One hormone was a game-changer for Andrea's perimenopause. She wants other women to have access, too
'Men's sexual health is routinely subsidised. But women have to fight for theirs — or fund it themselves.'
Petition to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee and the government
'Men's sexual health is routinely subsidised. But women have to fight for theirs — or fund it themselves. That's not healthcare. That's a double standard,' states the petition, which was launched in June by Dr Ceri Cashell, a New South Wales GP.
Cashell said: 'Every week, women tell me that testosterone was really helping, but they had to give it up because it's just too expensive. And that is not right.
'I used to hear this all the time about Prometrium (body-identical progesterone). And having Prometrium listed on the PBS has been a life-saver for many of my patients, sometimes literally, because of its profound effects on sleep.'
In her submission to the Senate's inquiry into issues relating to menopause, Cashell called for three body-identical hormones: estradiol, micronised progesterone, and testosterone 'to be accessible and affordable for Australian women who need to use them'.
Because only the first two are PBS-listed, and testosterone treatment for hypoactive sexual desire disorder is so expensive, Griffith University steroid-use researcher Dr Tim Piotkowski says women are obtaining testosterone intended for men and attempting to measure suitable amounts, risking side effects.
'Women are not being afforded access to things that men are,' Piotkowski said. 'These women often feel overlooked by traditional healthcare and unsupported when they seek help.'
Collins put it like this: 'Women are suffering, and our sex lives are so important for our health … it's a healthy part of our lives, having that connection and intimacy with someone.'
When that desire is absent, 'you just don't want to have anyone near you at that stage'.
Endocrinologist, Professor Susan Davis, a spokeswoman for the Australasian Menopause Society and long-term researcher at Monash University, agrees testosterone treatment should be subsidised, but only on authority script to prevent it being prescribed for menopause symptoms other than hypoactive sexual desire disorder.
Debate and discussion about the perceived wider benefits of testosterone for women has raged among menopause advocates, and publicity on social media has caused a big spike in demand.
But Davis, a former president of the International Menopause Society, said there was only evidence of its effectiveness for hypoactive sexual desire disorder. Some claims made about testosterone's other potential benefits for midlife women were 'overselling the need and the benefit'.
Testosterone supplementation at midlife has been promoted as being able to improve women's low mood, concentration, memory and sleep problems. It has also been said to protect women's bones, muscles and brains.
Such claims were unproven, and 'making women feel they are missing out if they are not on it', Davis saids. She noted that there was only one medication for male erectile dysfunction on the PBS, and it was available only on authority script.
Davis' team has studies under way examining how testosterone treatments effect women's muscles and bones, but she said that in claims already being made about its benefits: 'The language is quite emotive, and raises a red flag.'
'The guideline is this can increase the number of sexually satisfying events [for the woman] by one per month, which is not a lot.'
Professor Martha Hickey, Melbourne University and Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne
'There is no evidence for [those benefits] at this point.'
A paper Davis helped write was used by the petition authors to source the statistic that one-third of Australian women experience hypoactive sexual desire disorder, but she now considers that data to be 'a rough estimate', and said an imminent paper would suggest the accurate proportion is 'about half of that'.
The clinical benefit of AndroFeme 1 for women experiencing low sex drive had been shown to be modest, said Professor Martha Hickey, chair of obstetrics and gynaecology at Melbourne University.
Loading
'The guideline is this can increase the number of sexually satisfying events [for the woman] by one per month, which is not a lot,' she said.
'Depending on what you're starting from, it is not that much. And this drug has only been shown to be effective in that specific condition.'
Hickey also disputed the accuracy of the figure of one in three women experiencing hypoactive sexual desire disorder, as distinct from low libido, in midlife: 'And low libido is not what this is for. The other thing is there's no safety data available on AndoFeme 1 use beyond 12 weeks.
'It's a hormone, and hormones have powerful effects in many organs of the body,' Hickey said.
Evidence did not support the suggestion that testosterone dropped significantly at menopause, like oestrogen has been shown to, contrary to what has been suggested by some of its proponents online.
'I'm very suspicious of the commercial forces that are driving this,' Hickey said.
But women's health psychiatrist Professor Jayashri Kulkani, director of Monash University's HER Centre Australia and of the Multidisciplinary Alfred Psychiatry research centre, says subsidising testosterone therapy for women goes beyond its proven benefits for low libido.
'It [testosterone] is the third hormone for all of the menopause-related issues that many women experience, including mental ill-health,' she said.
'The petition and advocating group have picked HSDD because they think there is more evidence for AndroFeme in treating this issue but in actual fact, it is a hormone treatment that is part of menopausal hormone therapy for all of the symptoms that many (but not all) women experience in the menopause transition.'
Kulkarni said that women should have access to PBS-subsidised testosterone for reasons beyond sexual dysfunction.
Loading
'The bigger picture here is menopausal mental ill-health [depression, anxiety, brain fog] is the really big issue,' she said.
'So I agree with the petition to get AndroFeme 1 on the PBS but for the bigger cause, not just HSDD.'
A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Aged Care said the government and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee would welcome applications to list AndroFeme1 or similar testosterone products on the PBS.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
West Australian
an hour ago
- West Australian
Poor effort, one-star: experts pan health rating uptake
Consumers are stilling having to digest complex nutrition tables when shopping as brands thumb their nose at voluntary health star labels. Dietitians and other health experts are demanding health star ratings be made mandatory to correct its dismal uptake. Only one-third of packaged foods on supermarket shelves display the labels, a far cry from the federal government's November target of 70 per cent. People understood the concept of stars and could use it to make better choices, the George Institute for Global Health's Alexandra Jones told reporters on Wednesday. "Their ability to use it has been mostly limited by the fact that it's only on a third of products," she said. Under the rating system, packaged foods can receive ratings from half-a-star to five stars, based on factors including their total energy value, saturated fat, sugar and fruit content. The labels were introduced in 2014 in a joint initiative between the Australian and New Zealand governments. But uptake has fallen well behind schedule. An estimated 36 per cent of products display the rating, about the same amount as four years ago. A reason appears to be producers with low-scoring items choosing to not display the labels. Dr Jones, who leads the George Institute's food governance program, said its data showed higher-scoring brands recorded strong levels of uptake. Australasian food ministers have shown an interest in mandating the labels but experts warned transition periods could mean consumers would be left waiting until 2029 to analyse food details. Mandating the system earlier would help to reduce health costs significantly, public health nutrition associate professor Bridget Kelly said. Dietary risk factors contributing to chronic disease burden already cost the federal taxpayer about $1.2 billion annually. "There's a strong economic argument for rolling this out and for saving government money in the longer term," Dr Kelly, of the University of Wollongong, said. Dietitians Australia chief executive Magriet Raxworthy said the rating system was an important first step in helping consumers make healthy choices. "We can't - in the face of an ever-growing chronic disease landscape - continue to avoid really strong public health measures that can effectively make a change in our food system," she said. While supporting the rating, the Australian Food and Grocery Council said a move towards mandating would require sufficient time to minimise costs, reduce waste and consider the impact on all providers, a spokesperson told AAP on Wednesday. Federal Agriculture Minister Julie Collins and Assistant Health Minister Rebecca White were contacted for comment. The pair are members of the food ministers council that makes decisions about the health star rating system.
Perth Now
an hour ago
- Perth Now
Poor effort, one-star: experts pan health rating uptake
Consumers are stilling having to digest complex nutrition tables when shopping as brands thumb their nose at voluntary health star labels. Dietitians and other health experts are demanding health star ratings be made mandatory to correct its dismal uptake. Only one-third of packaged foods on supermarket shelves display the labels, a far cry from the federal government's November target of 70 per cent. People understood the concept of stars and could use it to make better choices, the George Institute for Global Health's Alexandra Jones told reporters on Wednesday. "Their ability to use it has been mostly limited by the fact that it's only on a third of products," she said. Under the rating system, packaged foods can receive ratings from half-a-star to five stars, based on factors including their total energy value, saturated fat, sugar and fruit content. The labels were introduced in 2014 in a joint initiative between the Australian and New Zealand governments. But uptake has fallen well behind schedule. An estimated 36 per cent of products display the rating, about the same amount as four years ago. A reason appears to be producers with low-scoring items choosing to not display the labels. Dr Jones, who leads the George Institute's food governance program, said its data showed higher-scoring brands recorded strong levels of uptake. Australasian food ministers have shown an interest in mandating the labels but experts warned transition periods could mean consumers would be left waiting until 2029 to analyse food details. Mandating the system earlier would help to reduce health costs significantly, public health nutrition associate professor Bridget Kelly said. Dietary risk factors contributing to chronic disease burden already cost the federal taxpayer about $1.2 billion annually. "There's a strong economic argument for rolling this out and for saving government money in the longer term," Dr Kelly, of the University of Wollongong, said. Dietitians Australia chief executive Magriet Raxworthy said the rating system was an important first step in helping consumers make healthy choices. "We can't - in the face of an ever-growing chronic disease landscape - continue to avoid really strong public health measures that can effectively make a change in our food system," she said. While supporting the rating, the Australian Food and Grocery Council said a move towards mandating would require sufficient time to minimise costs, reduce waste and consider the impact on all providers, a spokesperson told AAP on Wednesday. Federal Agriculture Minister Julie Collins and Assistant Health Minister Rebecca White were contacted for comment. The pair are members of the food ministers council that makes decisions about the health star rating system.
9 News
6 hours ago
- 9 News
A new drug helped Lee survive breast cancer. Then she was thrown a curveball
Your web browser is no longer supported. To improve your experience update it here When Sydney woman Lee Hunt was diagnosed with an aggressive breast cancer back in 2005, she underwent gruelling rounds of chemotherapy and radiotherapy. She also began taking what was a relatively new and promising targeted therapy drug at the time, Herceptin, which has been shown to boost the effects of chemotherapy. Little did Hunt know that the very treatments that likely saved her life would lead to serious health problems down the track. Lee Hunt, pictured with her husband and grandson. (Supplied) Five years after finishing her cancer treatments, she began to notice strange symptoms. "I just started fainting, and feeling very dizzy," Hunt said. Hunt was referred to a haematologist by her GP, on the assumption that it might be her low blood pressure causing the problem. Luckily, the hematologist was aware of growing evidence of breast cancer survivors developing heart problems after taking Herceptin. Hunt was sent to see a cardiologist, who diagnosed her with cardiotoxity, which refers to long-term damage to the heart caused by a medical treatment. Hunt isn't alone, with data showing heart disease related to cancer treatment is emerging as a significant threat to breast cancer survivors. It is now estimated that up to 30 percent of breast cancer patients who undergo chemotherapy will go on to develop potentially life-threatening heart complications as a side effect of associated targeted therapies, immunotherapies or the chemotherapy itself. Lee Hunt, pictured with her husband on a hiking trip in Italy. (Supplied) Australian scientists at the Heart Research Institute hope to have a solution to the problem soon, in the form of a new drug that patients can take while undergoing chemotherapy to prevent heart damage. Professor Julie McMullen leads a team of researchers at the institute who have earmarked two potential drugs which have been showing promise. The drugs are being tested on revolutionary "mini-hearts" created in the lab. The size of a grain of sand, these tiny hearts are made from donated human blood, and have their own heartbeat. Professor Julie McMullen and researcher Dr Clara Liu Chung Ming are pictured the Heart Research Institute's laboratory. (Supplied) The tiny heart model was developed in the laboratory of University of Technology Associate Professor Carmine Gentile in an Australian first. "We can collect blood from breast cancer patients, and then isolate their cells, and with those cells, we can make these little mini hearts," McMullen said. "Then, if we put some cancer drugs onto them, we can see if that impacts how they beat. "We can also test whether one of our protective drugs protects them against any defects in how they beat." The ambitious cardio-oncology project also aims to understand why some patients are more susceptible to cardiotoxicity than others, helping pave the way for more personalised treatment in the future. "We currently have limited knowledge on why cardiotoxicity occurs and which women will be most impacted," McMullen said. "This research has the opportunity to identify women at risk of cardiotoxicity before symptoms are present, so we can develop drugs to protect the heart during and after cancer treatment." national health Breast Cancer Research Australia CONTACT US
