Prior, J. C. (2022). Adaptive, reversible, hypothalamic reproductive suppression: More than functional hypothalamic amenorrhea. Frontiers in Endocrinology, 13, 893889. https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2022.893889
Prior JC. Adaptive, reversible, hypothalamic reproductive suppression: More than functional hypothalamic amenorrhea. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2022;13:893889. doi:10.3389/fendo.2022.893889
Prior, Jerilynn C. "Adaptive, reversible, hypothalamic reproductive suppression: More than functional hypothalamic amenorrhea." Frontiers in Endocrinology, vol. 13, 2022, pp. 893889.
For EndNote, Zotero or Mendeley:
Open access
No open license is recorded for this paper. Reuse terms are set by the publisher.
Open Access
Free full text on PubMed Central (PMC9626525)
Author affiliations
1 institution
Vancouver Hospital and Health Sciences Centre05p83my93
Linked to ROR, the Research Organization Registry
RRM Academy Synopsis
Hypothalamic amenorrhea may be one part of a wider spectrum
This opinion piece is by a doctor who studies menstrual cycles. She says missed periods, long cycles, missed ovulation, and short luteal phases are one stress-linked pattern that usually reverses on its own. The last two hide inside normal-length cycles. They are more common than missed periods.
Key Findings
In a study of more than 3,000 Norwegian women with normal-length cycles, subclinical ovulatory disturbances happened in 24% to 37% of cycles.
In a 2-year study of 123 young Vancouver women, subclinical ovulatory disturbances happened in 44% of cycles. Only 0.9% of the women had amenorrhea.
In a retrospective study of 93 women with amenorrhea, followed 8 years on average, 71% recovered cycles overall: 74% on hormone therapy, 80% untreated, 42% on contraceptives.
In the author's 1-year trial of 73 women (61 completed), cyclic medroxyprogesterone (a progestin) was linked to a 2% to 3% spinal bone density gain. Double placebo came with about 2% loss.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, a Vancouver study of 125 women found subclinical ovulatory disturbances in 68 of 108 women with usable cycle data.
Interpretation
This is an opinion piece with no new trial or systematic review data of its own. One physician-researcher pulls together decades of her own and other work to argue for a broader view of stress-linked cycle changes. Population numbers come from separate studies in different countries and age groups, so they cannot be compared directly. Her bone-density trial is small and older. No large trial has compared cyclic progesterone therapy against current care. The recovery-rate study did not randomly assign women to groups, so it cannot show what caused the differences seen. The author calls for more progesterone research. The piece offers no proof of superiority over current care.
RRM Context
The paper's main claim is that missed ovulation and short luteal phases in normal-length cycles are common. They are linked to stress and usually reverse. This fits a core idea in restorative reproductive medicine: cycle charting can show patterns a plain calendar cannot see. A restorative approach looks for the stressor behind a cycle change and addresses it. The author's new progesterone therapy has not yet been tested against current care in a large trial.
Our editorial summary of this paper, not the article's abstract.
05p83my93 