Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Clinical review demonstrates age- and route-dependent cardiovascular safety of hormone therapy in menopausal women, highlighting optimal outcomes with early transdermal initiation.
In 2025, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) removed its prior class-wide boxed warnings for menopausal hormone therapy (MHT), paving the way for increased clinical use. Menopause accelerates cardiovascular risk independently of chronological aging, manifesting as a 7.5% increase in carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity within 1 year and a hypertension prevalence of 66.6% in women aged 55-64 years. Risk stratification for MHT hinges on the timing of initiation and the administered formulation. The 2025 Women's Health Initiative secondary analysis suggests that in symptomatic women aged 50-59 years, combination (estrogen-progestogen) MHT maintains atherosclerotic neutrality while reducing vasomotor symptoms by 59%. Conversely, atherosclerotic risk increases in women aged 70-79 years (hazard ratio 3.22 for combined therapy). Route of administration dictates the metabolic effect: oral estrogens undergo hepatic first-pass metabolism, elevating venous thromboembolism risk and increasing triglycerides by 5-15%, whereas transdermal formulations bypass hepatic first-pass metabolism, decrease triglycerides by 5-30%, and carry a neutral thromboembolic risk profile. When concurrent progestogen therapy is required, natural micronized progesterone is favored over synthetic medroxyprogesterone acetate to preserve estrogen-mediated vascular benefits. Oral or transdermal systemic MHT can be considered for vasomotor symptom management in women <60 years or within 10 years of menopause with a 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk of <5% and a coronary artery calcium score of zero.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pillai et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: