Low-dose tibolone (1.25 mg/d) does not affect muscle strength in older women

Population-specific equations of age-related maximum handgrip force: a comprehensive review

Background

The measurement of handgrip force responses is important in many aspects, for example: to complement neurological assessments, to investigate the contribution of muscle mass in predicting functional outcomes, in setting realistic treatment goals, evaluating rehabilitation strategies. Normative data about handgrip force can assist the therapist in interpreting a patient's results compared with healthy individuals of the same age and gender and can serve as key decision criteria. In this context, establishing normative values of handgrip strength is crucial. Hence, the aim of the this study is to develop a tool that could be used both in rehabilitation and in the prevention of work-related musculoskeletal disorders. This tool takes the form of population-specific predictive equations, which express maximum handgrip force as a function of age.

Methodology

In order to collect data from studies measuring maximum handgrip force, three databases were searched. The search yielded 5,058 articles. Upon the removal of duplicates, the screening of abstracts and the full-text review of potentially relevant articles, 143 publications which focussed on experimental studies on various age groups were considered as fulfilling the eligibility criteria. A comprehensive literature review produced 1,276 mean values of maximum handgrip force.

Results

A meta-analysis resulted in gender- and world region-specific (general population, USA, Europe and Asia) equations expressing maximum force as a function of age. The equations showed quantitative differences and trends in maximum handgrip force among age, gender and national groups. They also showed that values of maximum handgrip force are about 40% higher for males than for females and that age-induced decrease in force differs between males and females, with a proved 35% difference between the ages of 35 and 75. The difference was lowest for the 60-64 year olds and highest for the 18-25 year-olds. The equations also showed that differences due to region are smaller than those due to age or gender.

Conclusions

The equations that were developed for this study can be beneficial in setting population-specific thresholds for rehabilitation programmes and workstation exposure. They can also contribute to the modification of commonly used methods for assessing musculoskeletal load and work-related risk of developing musculoskeletal disorders by scaling their limit values.

Current and investigational medications for the treatment of sarcopenia

Sarcopenia, defined as the loss of muscle mass and function, is a widely prevalent and severe condition in older adults. Since 2016, it is recognized as a disease. Strength exercise training and nutritional support are the frontline treatment of sarcopenia, with no drug currently approved for this indication. However, new therapeutic options are emerging. In this review, we evidenced that only very few trials have focused on sarcopenia/sarcopenic patients. Most drug trials were performed in different clinical older populations (e.g., men with hypogonadism, post-menopausal women at risk for osteoporosis), and their efficacy were tested separately on the components of sarcopenia (muscle mass, muscle strength and physical performances). Results from trials testing the effects of Testosterone, Selective Androgen Receptor Modulators (SARMs), Estrogen, Dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 (IGF-1), Growth Hormone (GH), GH Secretagogue (GHS), drug targeting Myostatin and Activin receptor pathway, Vitamin D, Angiotensin Converting Enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and Angiotensin Receptor Blockers (ARBs), or β-blockers, were compiled. Although some drugs have been effective in improving muscle mass and/or strength, this was not translated into clinically relevant improvements on physical performance. Finally, some promising molecules investigated in on-going clinical trials and in pre-clinical phase were summarized, including apelin and irisin.

Hormone therapy for sexual function in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women

BACKGROUND

The perimenopausal and postmenopausal periods are associated with many symptoms, including sexual complaints. This review is an update of a review first published in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to assess the effect of hormone therapy on sexual function in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women.

SEARCH METHODS

On 19 December 2022 we searched the Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, ISI Web of Science, two trials registries, and OpenGrey, together with reference checking and contact with experts in the field for any additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials that compared hormone therapy to either placebo or no intervention (control) using any validated assessment tool to evaluate sexual function. We considered hormone therapy: estrogen alone; estrogen in combination with progestogens; synthetic steroids, for example, tibolone; selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs), for example, raloxifene, bazedoxifene; and SERMs in combination with estrogen.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. We analyzed data using mean differences (MDs) and standardized mean differences (SMDs). The primary outcome was the sexual function score. Secondary outcomes were the domains of sexual response: desire; arousal; lubrication; orgasm; satisfaction; and pain. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 36 studies (23,299 women; 12,225 intervention group; 11,074 control group), of which 35 evaluated postmenopausal women; only one study evaluated perimenopausal women. The 'symptomatic or early postmenopausal women' subgroup included 10 studies, which included women experiencing menopausal symptoms (symptoms such as hot flushes, night sweats, sleep disturbance, vaginal atrophy, and dyspareunia) or early postmenopausal women (within five years after menopause). The 'unselected postmenopausal women' subgroup included 26 studies, which included women regardless of menopausal symptoms and women whose last menstrual period was more than five years earlier. No study included only women with sexual dysfunction and only seven studies evaluated sexual function as a primary outcome. We deemed 20 studies at high risk of bias, two studies at low risk, and the other 14 studies at unclear risk of bias. Nineteen studies received commercial funding. Estrogen alone versus control probably slightly improves the sexual function composite score in symptomatic or early postmenopausal women (SMD 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.04 to 0.96; I² = 88%; 3 studies, 699 women; moderate-quality evidence), and probably makes little or no difference to the sexual function composite score in unselected postmenopausal women (SMD 0.64, 95% CI -0.12 to 1.41; I² = 94%; 6 studies, 608 women; moderate-quality evidence). The pooled result suggests that estrogen alone versus placebo or no intervention probably slightly improves sexual function composite score (SMD 0.60, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.04; I² = 92%; 9 studies, 1307 women, moderate-quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of estrogen combined with progestogens versus placebo or no intervention on the sexual function composite score in unselected postmenopausal women (MD 0.08 95% CI -1.52 to 1.68; 1 study, 104 women; very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of synthetic steroids versus control on the sexual function composite score in symptomatic or early postmenopausal women (SMD 1.32, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.47; 1 study, 883 women; very low-quality evidence) and of their effect in unselected postmenopausal women (SMD 0.46, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.85; 1 study, 105 women; very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of SERMs versus control on the sexual function composite score in symptomatic or early postmenopausal women (MD -1.00, 95% CI -2.00 to -0.00; 1 study, 215 women; very low-quality evidence) and of their effect in unselected postmenopausal women (MD 2.24, 95% 1.37 to 3.11 2 studies, 1525 women, I² = 1%, low-quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of SERMs combined with estrogen versus control on the sexual function composite score in symptomatic or early postmenopausal women (SMD 0.22, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.43; 1 study, 542 women; very low-quality evidence) and of their effect in unselected postmenopausal women (SMD 2.79, 95% CI 2.41 to 3.18; 1 study, 272 women; very low-quality evidence). The observed heterogeneity in many analyses may be caused by variations in the interventions and doses used, and by different tools used for assessment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Hormone therapy treatment with estrogen alone probably slightly improves the sexual function composite score in women with menopausal symptoms or in early postmenopause (within five years of amenorrhoea), and in unselected postmenopausal women, especially in the lubrication, pain, and satisfaction domains. We are uncertain whether estrogen combined with progestogens improves the sexual function composite score in unselected postmenopausal women. Evidence regarding other hormone therapies (synthetic steroids and SERMs) is of very low quality and we are uncertain of their effect on sexual function. The current evidence does not suggest the beneficial effects of synthetic steroids (for example tibolone) or SERMs alone or combined with estrogen on sexual function. More studies that evaluate the effect of estrogen combined with progestogens, synthetic steroids, SERMs, and SERMs combined with estrogen would improve the quality of the evidence for the effect of these treatments on sexual function in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women.

Effect of hormone therapy on muscle strength in postmenopausal women: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the overall effects of hormone therapy (HT) on muscle strength in postmenopausal women through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched from the inception dates to August 2019. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the effects of HT with either no therapy or placebo on muscle strength in postmenopausal women were eligible. The quality of studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Measurements of changes in muscle strength compared to baseline were extracted for pooled analysis. The effect size was calculated as standardized mean differences using a random effects model.

RESULTS

We identified nine studies with a combined population of 2,476 postmenopausal women. The studies included were assessed to be of good quality overall. The results showed that HT was not associated with muscle strength gain in postmenopausal women (standardized mean difference = 0.352; 95% confidence interval, -0.098 to 0.803; P = 0.125; I = 95.3%). The changes in muscle strength in women receiving HT were not significant. The results were unchanged when stratified by treatment type, muscle group, and treatment duration.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of HT was not associated with the improvement of muscle strength in postmenopausal women. This finding suggested that HT might not improve muscle strength or that the effect size was too small to identify significant therapeutic efficacy.

Hormone therapy for sexual function in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women

BACKGROUND

The perimenopausal and postmenopausal periods are associated with many symptoms, including sexual complaints.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of hormone therapy (HT) on sexual function in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for articles in the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ISI Web of Knowledge and OpenGrey. The last search was performed in December 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing HT to either placebo or no intervention (control). We considered as HT estrogens alone; estrogens in combination with progestogens; synthetic steroids (for example tibolone); or selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) (for example raloxifene, bazedoxifene). Studies of other drugs possibly used in the relief of menopausal symptoms were excluded. We included studies that evaluated sexual function using any validated assessment tool. The primary outcome was a composite score for sexual function and the scores for individual domains (arousal and sexual interest, orgasm, and pain) were secondary outcomes. Studies were selected by two authors independently.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were independently extracted by two authors and checked by a third. Risk of bias assessment was performed independently by two authors. We contacted study investigators as required. Data were analysed using standardized mean difference (SMD) and relative risk (RR). We stratified the analysis by participant characteristics with regard to menopausal symptoms. The overall quality of the evidence for the primary outcome was evaluated using the GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

The search retrieved 2351 records from which 27 studies (16,393 women) were included. The 'symptomatic or early post-menopausal' subgroup included nine studies: perimenopausal women (one study), up to 36 months postmenopause (one study), up to five years postmenopause (one study), experiencing vasomotor or other menopausal symptoms (five studies), or experiencing hot flushes and sexual dysfunction (one study). The 'unselected postmenopausal women' subgroup included 18 studies, which included women regardless of menopausal symptoms and permitted the inclusion of women with more than five years since the final menstrual period. No studies were restricted to women with sexual dysfunction. Only five studies evaluated sexual function as a primary outcome. Eighteen studies were deemed at high risk of bias, and the other nine studies were at unclear risk of bias. Twenty studies received commercial funding.Findings for sexual function (measured by composite score):For estrogens alone versus control, in symptomatic or early postmenopausal women the SMD and 95% CI were compatible with a small to moderate benefit in sexual function for the HT group (SMD 0.38, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.54, P < 0.00001, 3 studies, 699 women, I² = 55%, high-quality evidence). In unselected postmenopausal women, the 95% CI was compatible with no effect to a small benefit (SMD 0.16, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.34, P = 0.08, 2 studies, 478 women, I² = 44%, low-quality evidence). The subgroups were not pooled because of considerable heterogeneity.For estrogens combined with progestogens versus control, in symptomatic or early postmenopausal women the 95% CI was compatible with a small to moderate benefit for sexual function in the HT group (SMD 0.42, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.64, P = 0.0003, 1 study, 335 women, moderate-quality evidence). In unselected postmenopausal women, the 95% CI was compatible with no effect to a small benefit (SMD 0.09, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.20, P = 0.10, 3 studies, 1314 women, I² = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). The subgroups were not pooled because of considerable heterogeneity.For tibolone versus control, in symptomatic or early postmenopausal women the 95% CI was compatible with no effect to a small benefit for sexual function in the HT group (SMD 0.13, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.26, P = 0.05, 1 study, 883 women, low-quality evidence). In unselected postmenopausal women, the 95% CI was compatible with no effect to a moderate benefit (SMD 0.38, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.71, P = 0.03, 2 studies, 142 women, I² = 0%, low-quality evidence). In the combined analysis, the 95% CI was compatible with no effect to a small benefit (SMD 0.17, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.29, P = 0.008, 3 studies, 1025 women, I² = 20%).For SERMs versus control, in symptomatic or early postmenopausal women the 95% CI was compatible with no effect to a moderate benefit for sexual function in the HT group (SMD 0.23, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.50, P = 0.09, 1 study, 215 women, low-quality evidence). In unselected postmenopausal women, the 95% CI was compatible with small harm to a small benefit (SMD 0.04, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.29, P = 0.72, 1 study, 283 women, low-quality evidence). In the combined analysis, the 95% CI was compatible with no effect to a small benefit (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.31, P = 0.16, 2 studies, 498 women, I² = 2%).A comparison of SERMs combined with estrogens versus control was only evaluated in symptomatic or early postmenopausal women. The 95% CI was compatible with no effect to a small benefit for sexual function in the HT group (SMD 0.21, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.43, P = 0.05, 1 study, 542 women, moderate-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

HT treatment with estrogens alone or in combination with progestogens was associated with a small to moderate improvement in sexual function, particularly in pain, when used in women with menopausal symptoms or in early postmenopause (within five years of amenorrhoea), but not in unselected postmenopausal women. Evidence regarding other HTs (synthetic steroids and SERMs) is of low quality and we are uncertain of their effect on sexual function. The current evidence does not suggest an important effect of tibolone or of SERMs alone or combined with estrogens on sexual function. More studies evaluating the effect of synthetic steroids, SERMS and the association of SERM + estrogens would improve the quality of the evidence for the effect of these treatments on sexual function in peri and postmenopausal women. Future studies should also evaluate the effect of HT solely among women with sexual complaints.