Technological advances have been impacting health care worldwide. Our study aimed to research the literature systematically to determine the impact of technological treatments versus conventional treatments on the quality of life of climacteric women. The study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021241638). We searched seven databases, including PRISMA, using mesh terms. After screening for eligibility, we selected five clinical trials, and applying the snowball technique we were able to include four more articles, totaling nine articles that used technology-based interventions (virtual reality games) during the climacteric. The total study population consisted of 298 climacteric women. Two studies evaluated a technology-based treatment for pelvic floor, one for urinary incontinence symptoms, three for postural balance, one for cardiorespiratory capacity, one for osteoporosis and one study for lower back pain. The studies showed that the technological treatments improved pelvic floor strength, balance, cardiorespiratory fitness and bone mineral density when compared to conventional treatments. Improvement was linked to adherence to training and a high level of satisfaction during the training sessions. Technology-based treatments appear to be a viable alternative to conventional treatments in improving the quality of health, with benefits for the cardiovascular, genitourinary and skeletal systems, and ultimately for the overall quality of life.

Prescribing hormone replacement therapy (HRT) requires consideration of the selection of its two components, the estrogen and the progestogen. In terms of the estrogen, the decision is mainly whether to use estradiol (E2) or conjugated equine estrogens (CEE). These are the components needed to efficiently treat climacteric symptoms or/and prevent osteoporosis, currently the only labeled indications. There is still controversy regarding the adequate dosages comparing E2 and CEE; however, the consensus is that the differences in the efficacy of E2 and CEE are not a real issue. Therefore, other criteria have to be used. The first reason to add the progestogen is to avoid the development of endometrial cancer (i.e. to achieve 'endometrial safety'). Any available 'fixed-combined' HRT preparation has to be tested for sufficient endometrial efficacy, because the first question the health authorities ask before product registration relates to endometrial safety. We can generally rely on the endometrial safety of these fixed-combined products. However, it could be that we want to use 'free' combinations, which are necessary if we use transdermal E2 (patches, gel, spray), but also to individualize schedules, for example when treating bleeding problems. The question here is how to attain knowledge about the endometrial efficacy of the different progestogens and how to monitor therapy. We will try to answer these two questions from a 'clinical pharmacology' point of view, as a discipline which preferably considers pharmacological properties, but also relating to clinical practice, to achieve individualized therapy with optimal efficacy, best tolerability and minimal risks.

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) primarily affects women, who may need hormone therapy (HT) in menopause. There is, however, some concern as to its efficacy and safety. This systematic review aimed to determine the effect of HT on the activity of SLE and its safety. The study was a qualitative systematic review. Research was conducted with data retrieved from Embase, MEDLINE and Cochrane databases using MESH terms up to April 2021, with no bar on date or language. Sixteen studies were selected for analysis. Most of them showed HT to be effective in the treatment of menopausal symptoms with no impact in SLE activity, but one randomized clinical trial showed an increase in the number of thrombotic events. The present systematic review demonstrated the efficacy of HT for treating the menopausal symptoms of SLE patients. The risk of flare and thrombosis seems to be very low.

The skin is an endocrine organ and a major target of hormones such as estrogens, androgens and cortisol. Besides vasomotor symptoms (VMS), skin and hair symptoms often receive less attention than other menopausal symptoms despite having a significant negative effect on quality of life. Skin and mucosal menopausal symptoms include dryness and pruritus, thinning and atrophy, wrinkles and sagging, poor wound healing and reduced vascularity, whereas skin premalignant and malignant lesions and skin aging signs are almost exclusively caused by environmental factors, especially solar radiation. Hair menopausal symptoms include reduced hair growth and density on the scalp (diffuse effluvium due to follicular rarefication and/or androgenetic alopecia of female pattern), altered hair quality and structure, and increased unwanted hair growth on facial areas. Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) is not indicated for skin and hair symptoms alone due to the risk-benefit balance, but wider potential benefits of HRT (beyond estrogen's effect on VMS, bone, breast, heart and blood vessels) to include skin, hair and mucosal benefits should be discussed with women so that they will be able to make the best possible informed decisions on how to prevent or manage their menopausal symptoms.

Postmenopausal vulvovaginal pain and atrophy require appropriate and sensitive outcomes that correlate with the genital discomfort, symptoms and expected changes. In some studies, hormone and laser treatments do not detect benefits due to the fact that appropriate measuring tools were not used. While some studies have demonstrated placebo effects for both therapeutic approaches, others support that sham-intervention could be a therapeutic by creating a conditioning reflex. However, obtained results are directly related with the quality of outcomes: you get what you measure. It is imperative to follow the Core Outcomes in Menopause global initiative.

Women are more prone to gastrointestinal symptoms than men. A comprehensive literature search was performed to assess the impact of sex steroid hormone, especially progesterone, on the (healthy and diseased) gastrointestinal tract. Overall, 37 articles were identified. Based on these we conclude that progesterone has a dose-dependent and sex-dependent effect on gastric emptying (especially in mammals), slows down gastrointestinal motility, reduces the gallbladder's response to contractile stimulants, may support gastroesophageal reflux by reducing the esophageal sphincter pressure, may protect from Helicobacter pylori infection gastrointestinal sequelae (especially in mammals) and does not affect inflammatory bowel disease-specific symptoms. However, for several gastrointestinal symptoms and diseases no studies have yet been performed addressing the impact of sex hormone steroids.

The threat that women may develop breast cancer is the major reason why both physicians and women are afraid to use menopausal hormone therapy (MHT). The fear pertains to estrogen-progestin replacement therapy (EPRT) as estrogen-alone replacement therapy has no, or even a reduced, breast cancer risk. We reviewed the way breast cancer risk with EPRT was reported in some major publications since 2002 and tried to put the use-risk association in context. We hope this will make it easier for the physician and the menopausal woman to understand the risk involved and allow more confident and more informed decision-making regarding MHT use. We conclude that there are five interrelated reasons why physicians and women should no longer be afraid of the breast cancer risk with EPRT. We submit that breast cancer related to EPRT use is rare because the risk is very low; the reported increase in breast cancer risk with EPRT is not relevant to current practice; modifiable lifestyle factors, not EPRT, are the real risks for breast cancer; breast cancer-specific mortality is reduced in women who develop breast cancer while on EPRT; and avoiding MHT use when indicated puts a woman in harm's way.

Biologically identical menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) including micronized progesterone (MP) has gained much attention. We aimed to assess the impact of MP in combined MHT on venous and arterial thromboembolism (VTE/ATE) (e.g. deep venous thrombosis/pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction [MI] and ischemic stroke). Articles were eligible if they provided endpoints regarding cardiovascular events and use of exogenous MP. Literature searches were designed and executed for the databases Medline, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov and interdisciplinary database Web of Science. Twelve studies consisting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), case-control studies and prospective or retrospective cohort studies were included, and risk of bias was assessed. Only a minority assessed thromboembolic events as a primary endpoint, showing that in contrast to norpregnane derivatives, primary and recurrent VTE risk was not altered by combining estrogens with MP, which was also true for ischemic stroke risk. Similarly, in placebo-controlled RCTs assessing VTE/ATE as adverse events there were no significant intergroup differences. Studies on MI as a primary endpoint are missing. In conclusion, while available data suggest that MP as a component in combined MHT may have a neutral effect on the vascular system, more RCTs investigating the impact of MP alone or in combined MHT on vascular primary endpoints are needed.