Revisiting Hormone Replacement Therapy: Are the Risks Still Overstated?

Introduction

Few therapies in midlife medicine have undergone a reputational reversal as dramatic as menopausal hormone therapy. Before the Women’s Health Initiative, systemic estrogen therapy was widely used not only for vasomotor and genitourinary symptoms, but also for presumed long-term protection against cardiovascular disease, cognitive decline, and osteoporosis. The WHI changed that practice quickly and appropriately.

The change was necessary. The WHI found that routine hormone therapy for chronic disease prevention could cause harm in the populations and treatment regimens studied. Yet the subsequent message was often simplified into a broader rule: hormone therapy is dangerous. That conclusion was easier to remember than the evidence itself, and it led many clinicians and patients to assume that all formulations, routes, ages, indications, and baseline risk profiles carried the same risk.

The more useful question is not whether the risks were real or overstated. Both can be true. The risks were real in the WHI populations and remain clinically important. They were overstated when the findings were applied without attention to patient selection, timing, indication, route, dose, duration, and progestogen exposure.

A contemporary approach should be neither nostalgic nor dismissive. Menopausal hormone therapy is not a longevity intervention, cardioprotective drug, or cognitive-preservation strategy. It is an effective treatment for carefully selected patients with bothersome menopausal symptoms or premature estrogen deficiency. Low-dose vaginal therapy can also be appropriate for genitourinary syndrome of menopause.

Why This Topic Matters Now

Hormone therapy is being reconsidered for several reasons. Patients may spend a large proportion of their lives after menopause, and untreated vasomotor symptoms, sleep disruption, genitourinary symptoms, sexual pain, recurrent urinary symptoms, and bone loss can be clinically consequential. The initial public interpretation of the WHI also frequently conflated patients who started therapy near menopause with those who began treatment later in life.

Current treatment options differ from the specific regimens that shaped much of the original debate. Lower-dose regimens, transdermal estradiol, micronized progesterone, and low-dose vaginal therapies are widely used, whereas the pivotal WHI combined-therapy trial evaluated oral conjugated equine estrogen plus medroxyprogesterone acetate. These differences are clinically relevant, but they should not be used to imply that newer routes or formulations have been proven free of cardiovascular, thromboembolic, breast, or endometrial risk. Randomized comparative outcome data remain limited for many contemporary regimens.

The regulatory environment has also changed. In November 2025, the FDA requested labeling revisions for menopausal hormone therapy products, including removal or revision of broad boxed-warning language concerning cardiovascular disease, breast cancer, and probable dementia for many products. By 2026, revised labeling had been approved for several products. The endometrial cancer boxed warning was retained for systemic estrogen-alone therapy in patients with a uterus.

These revisions do not mean that menopausal hormone therapy is risk-free. Current product labels continue to contain formulation-specific contraindications, warnings, and precautions involving thromboembolic events, stroke, myocardial infarction, breast cancer, abnormal uterine bleeding, gallbladder disease, hepatic disease, and other safety considerations. Clinicians should consult the current prescribing information for the specific product rather than extrapolate from a class-wide historical label.

The changing regulatory environment creates another risk: replacing previous overavoidance with new overenthusiasm. The clinical task is to prescribe more precisely, not more casually.

Terminology and Core Principles

The term hormone replacement therapy remains widely recognized, but many contemporary sources prefer menopausal hormone therapy. The latter term avoids implying that all treatment is intended to reproduce premenopausal physiology. This article uses menopausal hormone therapy as the preferred term and uses hormone replacement therapy when referring to historical terminology or source language.

Several principles should guide interpretation.

First, systemic therapy and local vaginal therapy are not equivalent. Systemic estrogen is used primarily for vasomotor symptoms and, in selected patients, prevention of bone loss while therapy continues. Low-dose vaginal estrogen is used primarily for genitourinary syndrome of menopause and generally produces substantially lower systemic exposure.

Second, estrogen-alone therapy and estrogen-progestogen therapy have different risk profiles. Patients with an intact uterus who receive systemic estrogen generally require adequate endometrial protection with a progestogen. Unopposed systemic estrogen increases the risk of endometrial hyperplasia and endometrial cancer.

Third, the WHI evaluated specific regimens in specific populations. The best-known estrogen-progestin trial used oral conjugated equine estrogen plus medroxyprogesterone acetate. The estrogen-alone trial enrolled patients with prior hysterectomy. These findings remain pivotal, but they are not identical evidence for every estrogen dose, route, progestogen, duration, or patient population.

Fourth, symptom treatment is different from disease prevention. Systemic menopausal hormone therapy is an appropriate option for selected patients with bothersome vasomotor symptoms. It should not be initiated for primary prevention of coronary disease, stroke, dementia, or generalized “healthy aging.”

What the WHI Did and Did Not Show

The WHI estrogen-plus-progestin trial reported increased risks of coronary heart disease events, stroke, pulmonary embolism, and invasive breast cancer with oral conjugated equine estrogen plus medroxyprogesterone acetate. The trial also reported reductions in hip fractures and colorectal cancer. The overall balance of risk and benefit did not support use of that regimen for chronic disease prevention in the studied population.

The WHI estrogen-alone trial, conducted in patients with prior hysterectomy, showed a different pattern. Conjugated equine estrogen increased stroke risk and reduced hip fracture risk, but it did not significantly reduce coronary heart disease. Breast cancer findings also differed from those in the combined-therapy trial. Estrogen-alone therapy and estrogen-progestogen therapy should therefore not be discussed as a single exposure.

Long-term WHI follow-up did not identify a statistically significant overall difference in all-cause mortality between hormone therapy and placebo. That finding is reassuring in one respect, but it should not be interpreted as proof of global benefit. Mortality neutrality does not eliminate the risks of stroke, venous thromboembolism, breast cancer with certain regimens, abnormal uterine bleeding, gallbladder disease, or treatment burden.

The most clinically useful interpretation is straightforward. WHI refuted routine systemic hormone therapy for chronic disease prevention. It did not refute individualized symptom treatment in appropriately selected patients near the menopausal transition.

The Timing Question

The timing hypothesis proposes that estrogen’s vascular effects may differ according to when treatment begins. Initiation near menopause may have different consequences than initiation later, after atherosclerosis has developed. The hypothesis is biologically plausible and has some support from subgroup analyses and subsequent evidence, but it should not be treated as proof that systemic hormone therapy prevents cardiovascular disease.

Current specialty guidance generally regards the benefit-risk balance as more favorable for symptomatic patients younger than 60 years or within 10 years of menopause onset who lack contraindications. The balance becomes less favorable with older age, longer time since menopause, and higher baseline cardiovascular, stroke, dementia, or thromboembolic risk.

A 2025 secondary analysis of the WHI randomized trials found that hormone therapy reduced moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms. Among women aged 50 to 59 years with vasomotor symptoms, hormone therapy did not significantly increase atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk. Cardiovascular findings were less favorable in older women, particularly those aged 70 years or older with vasomotor symptoms.

These findings support symptom treatment in women aged 50 to 59 years with moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms, but they do not establish cardiovascular prevention and do not support initiating systemic therapy late in life solely for disease prevention or nonspecific wellness goals.

Cardiovascular, Stroke, and Thromboembolic Risk

Systemic hormone therapy should not be used to prevent cardiovascular disease. For cardiologists, internists, pharmacists, and advanced practice clinicians, this remains a central principle. The more nuanced question is whether a symptomatic patient with low baseline risk can use systemic therapy without an unacceptable level of harm.

Age, time since menopause, baseline ASCVD risk, hypertension, smoking, diabetes, obesity, migraine history, thrombophilia, prior venous thromboembolism, prior stroke, prior myocardial infarction, and route of estrogen administration all influence risk assessment.

Oral estrogen undergoes first-pass hepatic metabolism, which can affect liver-produced coagulation factors, triglycerides, and inflammatory markers. Observational evidence and biologic plausibility suggest that transdermal estrogen may be associated with a lower risk of venous thromboembolism than oral estrogen. However, randomized outcome data directly comparing the routes remain limited.

For patients with active or prior venous thromboembolism, active or prior arterial thromboembolic disease, or known thrombophilia, systemic estrogen is generally contraindicated under current product labeling. Patients with high or uncontrolled vascular risk also require careful individualized assessment, and systemic therapy may be inappropriate.

For patients with low baseline risk and bothersome vasomotor symptoms, lower-dose transdermal estradiol is often favored when clinicians wish to minimize first-pass hepatic effects. This choice should be described as risk mitigation based on pharmacology and observational evidence, not risk elimination or proof of superior long-term cardiovascular safety.

Breast Cancer Risk: The Regimen Matters

Breast cancer risk is one of the most important areas in which simplified messaging can mislead. Combined estrogen-progestogen therapy and estrogen-alone therapy do not appear to have identical effects.

The WHI combined-therapy trial found an increased risk of invasive breast cancer with conjugated equine estrogen plus medroxyprogesterone acetate. Estrogen-alone therapy in patients with prior hysterectomy did not show the same increase in WHI, and extended follow-up suggested a lower breast cancer incidence in that particular trial population. That finding should not be generalized to all populations, durations, estrogen formulations, routes, or baseline risk levels.

Large observational analyses have associated many systemic hormone therapy regimens, particularly longer-duration combined therapy, with increased breast cancer risk. Risk generally increases with duration and appears most relevant during current or recent use. The progestogen component may influence risk, but comparative evidence for breast cancer outcomes by progestogen type is less definitive than many discussions imply.

Clinicians should avoid two common errors. The first is telling every patient that any exposure to hormone therapy markedly increases breast cancer risk. The second is claiming that newer, compounded, or “bioidentical” regimens carry no breast cancer risk. Neither statement adequately represents the evidence.

A history of breast cancer, high inherited risk, prior chest radiation, proliferative breast disease, mammographic density, anticipated duration of therapy, and patient values should inform decision-making. Patients should continue age- and risk-appropriate breast cancer screening.

Endometrial Safety

Endometrial safety remains a non-negotiable prescribing issue. Systemic estrogen without adequate progestogen increases endometrial hyperplasia and endometrial cancer risk in patients with an intact uterus. This risk remains central enough that the FDA retained boxed-warning language concerning endometrial cancer for systemic estrogen-alone therapy in patients with a uterus.

Patients with an intact uterus generally require endometrial protection with an appropriate progestogen regimen. Persistent, recurrent, or otherwise unexplained abnormal uterine bleeding requires evaluation.

Clinicians should not automatically normalize bleeding during therapy without considering endometrial pathology, inadequate progestogen exposure, adherence problems, drug interactions, structural lesions, or malignancy.

Dementia and Cognitive Outcomes

Systemic hormone therapy should not be initiated to prevent dementia or cognitive decline. WHIMS found a higher risk of probable dementia among women aged 65 years or older who initiated conjugated equine estrogen plus medroxyprogesterone acetate.

Whether the WHIMS findings apply directly to younger symptomatic patients near menopause remains uncertain. That uncertainty is not evidence that systemic hormone therapy provides neuroprotection.

Some patients may report improvement in perceived cognition as vasomotor symptoms and sleep disruption improve. However, such symptom-related improvement does not establish protection against dementia or cognitive decline.

The practical recommendation remains clear: systemic menopausal hormone therapy should not be prescribed for dementia prevention.

Genitourinary Syndrome of Menopause

Genitourinary syndrome of menopause is a distinct clinical domain. Symptoms may include vaginal dryness, dyspareunia, recurrent irritation, urinary urgency, recurrent urinary symptoms, and tissue fragility.

Low-dose vaginal estrogen is effective for many patients and generally produces substantially lower systemic exposure than systemic therapy. For patients whose symptoms are limited to genitourinary syndrome of menopause, local therapy is usually preferred over systemic therapy.

Current guidance supports continuing local therapy when symptoms persist and the individualized benefit-risk balance remains favorable. A universal stop date is not required solely because of duration of use.

Patients with a history of estrogen-dependent cancer require individualized shared decision-making, often involving oncology or gynecology. Additional caution is appropriate for patients receiving aromatase inhibitor therapy because even small changes in systemic estrogen exposure may be clinically relevant.

Bone Health and Premature Estrogen Deficiency

Systemic estrogen prevents bone loss and reduces fracture risk while therapy is used. This can be clinically relevant for symptomatic patients who also have low bone mass or increased fracture risk.

Systemic menopausal hormone therapy should not be presented as the preferred long-term osteoporosis treatment for most older postmenopausal patients when medications specifically indicated for osteoporosis are more appropriate. Bone protection may be a secondary benefit when hormone therapy is otherwise indicated for menopausal symptoms.

Patients with premature ovarian insufficiency or early surgical menopause require a different benefit-risk framework. In these patients, estrogen therapy until approximately the average age of natural menopause is often closer to physiologic replacement than elective initiation later in postmenopause. Treatment goals include symptom control and reduction of risks associated with early estrogen deficiency.

Contraindications and individual patient risks should also be considered.

Candidate Selection

The most appropriate candidates for systemic menopausal hormone therapy are symptomatic patients younger than 60 years or within 10 years of menopause onset who have bothersome vasomotor symptoms, lack contraindications, and understand that therapy is intended primarily for symptom control rather than chronic disease prevention.

Patients with an intact uterus generally require adequate progestogen exposure with systemic estrogen. Patients with prior hysterectomy can usually receive estrogen alone when no contraindication is present and the surgical history has been clarified.

Patients whose symptoms are limited to genitourinary syndrome of menopause should generally begin with local vaginal therapy rather than systemic therapy.

Additional caution is required in patients older than 60 years, more than 10 years beyond menopause onset, or with elevated ASCVD, stroke, venous thromboembolism, breast cancer, liver disease, or dementia risk. Initiation after age 65 generally has a less favorable benefit-risk profile and requires careful individualized assessment.

Continuation beyond age 60 or 65 is a separate question. Decisions should be based on persistent symptoms, informed patient preference, periodic risk reassessment, treatment response, and consideration of alternatives rather than automatic discontinuation based on age alone.

Table 1. Practical Candidate Selection for Menopausal Hormone Therapy

Clinical scenario	Usual approach	Key caution
Younger than 60 years or within 10 years of menopause onset with bothersome vasomotor symptoms	Consider systemic therapy if no contraindications are present	Use an individualized effective dose and reassess periodically
Intact uterus	Use systemic estrogen with adequate progestogen	Unopposed systemic estrogen increases endometrial cancer risk
Prior hysterectomy	Estrogen alone may be appropriate	Confirm surgical history and absence of contraindications
Symptoms limited to GSM	Prefer low-dose vaginal therapy	Coordinate with oncology when there is a history of estrogen-dependent cancer
Premature ovarian insufficiency or early surgical menopause	Consider hormone therapy until approximately the average age of natural menopause	The benefit-risk framework differs from elective late initiation
Older than 60 years or more than 10 years since menopause onset	Do not initiate routinely; individualize carefully	Absolute vascular, thromboembolic, and dementia-related concerns generally increase with age
Prior VTE, stroke, myocardial infarction, breast cancer, active liver disease, or known thrombophilia	Systemic therapy is usually contraindicated or inappropriate	Consult current product labeling; specialist input may be appropriate

Contraindications and Safety Screening

Before prescribing systemic menopausal hormone therapy, clinicians should confirm the treatment indication, symptom burden, menstrual and surgical history, uterus status, age, time since menopause, prior hormone exposure, breast cancer risk, cardiovascular risk, venous thromboembolism history, stroke history, migraine history, liver disease, abnormal bleeding history, and current medications.

Contraindications differ by formulation and product. Common contraindications in current U.S. labeling for systemic estrogen-containing products include:

• Undiagnosed abnormal genital bleeding

• Known, suspected, or prior breast cancer

• Known or suspected estrogen-dependent neoplasia

• Active or prior deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism

• Active or prior arterial thromboembolic disease, including stroke or myocardial infarction

• Hepatic impairment or active liver disease

• Known thrombophilic disorders

• Hypersensitivity to the product or any of its components

This list should not substitute for review of product-specific prescribing information. Contraindications and warnings for low-dose vaginal products may differ from those for systemic formulations.

Unexpected bleeding requires evaluation. Persistent or recurrent bleeding during treatment should not be dismissed as a routine nuisance effect without appropriate assessment.

Route, Dose, and Progestogen Choice

Therapy should be individualized. The practical goal is to use an effective dose that controls symptoms while avoiding unnecessary exposure. Lower-dose regimens are often preferred when they provide adequate symptom control.

However, if a lower-dose regimen results in undertreatment, it can lead to discontinuation and persistent symptoms. Dose reduction should not become an arbitrary goal that prevents effective treatment.

Transdermal estradiol is often favored when clinicians wish to minimize first-pass hepatic effects, particularly in patients with hypertriglyceridemia, migraine considerations, gallbladder concerns, or factors that increase concern about venous thromboembolism. Oral therapy may remain reasonable for carefully selected patients with low baseline risk who prefer it and tolerate it well.

For endometrial protection, clinicians may use continuous or cyclic progestogen regimens. Micronized progesterone is commonly used and may have favorable tolerability for some patients. Clinicians should not claim that micronized progesterone eliminates breast cancer, thrombotic, or cardiovascular risk. Comparative clinical outcome data among progestogens remain less definitive than many patient-facing discussions suggest.

Table 2. Route and Formulation Considerations

Decision point	Clinical implication	Practical note
Oral estrogen	Produces greater first-pass hepatic exposure	May affect coagulation factors and triglycerides
Transdermal estrogen	Minimizes first-pass hepatic exposure	Often favored when VTE or triglyceride concerns exist, although randomized comparative outcome data are limited
Estrogen alone	May be used after hysterectomy when appropriate	Generally not appropriate with an intact uterus unless a specific alternative source of endometrial protection is established
Estrogen plus progestogen	Required for most patients with an intact uterus receiving systemic estrogen	Adequate progestogen exposure protects the endometrium
Low-dose vaginal estrogen	Used primarily for GSM	Not a substitute for systemic treatment of vasomotor symptoms
Compounded hormone products	Have variable regulatory oversight, manufacturing consistency, and dosing	Avoid routine use when an appropriate FDA-approved product is available

Compounded “Bioidentical” Hormone Therapy

The term “bioidentical” is frequently used imprecisely. FDA-approved estradiol and micronized progesterone can be chemically identical to endogenous hormones. The central issue is not whether a molecule resembles an endogenous hormone, but whether the product is accurately dosed, consistently manufactured, appropriately labeled, and supported by adequate pharmacokinetic, efficacy, and safety data.

Compounded menopausal hormone therapy should not be routinely recommended when an appropriate FDA-approved option is available. Custom compounding may be appropriate in limited circumstances, such as a documented allergy to an excipient or inability to use available approved formulations.

Claims that compounded products provide superior safety, protection against cancer or cardiovascular disease, or individualized dosing precision based on salivary hormone testing are not adequately supported.

Nonhormonal Alternatives

Not all patients want or can safely use menopausal hormone therapy. Evidence-based nonhormonal options for vasomotor symptoms include selected SSRIs and SNRIs, gabapentin, fezolinetant, cognitive behavioral therapy, and clinical hypnosis. Oxybutynin has also been used, although anticholinergic adverse effects and cumulative anticholinergic burden are important concerns, particularly in older patients.

Neurokinin receptor antagonists have expanded the available nonhormonal options, but their safety requirements are product-specific.

Fezolinetant

Fezolinetant is a neurokinin 3 receptor antagonist indicated for moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms due to menopause. Its current prescribing information contains a boxed warning for hepatotoxicity.

Before initiation, clinicians should obtain ALT, AST, alkaline phosphatase, and total and direct bilirubin. Treatment should not be initiated if ALT or AST is at least 2 times the upper limit of normal or if total bilirubin is at least 2 times the upper limit of normal.

Hepatic laboratory testing should be repeated monthly for the first 3 months and again at months 6 and 9. Patients should be instructed to stop treatment and seek prompt evaluation if symptoms suggestive of liver injury occur.

Fezolinetant is contraindicated in patients with known cirrhosis, severe renal impairment or end-stage renal disease, and those receiving concomitant CYP1A2 inhibitors.

Elinzanetant

Elinzanetant is a neurokinin 1 and neurokinin 3 receptor antagonist indicated for moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms due to menopause.

Baseline ALT, AST, alkaline phosphatase, and total and direct bilirubin should be obtained. Treatment should not be initiated if ALT or AST is at least 2 times the upper limit of normal or if total bilirubin is at least 2 times the upper limit of normal. Hepatic transaminases should be reassessed at 3 months and whenever symptoms suggest liver injury.

Elinzanetant is contraindicated in pregnancy. Its labeling also includes precautions concerning central nervous system depression, daytime impairment, pregnancy loss, and seizure risk. Patients should be cautioned about driving or other activities requiring alertness until they understand how treatment affects them.

Strong CYP3A4 inhibitors and grapefruit juice should be avoided. The dose should be reduced with moderate CYP3A4 inhibitors, and concomitant use with moderate or strong CYP3A4 inducers should be avoided. Elinzanetant is not recommended in end-stage renal disease or moderate to severe hepatic impairment.

The monitoring requirements for fezolinetant and elinzanetant are not interchangeable. Clinicians should consult the current prescribing information before initiation and during treatment.

Table 3. Major Risk Domains and Clinical Actions

Risk domain	Main concern	Higher-risk patients	Practical action
VTE and stroke	Systemic estrogen can increase thrombotic risk	Prior VTE, thrombophilia, obesity, smoking, or older age	Avoid systemic therapy when contraindicated and consult current product labeling
Breast cancer	Risk with combined therapy generally increases with longer duration	Prior breast cancer, inherited risk, proliferative breast disease, or prolonged use	Individualize treatment and maintain appropriate screening
Endometrium	Unopposed systemic estrogen increases endometrial cancer risk	Intact uterus without adequate progestogen	Provide adequate endometrial protection and evaluate abnormal bleeding
Dementia	Late initiation was associated with increased probable dementia in WHIMS	Age 65 years or older or existing cognitive impairment	Do not prescribe systemic therapy for cognitive protection
Cardiovascular disease	Menopausal hormone therapy is not indicated for prevention	High ASCVD risk or prior myocardial infarction or stroke	Use standard evidence-based cardiovascular prevention strategies
Bone	Systemic therapy prevents bone loss and reduces fracture risk while used	Symptomatic patients with low bone mass or elevated fracture risk	Consider bone benefit as part of the overall treatment assessment, not as universal long-term osteoporosis therapy
Neurokinin antagonists	Product-specific hepatic, renal, neurologic, pregnancy, and interaction risks	Liver disease, renal impairment, interacting medications, seizure history, or pregnancy potential	Follow the current label for the individual agent

Monitoring and Follow-Up

A follow-up visit at approximately 8 to 12 weeks can assess symptom response, blood pressure, adverse effects, adherence, bleeding pattern, breast symptoms, mood, sleep, and treatment goals. Earlier review is appropriate when symptoms, adverse effects, or risk factors change.

Thereafter, annual reassessment is reasonable for many patients. Review should address whether the indication persists, whether the current route and dose remain appropriate, whether new contraindications have developed, and whether the patient continues to prefer treatment after discussion of benefits, risks, and alternatives.

Monitoring should emphasize routine preventive care rather than unnecessary serial hormone measurements. Breast cancer screening should follow age- and risk-based guidance. Abnormal uterine bleeding should be evaluated. Cardiovascular risk factors should be managed according to standard prevention guidelines.

Patients receiving fezolinetant should follow the current boxed-warning hepatic-testing schedule. Patients receiving elinzanetant should follow its separate hepatic, renal, neurologic, pregnancy, and drug-interaction precautions.

Clinicians should reassess the ongoing need for therapy rather than impose a universal stop date. Some patients can taper successfully. Others experience recurrent severe symptoms and may reasonably continue therapy after individualized reassessment and informed discussion of risks and alternatives.

Practical Approach for Clinicians

First, confirm the indication. Determine whether the primary concern is vasomotor symptoms, genitourinary syndrome of menopause, premature ovarian insufficiency, early surgical menopause, or a bone-related consideration in a patient who also has an accepted indication for systemic therapy.

Next, determine whether the symptoms require systemic treatment or local vaginal therapy. Establish uterus status and whether endometrial protection is required.

Risk assessment should address baseline ASCVD risk, prior venous thromboembolism, stroke, myocardial infarction, breast cancer risk, endometrial cancer risk, liver disease, migraine history, thrombophilia, medication interactions, pregnancy potential when relevant to nonhormonal therapy, and patient preferences.

The final prescription should match the indication, risk profile, uterus status, desired route, and current product labeling. Early follow-up and periodic reassessment are essential.

This approach helps prevent both undertreatment and indiscriminate prescribing.

Limitations of the Evidence

Several limitations should temper confidence. WHI remains the pivotal randomized evidence base for hard clinical outcomes, but it evaluated specific formulations and enrolled many patients who were older than the typical patient seeking treatment for newly developed menopausal symptoms.

Newer routes and formulations are widely used but do not have the same volume of randomized outcome data for myocardial infarction, stroke, venous thromboembolism, dementia, and breast cancer. Absence of equivalent evidence should not be interpreted as either proof of equal harm or proof of superior safety.

Observational studies can identify associations and safety signals involving specific routes and formulations. However, they are vulnerable to confounding by indication, healthy-user effects, screening behavior, socioeconomic factors, and prescribing selection.

Subgroup analyses by age and time since menopause can inform clinical interpretation but should not be treated as definitive proof of cardiovascular benefit. The evidence for clinically important differences among progestogens also continues to evolve.

Micronized progesterone may be preferable for some patients based on tolerability and selected intermediate outcomes, but stronger comparative clinical outcome data are needed before clinicians can claim large reductions in breast cancer or cardiovascular events.

Future Directions

Future research should prioritize randomized and pragmatic comparisons of oral and transdermal estrogen, different progestogens, lower-dose regimens, and symptom-targeted treatment in patients closer to menopause onset.

Additional evidence is needed for patients with cardiometabolic disease, migraine, autoimmune disease, chronic kidney disease, cancer survivorship, and elevated inherited breast cancer risk. Longer-term data are also needed for contemporary regimens and for patients who continue therapy beyond the first several years after menopause.

The regulatory environment will likely continue to evolve. Clinicians should verify current product-specific prescribing information rather than rely on historical assumptions about class-wide warnings.

References

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (2013). Postmenopausal estrogen therapy: Route of administration and risk of venous thromboembolism. Committee Opinion No. 556. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 121(4), 887-890. PMID: 23635705.

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (2021). Treatment of urogenital symptoms in individuals with a history of estrogen-dependent breast cancer: Clinical consensus. Retrieved July 13, 2026. https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/clinical-consensus/articles/2021/12/treatment-of-urogenital-symptoms-in-individuals-with-a-history-of-estrogen-dependent-breast-cancer

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (2023). Compounded bioidentical menopausal hormone therapy: ACOG Clinical Consensus No. 6. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 142(5), 1266-1273. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000005395. PMID: 37856860.

Anderson, G. L., Chlebowski, R. T., Aragaki, A. K., Kuller, L. H., Manson, J. E., Gass, M., Bluhm, E., Connelly, S., Hubbell, F. A., Lane, D., Martin, L., Ockene, J., Rohan, T., Schenken, R., Wactawski-Wende, J., & WHI Investigators. (2012). Conjugated equine oestrogen and breast cancer incidence and mortality in postmenopausal women with hysterectomy: Extended follow-up of the Women’s Health Initiative randomized placebo-controlled trial. The Lancet Oncology, 13(5), 476-486. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(12)70075-X. PMID: 22401913.

Anderson, G. L., Limacher, M., Assaf, A. R., Bassford, T., Beresford, S. A. A., Black, H., Bonds, D., Brunner, R., Brzyski, R., Caan, B., Chlebowski, R., Curb, D., Gass, M., Hays, J., Heiss, G., Hendrix, S., Howard, B. V., Hsia, J., Hubbell, A., Jackson, R., et al. (2004). Effects of conjugated equine estrogen in postmenopausal women with hysterectomy: The Women’s Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA, 291(14), 1701-1712. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.291.14.1701. PMID: 15082697.

Canonico, M., Plu-Bureau, G., Lowe, G. D. O., & Scarabin, P. Y. (2008). Hormone replacement therapy and risk of venous thromboembolism in postmenopausal women: Systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ, 336(7655), 1227-1231. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39555.441944.BE. PMID: 18495631.

Chlebowski, R. T., Hendrix, S. L., Langer, R. D., Stefanick, M. L., Gass, M., Lane, D., Rodabough, R. J., Gilligan, M. A., Cyr, M. G., Thomson, C. A., Khandekar, J., Petrovitch, H., McTiernan, A., & WHI Investigators. (2003). Influence of estrogen plus progestin on breast cancer and mammography in healthy postmenopausal women: The Women’s Health Initiative randomized trial. JAMA, 289(24), 3243-3253. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.289.24.3243. PMID: 12824205.

Cho, L., Kaunitz, A. M., Faubion, S. S., Hayes, S. N., Lau, E. S., Pristera, N., Scott, N. S., Shifren, J. L., Stuenkel, C. A., & El Khoudary, S. R. (2023). Rethinking menopausal hormone therapy: For whom, what, when, and how long? Circulation, 147(7), 597-610. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.061559.

Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. (2019). Type and timing of menopausal hormone therapy and breast cancer risk: Individual participant meta-analysis of the worldwide epidemiological evidence. The Lancet, 394(10204), 1159-1168. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31709-X. PMID: 31474332.

DailyMed. (2026). BIJUVA: Estradiol and progesterone capsules, prescribing information. Retrieved July 13, 2026. https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/

DailyMed. (2026). ENJUVIA: Conjugated estrogens synthetic B tablets, prescribing information. Retrieved July 13, 2026. https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/

DailyMed. (2026). LYNKUET: Elinzanetant capsules, prescribing information. Updated March 4, 2026. Retrieved July 13, 2026. https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/drugInfo.cfm?setid=f42884ff-7dff-419c-8a0c-affe2ed73818

DailyMed. (2026). VEOZAH: Fezolinetant tablets, prescribing information. Updated February 26, 2026. Retrieved July 13, 2026. https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/drugInfo.cfm?setid=cae9f798-24f9-4580-a4fc-e6c710cbda3c

Makary, M. A., Nguyen, C. P., Hoeg, T. B., & Tidmarsh, G. F. (2026). Updated labeling for menopausal hormone therapy. JAMA, 335(2), 117-118. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2025.22259. PMID: 41212720.

Manson, J. E., Aragaki, A. K., Rossouw, J. E., Anderson, G. L., Prentice, R. L., LaCroix, A. Z., Chlebowski, R. T., Howard, B. V., Thomson, C. A., Margolis, K. L., Lewis, C. E., Stefanick, M. L., Jackson, R. D., Johnson, K. C., Martin, L. W., Shumaker, S. A., Espeland, M. A., Wactawski-Wende, J., & WHI Investigators. (2017). Menopausal hormone therapy and long-term all-cause and cause-specific mortality: The Women’s Health Initiative randomized trials. JAMA, 318(10), 927-938. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.11217. PMID: 28898378.

Manson, J. E., Chlebowski, R. T., Stefanick, M. L., Aragaki, A. K., Rossouw, J. E., Prentice, R. L., Anderson, G., Howard, B. V., Thomson, C. A., LaCroix, A. Z., Wactawski-Wende, J., Jackson, R. D., Limacher, M., Margolis, K. L., Wassertheil-Smoller, S., Beresford, S. A. A., Cauley, J. A., Eaton, C. B., Gass, M., Hsia, J., et al. (2013). Menopausal hormone therapy and health outcomes during the intervention and extended post-stopping phases of the Women’s Health Initiative randomized trials. JAMA, 310(13), 1353-1368. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.278040. PMID: 24084921.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2015, updated). Menopause: Identification and management. NICE guideline NG23. Retrieved July 13, 2026. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng23

Rossouw, J. E., Anderson, G. L., Prentice, R. L., LaCroix, A. Z., Kooperberg, C., Stefanick, M. L., Jackson, R. D., Beresford, S. A. A., Howard, B. V., Johnson, K. C., Kotchen, J. M., & Ockene, J. (2002). Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: Principal results from the Women’s Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA, 288(3), 321-333. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.288.3.321. PMID: 12117397.

Rossouw, J. E., Manson, J. E., Aragaki, A. K., Prentice, R. L., Jackson, R. D., Stefanick, M. L., Howard, B. V., LaCroix, A. Z., Chlebowski, R. T., & WHI Investigators. (2025). Menopausal hormone therapy and cardiovascular diseases in women with vasomotor symptoms: A secondary analysis of the Women’s Health Initiative randomized clinical trials. JAMA Internal Medicine, 185(11), 1330-1339. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2025.4510. PMID: 40952729.

Shumaker, S. A., Legault, C., Rapp, S. R., Thal, L., Wallace, R. B., Ockene, J. K., Hendrix, S. L., Jones, B. N., Assaf, A. R., Jackson, R. D., Kotchen, J. M., Wassertheil-Smoller, S., & Wactawski-Wende, J. (2003). Estrogen plus progestin and the incidence of dementia and mild cognitive impairment in postmenopausal women: The Women’s Health Initiative Memory Study. JAMA, 289(20), 2651-2662. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.289.20.2651. PMID: 12771112.

Stuenkel, C. A., Davis, S. R., Gompel, A., Lumsden, M. A., Murad, M. H., Pinkerton, J. V., & Santen, R. J. (2015). Treatment of symptoms of the menopause: An Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 100(11), 3975-4011. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2015-2236. PMID: 26444994.

The North American Menopause Society Advisory Panel. (2020). The 2020 genitourinary syndrome of menopause position statement of The North American Menopause Society. Menopause, 27(9), 976-992. https://doi.org/10.1097/GME.0000000000001609. PMID: 32852449.

The North American Menopause Society Advisory Panel. (2022). The 2022 hormone therapy position statement of The North American Menopause Society. Menopause, 29(7), 767-794. https://doi.org/10.1097/GME.0000000000002028. PMID: 35797481.

The North American Menopause Society Advisory Panel. (2023). The 2023 nonhormone therapy position statement of The North American Menopause Society. Menopause, 30(6), 573-590. https://doi.org/10.1097/GME.0000000000002200. PMID: 37252752.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2026). FDA requests labeling changes for hormone therapies. Retrieved July 13, 2026. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-requests-labeling-changes-hormone-therapies

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2026). Menopausal hormone therapies with updated prescribing information. Retrieved July 13, 2026. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/postmarket-drug-safety-information-patients-and-providers/menopausal-hormone-therapies-updated-prescribing-information

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. (2022). Hormone therapy for the primary prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal persons: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA, 328(17), 1740-1746. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.18625. PMID: 36318127.

Vinogradova, Y., Coupland, C., & Hippisley-Cox, J. (2019). Use of hormone replacement therapy and risk of venous thromboembolism: Nested case-control studies using the QResearch and CPRD databases. BMJ, 364, k4810. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k4810. PMID: 30626577.