemic HT, which is inappropriate and not evidence-based for low-dose vaginal estrogen.15
The inappropriate boxed warning contributes to the problem of undertreatment of GSM in women by discouraging clinicians from prescribing the medication and dissuading patients from taking it even after purchase. Testimonials from many clinicians caring for these women have underscored that women will fill their prescription, but after seeing the boxed warning will often become alarmed and decide not to take the medication. Clinicians reported that patients often say at their next appointment: "No, I never took it. I got very scared when I saw the boxed warning." As a result, clinicians often have to spend a great deal of time explaining the limitations of, and lack of evidence for, the boxed warning on low-dose vaginal estrogen.
Related Article:
2016 Update on menopause
Recommended label revisions
A modified label, without a boxed warning, would be safer for women because the key messages would not be obscured by the large amount of irrelevant information. Our Working Group recommended that the label explain that the listed risks were found in studies of systemic HT and their relevance to low-dose vaginal estrogen is unknown. The Group also recommended that warning text should be added in bold font to advise patients to seek medical attention if they have vaginal bleeding or spotting while taking the medication. In addition, patients who have a history of breast cancer or other hormone-sensitive cancer should discuss the use of the medication with their oncologist.
Status update on efforts to revise label. A citizen's petition was filed in the Spring of 2016, with signatures from more than 600 clinicians and patients and representatives of medical and professional organizations endorsing a more appropriate evidence-based label for low-dose vaginal estrogen. The FDA is continuing to review and deliberate on these issues but has not yet made a final decision.
WHAT THIS EVIDENCE MEANS FOR PRACTICEGSM continues to be underrecognized and undertreated, despite recent educational initiatives. Suboptimal communication between clinicians and patients, reluctance to prescribe available treatments, and product labeling that is not evidence based contribute to this problem. Ultimately,we hope that a modified label that better reflects the safety profile of treatment will facilitate the safe and effective treatment of GSM.
Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.