When 'You Can't Take HRT' Means 'Your Doctor Hasn't Read the Evidence'

Episode Script

Rebecca Hastings is at a family party. She's forty-six, in perimenopause, dealing with hot flashes and night sweats. She gets to talking with another woman there, comparing notes, half-laughing about all of it the way women do when there's nothing else left to do.

And then the other woman gets serious. She tells Rebecca she wasted two years suffering before she finally started hormone therapy. And that it fixed everything.

Rebecca said: "I immediately lost connection and felt isolated."

Because Rebecca can't take hormone therapy. Or that's what she's been told. She has a genetic mutation that puts her at higher risk for blood clots, and her gynecologist said HRT would raise that risk further. So instead, the doctor recommended an herbal supplement for the hot flashes. Told her to avoid caffeine. To sleep with a fan.

That's the prescription. An herbal supplement, no morning tea, and a fan.

The New York Times ran this story this past weekend. Rebecca's story, and Cybele Maylone's — Cybele is a breast cancer survivor, her cancer was fed by estrogen, she takes a drug that suppresses it now — and Jamie Davis Smith, who has elevated stroke risk. Three women who all say a version of the same thing: the conversation around hormone therapy right now feels like it's happening on a different planet. Everyone they know is on it. Everyone they know is suddenly sleeping again. And they're sitting in the audience of their own life watching it happen to other people.

The article is framed as a story about women being left out of HRT. And it's a real story — there are women, including two of those three, who genuinely can't take it.

But read that piece again.

Read it again. Cybele Maylone has estrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer. That's a real reason to stay off estrogen. Jamie Davis Smith has elevated stroke risk — more complicated, but reasonable people can land in either place.

But Rebecca. Rebecca has a genetic mutation that raises her risk of blood clots. And her gynecologist denied her hormone therapy entirely. And prescribed an herbal supplement.

That is not a story about a woman left out of HRT because the evidence excludes her. That is a story about a provider who is somewhere between five and twenty years behind on the evidence.

The New York Times mentioned a "humongous provider knowledge gap" in the piece — they're quoting Dr. Rajita Patil at UCLA there — and then never connected it back to Rebecca. Not once.

So here is what the evidence actually says.

When a woman takes estrogen as a pill — orally — that estrogen has to go through her liver before it gets into her bloodstream. That trip through the liver is called the first-pass effect. And it nudges the liver into producing a few more of the proteins that help blood clot. That is where the increased clot risk from hormone therapy comes from. It is not estrogen itself. It is what oral estrogen does to the liver.

When a woman takes estrogen as a patch, or a gel, or a spray — transdermally, through the skin — it skips the liver and goes straight into the bloodstream. No first-pass effect. No nudge to the clotting proteins. And in the studies that have actually been done on this — and there are a lot of them at this point — transdermal estrogen does not show the same increase in blood clot risk that oral estrogen does. Multiple meta-analyses have landed in the same place.

This is not a fringe position. This is The Menopause Society's position.

The Menopause Society is the consensus body in the United States for menopause care. Their 2022 Hormone Therapy Position Statement is on this point directly. The exact language — and I am quoting now — is that "transdermal routes of administration and lower doses of hormone therapy may decrease risk of VTE." That is the consensus body's own words. May decrease the risk of clots, compared to oral. So for a woman whose only barrier to HRT is clot risk, the answer in the position statement is not "do not take it." The answer is: there is a route that lowers your risk. Use that one.

And here is the part that makes this whole article — and Rebecca's story — particularly hard to read.

The medical director of The Menopause Society is Dr. Stephanie Faubion. The New York Times quoted her in this same piece. She is in the article. She is on the record talking about the breadth of the menopause-care toolkit. She has been publishing on this stuff for years.

Rebecca's gynecologist apparently has not read any of it.

And I want to be careful here, because there is a version of this where it sounds like I am just throwing rocks at one doctor I have never met. That is not the point. The point is that for a woman with a clotting disorder, the standard-of-care answer in 2026 is not "no hormone therapy, try black cohosh." The standard-of-care answer is: let's talk about whether a transdermal patch makes sense for you, given the actual mechanism of your risk.

That is a five-minute conversation. It might end with "no, your case is complicated enough that we still shouldn't do it." Fine. That happens. But it might also end with "yes, on a patch, with monitoring, you'd probably do well." And what Rebecca got instead was a supplement and a fan.

I want to be just as careful about progesterone and testosterone, because these come up too. Micronized progesterone — the body-identical kind, sold as Prometrium — does not appear to carry the clot risk that some of the older synthetic progestins did. And testosterone, which a lot of women in perimenopause are also asking about, doesn't increase clot risk either. These are not maybes. These are positions that have been on the books for years.

So how does this keep happening?

I want to tell you about a pattern I keep running into, because it is part of why an article like this lands where it does. I have friends — and you probably do too — whose primary care doctor or gynecologist has been their doctor since they were teenagers. He delivered her kids. He saw her through her divorce. He has been her doctor longer than her marriage lasted. And she will not see anyone else.

I am not making a point about any one doctor here. There are excellent clinicians who have been in practice for decades. The problem is not how long someone has been a doctor. The problem is that the field of menopause medicine has changed so much in the last fifteen years — really, in the last five — that if a clinician was trained on a playbook that has since been rewritten, and they have not actively kept up, they are working from outdated information. And they were not in the room when it changed.

The 2002 Women's Health Initiative results came out and a generation of doctors essentially stopped prescribing hormone therapy at all. That fear has now been substantially reassessed. The route distinction we just talked about — oral versus transdermal, and what that means for clot risk — is not in their muscle memory. The role of micronized progesterone instead of older synthetic progestins — not in their muscle memory. The current thinking on testosterone for perimenopausal women — not in their muscle memory.

And it is not just the doctors who have been in practice the longest. Menopause is still under-taught in medical school right now. A widely-cited survey a few years back found that the majority of OB-GYN residency programs were not giving residents any meaningful menopause-specific training. So a doctor fresh out of residency can be just as behind as one who has been seeing patients for forty years — they just have a different excuse for it.

That is what Dr. Patil meant by "humongous." She is the director of UCLA's Comprehensive Menopause Program. She watches this play out on her referral list every day. Women come to her after years of being told no, or being told nothing, by clinicians who didn't have current information.

I want to be clear about something, because I do not want this episode to read like an argument that every woman should be on hormone therapy. There are women who really cannot take it. And the article is right about that part.

Cybele Maylone has estrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer. Her cancer was actively fed by estrogen. The drug she is on now suppresses estrogen specifically to keep the cancer from coming back. Putting her on estrogen therapy would not be a calculated risk. It would be a contradiction of her treatment. That is a real "no." The article got that part exactly right.

There are others. Active endometrial cancer that hasn't been treated yet. Severe, active liver disease. Recent stroke. A handful of others, depending on which body's guidelines you look at and how recent the events were. These are not gray-zone cases. These are situations where the answer is "not now, and possibly not ever." And the women who fall into these categories deserve clinicians who can sit with them in that and help them work the alternatives — the non-hormonal medications, the lifestyle adjustments, the things that genuinely do help with hot flashes and sleep when HRT is off the table.

The provider gap is not every "no." It is the "no" without a route discussion. The "no" without a second opinion. The "no" that comes with an herbal supplement instead of a referral. The "no" that ends the conversation instead of continuing it.

So if you are a woman who has been told no — by a doctor you trust, by someone who has known you for years — what do you do with that?

I am not going to tell you to fire your doctor. That is a big decision and it is not mine to make for you. But there are three questions you can take into your next appointment, and you can decide what to do from there.

First. When you were told no, was the no about oral estrogen or transdermal? If your doctor cannot tell you which one, or does not see why it matters, that tells you something. If they said "all of it," ask them to walk you through why a patch carries the same risk as a pill for your specific situation. Make them show their work.

Second. Ask if they have read the Menopause Society's 2022 Hormone Therapy Position Statement. Not in a gotcha way. In a "I have been doing some reading and I am curious what they make of the route distinction" way. The doctors who have read it will be glad you brought it up. The doctors who have not will tell you something by how they react.

Third. Ask for a referral to a clinician who specializes in menopause. The Menopause Society maintains a directory of certified practitioners. If your current doctor is not the right person for this, that does not have to be a fight. It can be a referral.

Rebecca Hastings deserves a real conversation about whether a patch makes sense for her. Cybele Maylone deserves a clinician who can sit with her in the hard "no" and help her work the alternatives. Jamie Davis Smith deserves a doctor who tries something, anything, for the brain fog instead of nothing.

All three of them deserve hormone therapy where it is safe, or an honest conversation about why it is not. They do not deserve a supplement and a fan.

That was the story.

---

Sources curated automatically by the Hot Flasher pipeline.