Is there any actual treatment for perimenopause?

[SweetnessNshite]

I've been feeling anxious and depressed, and having never had depression or anxiety before, my Mam thinks I may be perimenopausal.

I've got blood tests on Wednesday, if I am, is there any actual treatment? Or do I just have to put up with this awful feeling?

Thanks in advance for any advice.

Get your friend to check out www.menopausematters.co.uk and change her doctor

I have been suffering peri-menopause symptoms for a while. Having previously suffered anxiety/depression I just put them down to that again. Saw my GP last week who's happy to prescribe HRT based on symptoms and my age (51). MIL thinks I should just grin & bear it as she did (she may well change her mind if she ever suffers the brunt of my short fuse these days!) I'm happy to try anything to make me feel like me again

It depends on how your MIL felt really. Low mood is just one symptom of peri. Lots of women find their symptoms get worse after their periods stop when flushes, sweats, vaginal dryness and bladder problems can start- and carry on forever in some people.

The article was in the Guardian - big article, think it was last week or 10 days (I read the paper version).

Which article was that purple?
There was a lot in all the press last week because the new NICE guidelines came out. Don't forget that many of those articles were journalists' own thoughts and opinions - and their own interpretation of the guidelines. They weren't necessarily medically approved articles.

Hello! Got my blood results back, they're all normal :( I'm quite gutted, as it means I'm depressed and anxious and its not just a hormone imbalance.

I can't get into to speak to the doctor until 2nd December

Blood tests are supposed to be done twice in a month: around day 3 of your cycle and then after day 14. One single test is meaningless.
My only blood test showed I was postmenopause at 51 yet I had periods for another 2 years. Your GP ought to know this. If they don't ask to be referred to a gynae who does.

Yes I saw that article purplepolkadots, it was one of many. For facts you can look at the British Heart Foundation www.bhf.org.uk/news-from-the-bhf/news-archive/2015/march/hormone-replacement-therapy-may-increase-risk-of-stroke, and cancer research
www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-cancer/hormones-and-cancer/hrt-and-cancer.

All this urging women to start hrt and forget the risks is all well and good, but what about the psychotic mood swings, agonizing migraines, and anxiety issues many women get with hrt, then having to keep changing the type or dose just to keep everything at bay. "Why not just try it" they say, "you can always change your mind". Yeh, that's what the pushers say about class a drugs

I would be grateful it isn't a hormone imbalance. HRT helps some symptoms, but get all the facts first.

Yes, OP, do get all the facts first. Take note that the links from the BHF do not take into account different types of HRT. There are numerous studies- far too many to link to ,but the NICE report does mention this- which show there is no increase in blood clots with transdermal HRT. Also take note that the link from cancer research is based mainly on the now discredited studies done 12 years ago. Many women who use HRT now, use natural progesterone which, as shown in this French study, appears not to have any breast cancer risk.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1974841/ It's rather a long and scientific document but worth reading and comparing the types of progestogens.

This is from the Women's Health Concern websitewww.womens-health-concern.org/help-and-advice/factsheets/hrt-know-benefits-risks/

^It should also be appreciated that, in a surprising turnabout, subsequent publication of the full WHI results showed the apparent increased risk for breast cancer was only found in those who had been on HRT before entering the study. In addition, whereas the authors claimed initially that there was no difference in effects with age, further analyses from both the combined HRT and oestrogen alone WHI studies have shown no increase in heart disease in women starting HRT within 10 years of the menopause. This about turn and retraction of some of the previous findings has received little publicity in the media.

Furthermore, a large controlled trial from Denmark reported in 2012 has demonstrated that healthy women taking combined HRT for 10 years immediately after the menopause had a reduced risk of heart disease and of dying from heart disease.

This report supports the concept of a ‘window of opportunity’ when HRT is started shortly after menopause, whereas the WHI study confirmed that starting HRT after the age of 60 years may increase the risk of heart disease.^

It's rather disingenuous to mention the side effects that some women have on HRT because many have none whatsoever- I count myself amongst those- and have felt brilliant on it from Day 1. So just to counteract those comments which are somewhat negative, to say the least.

scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2015/10/20/no-hrt-isnt-harmless-there-are-risks-as-well-as-benefits/

This website is kinda interesting.

ps: thanks for the link, lorrainescottyd!

There is no point posting links all the time to sites which show risks of HRT. No one is saying that HRT is risk free. But nothing in life is risk free- not even crossing the road. A consultant told me I was more likely to be killed in a RTA than by using HRT.

So who do I believe? An anon poster on a forum, an eminent consultant and research which I've linked to?

People make their own choices. But the very least we can do on forums is be impartial and post the facts.

Prof Val Beral has made it her life's work to find fault with HRT. She is far from impartial and refuses to acknowledge the flaws in the previous studies. I don't know what her agenda is but she is in danger of becoming- if she isn't already- a laughing stock in the medical world by her insistence on relying on outdated and unreliable stats.

Every time someone posts something that is anti-HRT I really do wonder what their agenda is and why they waste their time.

Interesting what you say about the days you're meant to test Polly Perky, don't think my \gp knows this as she tested my LH FSH hormones on about day 13. didn't even ask what day of my cycle it was. And it came out 52 for one, and 22 for the other, which is post menopausal levels apparently. I'm only 41 and still have periods.

But if it was done on the wrong day maybe the results are off...

I'm going to do HRT as soon as I work out if I need it, and what the best one is.

wow.
Interview here with Val Beral. I guess she cares a lot about cancer.

Framey It's quite well known- or ought to be!- that 2 readings are required.
When I had mine done I was 51 so it wasn't a case of being young for peri or meno. It was part of an overall MOT carried out and finding my level wasn't critical, it was just looking at the whole picture. When the results came through my consultant and I laughed about it and they said all it did was prove how wrong a single blood test can be.
One test just tests your hormones on that day. In peri they swing about all over the shop.

lljkk- to imply that other specialists don't care about cancer is not fair. If you 'know' the HRT world, you would know that on one side of the fence are Beral and her 'twin' McPherson, and on the other are doctors like Studd , Panay and Sturdee. Beral is an epidemiologist which means she looks at data in a different way. It is possibly worth noting that NICE did not think it worthwhile to include her. I am sure they had good reason.

I did link to the research above that different types of HRT have different risk factors. These are not used in the latest NICE report, as Nice themselves actually say, if you read it.
Synthetic progestogens have been thought to be a risk for breast cancer for many years. Even accounting for this, most women are at risk of cancer not through HRT but through lifestyle: lack of exercise, 64% being overweight, and drinking more than 1 unit a day.

You read way too much into what I posted, PP. I was just curious who VB was and thought others might be, too.

But since you mention it, you don't seem to have respect for any other opinions other than your own.

I'm sorry but personal comments like that are unnecessary. The MW study (headed by Beral, paid for by Cancer Research and the NHS) was discredited for having flawed data, as was the WHI study. This is nothing to do with my opinion. It's readily available information. If you'd like to know more, have a google on flawed data from HRT studies.

This link from the NHS shows why some experts don't regard the work behind the MW study very sound. Again- not a personal opinion at all NHS news

Has anyone tried any of the natural alternatives? I know there is a whole aisle of supplements in Holland and Barratt, has anyone had any luck with them?
I heard an interview on R4 the other day, 'Cancer Preventative Surgery New findings: Gareth Evans, Prof., Medical Genetics & Cancer Epidemiology, Manchester Uni' recommended ovary removal and HRT. Sounded sensible to me, but not sure how readily doctors are to whip them out like that!

what about bio identical hormone creams? Have read a lot about them.
got tis book www.amazon.co.uk/What-Your-Dr-Premenopause-Hormones/dp/0446673803
but felt quite confused about things againafter reading it. Might just be my mental state at the moment.

I just posted this link on another thread, I am thinking of trying a supplement as I think I am in perimenopause. I liked the article as it explained perimenapause in an uncomplicated way.

www.victoriahealth.com/editorial/menopause-does-not-have-to-be-miserable

You're likely to be burnt at the stake if you say the word hormone cream in some circles, FrameyMcFrame

Dr Marilyn Glenville's website talks about supplements and other things.

Sometimes, you have to combine working on diet, exercise and mental health, but what works for one may not be so good for another.

Oh why lorraine, oops is it a contentious issue?
I'm new to all this menopause lark