I would like to bring to your attention a UK HRT Implant Campaign that was taken to parliament on 28.01.2015 by Tracey Crouch on behalf of her local constituents.
The Parliamentary notes can be read here;
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm150128/debtext/150128-0004.htm?fbclid=IwAR1WfylQJknLVCvUVHHytBcrJ1CqcbUM5eTxUKEFCwQqRMW5BEbJgjtu6-M#15012870001314
HRT implants are small pellets of body identical hormones that are inserted under the skin, that directly absorb into the blood stream. For some women, especially those in a ‘Surgical’ Menopause they are the only method of HRT that offers therapeutic relief of symptoms. Patches and gels are designed for and are dosed appropriately for women who go through a natural menopause. The Hormonal Replacement needs of women in Surgical Menopause are often far greater than those who go through a natural menopause.
HRT Implants are a lifeline to some women.
In 2011, the UK manufacturer MSD ceased production of HRT Implants due to nothing more than being ‘economically unviable’ and so the availability of this life saving treatment drastically reduced, leaving women in crisis situations.
I’d like to address some points made by Dr Daniel Poulter Secretary of State for Health, from these Parliamentary notes;
Dr Poulter raised a ‘small increased risk of breast cancer, stroke and gall bladder disease’.
NICE guidelines have since been updated and we now know this not to be the case. HRT offers long term health protection, especially for women in Surgical Menopause.
Dr Poulter said that cessation of manufacturer was due to ‘Therapeutic alternatives available in tablet form, patches and gels’
These methods are NOT suitable for women with Hormone Sensitivities (PMDD) as they create an unstable administration of hormones/ fluctuations, which triggers the neuro-chemical sensitivity.
Alternative HRT in the form of patches and gels are often NOT of enough therapeutic value for women in Surgical Menopause who have NO ovaries, which creates a chronic hormone deficiency leading to a severe decline in both mental and physical health, and increased risk of long term health conditions.
Transdermal and other mainstream methods of HRT are designed and dosed for an ‘age specific’, ‘natural’ menopause. Often women in Surgical Menopause require over ‘licensed’ guideline doses. There are no current guidelines to explain this.
Not to mention that HRT Implants had an 84% success rate in treating severe PMS/PMDD, prior to a THBSO being offered as a treatment. This means that HRT Implants are now no longer a treatment ‘option’ for PMDD/severe PMS, failing 84% of these women before having to go down the surgical route of the current treatment pathway outlined by the RCOG.
The 84% success rate of HRT Implants in women with severe PMS/PMDD can be found in this document;
Dr Daniel Poulter mentioned that women should be reviewed for alternative health care providers when health care establishments ‘pull’ funding for HRT Implants.
THIS IS NOT HAPPENING. Women are not being reviewed. This treatment is still being pulled with no alternatives offered and women left to suffer the consequences.
Mr Daniel Poulter Secretary of State compared both the HRT Implants and Transdermal applications as both being ‘steady’ amounts of hormones.
We know this not to be true, as the women with a neuro-chemical sensitivity (PMDD/Severe PMS) cannot tolerate the hormone fluctuations caused by patches and gels. Hormone Implants are currently the only method of HRT that offers periods of Hormone ‘Stability’ for these women.
Dr Daniel Poulter stated ‘where a licensed medicine is considered unsuitable or ineffective for an individual, I would expect those patients to be referred for expert opinion’
This is simply, NOT happening. Women are not being referred to specialists, and women in Surgical Menopause are not being prioritised as requiring specialist advice for post surgical after care and HRT management.
Dr Daniel Poulter stated ‘If someone needs more expert support and care, perhaps because their GP finds their symptoms and presentation complicated, there should always be a facility to refer to specialist care and support’
This also, is NOT happening!
Within these Parliamentary notes, there are no considerations made of the differences between a natural menopause and a surgical menopause where a woman has NO natural hormone production, with a reflection of the most suitable HRT treatment available to meet the needs of women in Surgical Menopause.
Also, there is no mention of the 84% success rate of HRT Implants in treatment for women with PMDD/severe PMS, prior to going down the surgical route as a treatment option. There is currently no other replacement treatment option found with such a high success rate. So WHY has this successful treatment option been taken away from these women?
Women in surgical menopause are NOT being referred for specialist treatment and are having to source private care and personally fund HRT Implants, incurring debt (as the majority have to give up their careers due to the severity of symptoms they experience due to ineffective HRT and severe lack of specialist management of care). HRT Implants remain the only method of HRT that is therapeutically effective and offers consistent stability for some women.
Why are we still facing the same problems as we were 8 years ago? This is a clear indication that there has been no effort to make improvements in this particular area of Hormone Replacement Therapy for women in Surgical Menopause.
Please continue to support our campaign for change.
Wishing you all a joyful Christmas
Thankyou for your continued support
Gemma