Are you M A Lumsden?

Claim your profile

Publications (2)3.97 Total impact

  • Article: Understanding weight gain at menopause.
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: ABSTRACT Objective The aim of this review was to summarize the literature regarding the impact of the menopause transition on body weight and body composition. Methods We conducted a search of the literature using Medline (Ovid, 1946-present) and PubMed (1966-2012) for English-language studies that included the following search terms: 'menopause', 'midlife', 'hormone therapy' or 'estrogen' combined with 'obesity', 'body weight' or 'body composition'. Results Whereas weight gain per se cannot be attributed to the menopause transition, the change in the hormonal milieu at menopause is associated with an increase in total body fat and an increase in abdominal fat. Weight excess at midlife is not only associated with a heightened risk of cardiovascular and metabolic disease, but also impacts adversely on health-related quality of life and sexual function. Animal and human studies indicate that this tendency towards central abdominal fat accumulation is ameliorated by estrogen therapy. Studies mostly indicate a reduction in overall fat mass with estrogen and estrogen-progestin therapy, improved insulin sensitivity and a lower rate of development of type 2 diabetes. Conclusion The hormonal changes across the perimenopause substantially contribute to increased abdominal obesity which leads to additional physical and psychological morbidity. There is strong evidence that estrogen therapy may partly prevent this menopause-related change in body composition and the associated metabolic sequelae. However, further studies are required to identify the women most likely to gain metabolic benefit from menopausal hormone therapy in order to develop evidence-based clinical recommendations.
    Climacteric 10/2012; 15(5):419-29. · 1.99 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Article: Menopausal hot flushes and night sweats: where are we now?
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: ABSTRACT Objective An overview of the current knowledge on the etiology and treatment of vasomotor symptoms in postmenopausal women. Materials and methods Acknowledged experts in the field contributed a brief assessment of their areas of interest which were combined and edited into the final manuscript. Results Women around the world experience vasomotor symptoms as they enter and complete the menopause transition. Vasomotor symptoms, specifically hot flushes, are caused by a narrowing of the thermoneutral zone in the brain. This effect, although related to estrogen withdrawal, is most likely related to changes in central nervous system neurotransmitters. Peripheral vascular reactivity is also altered in symptomatic women. Estrogen replacement therapy is the most effective treatment for hot flushes. Of the other interventions investigated, selective serotonin and selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors and gabapentin show efficacy greater than placebo. Objective monitoring of hot flushes indicates a robust improvement with hormone replacement therapy but little to no change with placebo. These data suggest that the subjective assessment of responses to therapy for vasomotor symptom results in inaccurate data. Hot flushes have recently been associated with increased cardiovascular risks and a lower incidence of breast cancer, but these data require confirmation. Conclusions Vasomotor symptoms are experienced by women of all ethnic groups. They are caused by changes in the central nervous system associated with estrogen withdrawal and are best treated with estrogen replacement therapy. Objective monitoring of hot flushes indicates that placebo has little to no effect on their improvement. Subjective assessments of hot flushes in clinical trials may be inaccurate based on objective measurement of the frequency of hot flushes. Based on preliminary reports, women experiencing hot flushes have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and a reduced incidence of breast cancer.
    Climacteric 09/2011; 14(5):515-528. · 1.99 Impact Factor