Should I go on HRT

[NotBasically]

My last proper period was November 21 then a much lighter one in October 22. Apart from the lack of periods I don't have any other symptoms but wondering if HRT will prevent other health conditions in the long run. I have history of early menopause in the family and I'm 42. Blood tests and a scan have confirmed peri menopause. I'm trying to weight the pros and cons of HRT. Has anyone been in a similar situation?

if it aint broke dont fix it

If you’re likely to go into menopause in your early 40s you should be on HRT as the risk to your bones is higher.

wouldn't that be better ameliorated by a healthy diet and healthy amount of exercise?

It's medical advice that women who are post meno under 45 use HRT ideally until their early 50s at least.

Menopause before 45 is classed as early.
Before 40 it's premature.

You might find it helpful to google 'early menopause and HRT' as there is plenty of medical advice out there online.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5137796/

You are most likely post menopause now as you went 11-12 months with no period and the last one was light. Your levels of estrogen during the 11 months with no periods will already be detrimental to your bone density, because you are 10 years too early - average meno age is 51.

There are no cons to HRT for women your age. The risks do not start until you reach 51 because all you are doing is replacing what you ought to have naturally.

@Nimbostratus100 No it wouldn't. I've just posted a link to a medical research paper.

NICE advises HRT for early menopause.
Exercise and diet can't replace estrogen.

From the linked paper.

Bone Mineral Density (BMD) and fracture risk
Multiple studies have shown that the lower BMD seen in women with POI or early menopause (< age 45) [under 45] due to any etiology is associated with significantly increased risk for fracture (23–29). Several of these studies further demonstrated that fracture rates are reduced among women with POI or early menopause who are treated with HRT

I was told in my 40s that my low-side-of average BMI (as a result of healthy diet and exercise) actually placed me at more risk of osteoporosis.

Yes, it would do.

Same for me.

Out of curiosity, just wondering why that would be? How would being slimmer make bones more fragile?
I could understand if it was a bones breaking thing like less fat to cushion a fall etc

what about the link to breast cancer?

There are lots of links in the Menopause section of MN to the latest research on HRT and breast cancer. In summary, it is generally accepted that the earlier research was mainly undertaken on older women who were taking equine estrogen such as Premarin. It isn't always relevant to women in their fifties taking plant-based gels and patches.

My doctor told me I was more at risk from drinking more than a very, very moderate amount of wine than I was from taking HRT. Or from being overweight/not exercising.

@Abra1t Bones respond to what they call 'stress'- either through impact (walking and running) or lifting weights which pulls on the tendons and muscles around bones and gives them a 'jolt'. This creates more bone .

The Royal Osteoporosis Society has great info on all of this.

Lighter women have a lifetime of not having as much impact on their skeleton as heavier women.

You might like to read up on this if you are particularly interested in HRT for early menopause. I think I already mentioned up-thread that the risks do not apply to HRT used by women under the age of average menopause.
Loads online if you google it.

Yes, I’m actually a keen weight trainer and do step and other impact exercise for this reason and have done for some years, but research indicates oestrogen is still also useful.

no, I just spend a lot of time in cancer treatment centres and meet women who blame HRT for their breast cancer, or who were told to immediately stop HRT the first day they noticed a lump, as if it turned out to be cancer, HRT could be feeding it

Can I suggest you consider the OP's age and what medical experts say regarding HRT (especially for young women.)

Posts about cancer risks are not helpful when they are not in line with medical advice.

what do you mean by not in line with medical advice? Some breast cancers are fed by oestrogen. This is in line with scientific facts. Its not an opinion, its a fact.

The OP is having an early menopause. She's 42. Almost 10 years younger than the age of the average menopause.

The risks of HRT & BC do not apply to her.

This medical site explains the risks (I'm leaving it here for @NotBasically as well!)

www.menopausematters.co.uk/risks.php

If HRT is commenced at a young age because of premature menopause, then the use of HRT up to the age of 50 does not increase breast cancer risk any more than in women who continue to have periods up to the age of 50. Additional risk from HRT only applies if it is then taken for more than 5 years after 50.

@NotBasically I'm the same as you. 42 and not really had a period for over a year now. Occasionally get some blood on wiping, but it's erratic. It's been on my mind the past few months and I'm definitely going to phone the GP for a chat about it. My mum had a really bad fracture in her 60's and spent a long time recovering and that's on my mind too.

and I know women who have had this in their early 40s. It happens. I dont even think its particularly unusual

I'm really sorry @Nimbostratus100 if you yourself have had cancer (or have it now) but don't you agree that it's important that on a forum like this, the OP has the correct medical advice? Your posts make it look as if you are disagreeing with established medical advice on how early menopause ought to be treated. Hope you are okay?

Thank you for your replies, ladies. I spoke to my GP and was surprised when she said my estrogen levels are normal, over 600 (didn't ask about the measurement though, should've done). Now I'm confused why I don't have periods. She referred me to the gynaecologist at the local hospital but I expect it to take months to get an appointment.

Taking blood is not always accurate as the levels can be all over the place. Yes, it's recommended when women are under 45, but it's not always accurate.

It's good you are seeing a gynaecologist although you may have to wait some months or much longer. Any chance you can fund a private appt with one?

I was thinking the same, I think private is the way to go.

Had my gynaecologist appointment today (on NHS, amazing!). My FSH and LH were very high so I am truly menopausal. I want to go on HRT to avoid future health issues but I don't know which ones. I need to book a GP appointment and discuss it with them. Any ideas what I should ask for? I still have no symptoms thankfully.