To assess whether editorial desk rejection at general medical journals (without peer review) of two clinical research manuscripts may relate to author gender or women's physiology topics. Given evidence for bias related to women in science and medicine, and editorial board attitudes, our hypothesis was that submissions by women authors, on women's reproductive, non-disease topics received differential editorial assessment.
A prospective investigation of publications, author gender and topics in general medical journals in two issues following the editorial rejections of two clinical research manuscripts by five major English-language general medical journals. The rejected manuscripts (subsequently published in lower impact journals) described research funded by national granting bodies, in population-based samples, authored by well-published women scientists at accredited institutions and describing innovative women's reproductive physiology results.
Tertiary academic medical centre. All clinical research published in the two issues following rejection date by each of the five major general medical journals were examined for first/senior author gender. The publication topic was assessed for its gendered population relevance, whether disease or physiology focused, and its funding. Rejection letters assessed editor gender and status. Women were underrepresented as original research authors; men were 84% of senior and 69% of first authors. There were no, non-disease focused publications relating to women's health, although most topics were relevant to both genders. The majority (80%) of rejection letters appeared to be written by junior-ranked women editors. Sex/gender accountability is necessary for clinical research-based editorial decisions by major general medical journals. Suggestions to improve gender equity in general medical journal publication: (1) an editorial board sex/gender champion with power to advocate for manuscripts that are well-performed research of relevance to women's health/physiology; (2) an editorial rejection adjudication committee to review author challenges; and (3) gender parity in double-blind peer review.
Androgenic Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS) creates physical/emotional burdens in 4-20% of premenopausal women living with PCOS (WLWP) including: few menstruations per year, subfertility, hirsutism/acne and low quality of life by validated PCOS Questionnaire (PCOSQ). Combined hormonal contraceptives (CHC), the current standard-of-care, improve PCOSQ only 16%; with stopping CHC, benefits disappear within 6-months. We hypothesize too-fast brain/luteinizing hormone (LH) pulses cause PCOS. Progesterone (P4) slows LH when testosterone (FreeT) is normal. Combining two approved medications, Cyclic P4 with anti-androgen, Spironolactone (Sp), will likely provide effective, durable benefits. WLWP lit-review suggested significant P4 7-14-day benefits. A 6-month prospective feasibility study of CyclicP4/Sp is necessary. Overall Perform a pilot study in 40 WLWP on Cyclic P4 (300 mg/bedtime, 14 days/month) plus Spironolactone (Sp, 200 mg/d). Feasibility: Assess longitudinal within-WLWP 6-month changes in: 1) PCOSQ; 2) FreeT, HbA1c, and LH; plus 3) WLWP's acceptance of CyclicP4/Sp. Single-centre, prospective, longitudinal single cohort study. Recruit \~7-8 WLWP/month over 4-6 months; 85% retention. Eligible WLWP have physician-diagnosed PCOS, are 1-month off CHC/metformin, ages 19-35 (avoiding adolescence/perimenopause), HbA1c <6.4% (no diabetes) and commit to non-hormonal contraception, if needed. Recruitment uses online, internet, strategic ads and tear-tab posters. Measures at 0 and 6 months: as above plus K+ (safety assessment). Menstrual Cycle Diary monitoring (flow, adherence), 2 visits, monthly telephone/emails for support and assessment of any adverse effects. Statistical analysis: changes by paired T-test.
A feasibility 6-month study of CyclicP4/Sp will facilitate a CIHR-funded RCT of CHC versus this innovative and likely beneficial treatment for WLWP.
Sclerostin, a natural hormone made in bone, suppresses bone formation. Sclerostin is also decreased by estrogen. Progesterone, estrogen's menstrual partner, stimulates bone formation. It is unclear whether progesterone influences sclerostin. This study showed that progesterone did not change sclerostin using serum remaining from a randomized progesterone hot flush therapy trial.
Progesterone and sclerostin are both endogenous hormones acting through osteoblast-origin cells and promote or suppress bone formation, respectively. Estradiol suppresses sclerostin, but progesterone, its menstrual cycle partner hormone, has unclear sclerostin relationships. We postulated that progesterone therapy would influence serum sclerostin levels. We obtained sclerostin levels for an ethics-approved post hoc analysis. Fasting sclerostin was measured in all remaining sera from a previous 12-week randomized controlled trial (RCT) of oral micronized progesterone (progesterone) for menopausal (> 1 year after last flow) vasomotor symptoms (VMS). Women in the RCT took 300 mg progesterone at bedtime or placebo (1:1) in a trial showing progesterone significantly decreased VMS. Participants were healthy menopausal, primarily Caucasian (91.2%) community-dwelling women (± SD), 55.2 ± 4.6 years old with BMI 24.9 ± 2.9 kg/m(2). The baseline sclerostin level in 60 women was 28.41 ± 10.47 pmol/L. Baseline sclerostin was not correlated with the run-in VMS score (r = 0.143, P = 0.294). Paired baseline and 12-week RCT data for 52 women showed serum sclerostin levels did not change related to experimental therapy (P = 0.504). Changes in final sclerostin values adjusted for baseline were progesterone (- 1.07 ± 7.96 pmol/L) and placebo (- 2.64 ± 8.70 pmol/L). In observational data (n = 60), baseline sclerostin levels correlated with the General Framingham Cardiovascular (CVD) Risk score (r = - 0.398, P = 0.003) and self-reported health by SF-36 quality of life instrument (QoL, r = - 0.331, P = 0.016). Physiological oral micronized progesterone did not stimulate nor suppress serum sclerostin levels based on post hoc analysis of RCT data. Exploratory results, however, showed sclerostin negatively correlated with CVD risk and QoL. ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT0146469.
Women living with androgenic PCOS (WLWP) experience unpredictable oligomenorrhea1 and are at increased risk for endometrial cancer2. Oral micronized progesterone (OMP) given cyclically (14 days/cycle or 4 weeks, Cyclic OMP), in luteal phase doses3 (300 mg at bedtime) as a “luteal phase replacement” therapy would be likely to effectively treat both. In addition, evidence suggests PCOS is causally related to rapid pulsing of GnRH and LH 4; OMP normalizes LH pulsatility if androgen levels are not elevated 4. Previous searches did not find progesterone therapy for PCOS 5. Our Does the peer-reviewed literature provide evidence for prescribing cyclic progesterone therapy in PCOS? Literature search methods used Medline (Ovid) and PubMed for published articles. Our search terms were: “polycystic ovary syndrome”, “androgenic PCOS”, and, “micronized progesterone.” We sought publications with eligible women participants having androgenic PCOS, drug exposures (cyclic
OMP, vaginal progesterone, and in varying doses and durations) and specific outcomes (biochemical or patient-reported data or both) in all languages. We excluded reviews and practice guidelines but searched bibliographies for missed citations. Results discovered 18 articles in combined Medline (n=6) and PubMed (12) searches. After excluding duplicates, articles on estradiol (E2) alone E2 with OMP therapy, five eligible articles remained. We read all in full detail.
Progesterone therapy was beneficial for WLWP as, even in sub-therapeutic doses (<300 mg at bedtime) and in cycles of too short durations (<14 days), it decreased luteinizing hormone (LH) 6,7 and total testosterone 7 levels. Vaginal progesterone (200 mg, b.i.d for 2 to 12 weeks) added to letrozole ovulation induction increased the pregnancy rate from 0 to 21% 8. Although present data suggest Cyclic OMP withdrawal predictively causes flow, we found no evidence it improved women’s cycle-related experiences nor decreased acne and hirsutism. Women-reported data on Cyclic OMP for improving androgenic PCOS cycle regularity, daily experiences and risks for endometrial cancer are needed.
Reference: 1Azziz R Nat Rev Dis Primers 2016;2:16057. 2Barry J Hum Reprod Update 2014; 20:748. 3Simon J Fertil Steril 1993;60:26. 4Blank S Hum Reprod Update 2006;12:351. 5Teede H Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 2018;89:251. 6Livadas S Fertil Steril 2010;94:242. 7Bagis T J Clin Endocr Met 2002;87:4536. 8Montville C Fertil Steril. 2010;94:678.
In 2006-2008, 610 premenopausal, spontaneously menstruating women in the Metro Vancouver region participated in a Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)-funded singlecycle in which they collected first morning urine specimens for estrogen and progesterone metabolites1. Following that study, after analyses, we retrieved the remaining urine specimens from the analyzing laboratory (University of Washington). We sorted data so that samples from all those women who were anovulatory by the two combined urinary steroid evaluation methods2,3, plus from those who were ovulatory with the highest and the lowest urinary hormone values were shipped to Health Canada (HC) via Dr. Warren Foster’s laboratory at McMaster University. Those data on flame retardant contaminants in women’s urine have been published4, but the cycle-phase specific data are still in analysis (personal communication, S Kalyan, 2019). In 2017, HC basic scientists launched applications to HC to fund a similar study to assess flame retardant excretory changes in the same population/locale 10 years later. This application was funded in 2018 at Health Canada with Dr. JC Prior as a collaborator. Extensive negotiations by CeMCOR and HC scientists ensued about funding the process of obtaining these follow-up specimens. CeMCOR managed to obtain a HC agreement to fund the minimal cost of recruiting, training and obtaining two menstrual phase-specific urine specimens from 250 Metro Vancouver women. Because of the lack of a progesterone threshold for ovulation, we will collect one follicular and one luteal/premenstrual urine sample per woman. However, this time we will better characterize the ovulatory cycle using a validated quantitative basal temperature method5,6 that can assess luteal phase length as well as the presence/absence of evidence for ovulation. In addition we will collect serial salivary progesterone and estradiol values measured by the state-of-the-art sensitive and specific tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) methods7 to use as the gold standard for an ovulatory cycle. There is increasing evidence that many variables differ across women’s two main menstrual cycle phases: follicular and luteal7-10. These real and potential differences in metabolism may alter the susceptibility of women to environment exposures, and also could change their urinary elimination. Those are the root reasons for doing this study.
Yang Y et al., 2019·Journal of the Endocrine Society·
Open Access
Sclerostin is an osteocyte-produced glycoprotein that inhibits the WNT/β-catenin pathway essential for bone formation. Sclerostin was postulated to relate to normal bone metabolism in 2001; we still have an incomplete understanding of its regulation. Estradiol, a bone antiresorptive ovarian steroid, inhibits sclerostin. Estrogen and progesterone act together in menstrual cycles and bone remodelling with progesterone exerting an anabolic effect. We hypothesized a relationship between progesterone and sclerostin because progesterone and estrogen are “partner” hormones in most tissues, and because progesterone and sclerostin modulate bone formation in opposite directions. Two observational menstrual cycle studies have reported sclerostin levels; neither documented changes across cycles nor in luteal phases during which progesterone levels are high(1)(,2). Some reports have also shown positive correlations between sclerostin and age and BMI. In this study, sclerostin was measured using an assay (MSD) of high sensitivity (LOD ± 1pg/mL), broad detection range (1-10 000 pg/mL), and intra/inter-assay precisions of 6% and 10% respectively(3). We collected fasting serum during a 3-month double blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 300 mg oral micronized progesterone vs placebo in symptomatic menopausal women; progesterone significantly decreased hot flushes/night sweats (vasomotor symptoms, VMS)(4). Statistical analysis showed sclerostin was not related to the 28-day baseline VMS Score (r=.18, p=.22). Pearson correlation coefficients were used to evaluate sclerostin vs baseline data and ANCOVA to analyze RCT results (alpha=0.05 significant, [SD]). The study’s purpose was to determine if sclerostin levels changed during a 3-month RCT of progesterone for VMS in healthy menopausal women(3). The primary outcome was sclerostin level in the 3(rd) month adjusted for baseline and randomization. Results showed the 52 participating women had a mean age of 55.2 (4.6) years, height 1.60 (0.07) m, weight 66.4 (8.6) kg, BMI 24.9 (2.9) kg/m(2) and were primarily Caucasian (91.2%). Baseline variables did not correlate with the baseline mean serum sclerostin level of 27.9 (10.2) pmol/L. Sclerostin had no statistically significant relationship with progesterone or placebo therapy during this RCT; mean changes were -1.07 and -2.60 pmol/L respectively. These data are the first evidence that progesterone neither increases nor decreases serum sclerostin levels. These data fit with the lack of menstrual cycle changes in sclerostin levels(1)(,2). That sclerostin did not correlate with age and BMI in this RCT is likely due to their low trial variance. A limitation of this study is the small sample size. However, it has considerable strength in its RCT design that can document causation. (1)Cidem M Gyn Obstetric Invest. 2012; (2)Liakou CG Endocrine 2016; (3)Van Lierop AH J Bone Miner Res 2011; (4)Hitchcock CL Menopause 2012.