A claims study tracked menopause hormone therapy starts and continuation. Understand the findings, their limits and questions for individual care.
On October 26, 2026, Patient Care Online published an interview with study author Intira Sriprasert about systemic hormone therapy use after natural menopause. The report described a retrospective analysis presented at The Menopause Society’s 2026 Annual Meeting. In that analysis, 21.7% of women filled a prescription within 12 months of a menopause diagnosis.
The report brings two stages of care into view: beginning treatment and remaining on an initial treatment episode. For readers navigating menopause, separating those stages from the question of personal suitability is the central task. A population pattern is not a decision for an individual.
According to Patient Care Online, the researchers examined MarketScan insurance-claims data for 318,621 US women aged 45 to 60 who experienced natural menopause. They looked at prescription initiation within 12 months of diagnosis and continuation of the first systemic hormone therapy episode.
This was a look back at existing records rather than a trial assigning women to treatments. The study measured recorded treatment use after diagnosis. Its central measures were whether a prescription was filled and how long the initial treatment episode continued.
That distinction gives the findings their proper scale. A menopause diagnosis, a prescription fill and an ongoing treatment episode represent different points in a care pathway. They are related events rather than interchangeable measures of care.
The continuation results also concern a particular group: women who started systemic hormone therapy. They do not describe treatment duration across everyone included in the analysis. Keeping the full study population separate from the group of starters makes the percentages easier to interpret.
The study report said 69,203 women filled a prescription for systemic hormone therapy within the specified window. That represented the reported initiation rate of 21.7%.
Among those who started treatment:
In the interview, Sriprasert also said about 40% of initiators remained on treatment after one year and about 24% after two years. These findings draw attention to what happened after treatment began rather than focusing only on the first prescription.
The report also described differences across demographic and health groups. Black women were less likely to initiate treatment than the study’s reference group. Black race and Hispanic ethnicity were associated with earlier discontinuation.
Women with obesity or diabetes were also less likely to initiate systemic hormone therapy. Together, the reported findings show that initiation and continuation were not uniform across the population studied.
The central result is therefore broader than a single uptake percentage. The analysis describes both entry into systemic hormone treatment and the course of the initial treatment episode among those who started.
The most important limitation concerns eligibility. Not initiating treatment does not mean a woman was eligible, received an offer and declined it. The available analysis does not establish each woman’s symptoms or preferences. It also does not establish contraindications, access to care or the clinical recommendation she received.
Likewise, the end of an initial treatment episode is not proof that someone stopped all menopause care. The available report does not explain whether participants switched treatments, restarted later or used another option. It also does not establish whether ending an episode was medically appropriate.
The demographic and health findings are associations rather than proof of cause. Sriprasert said the reasons for the racial and ethnic differences were not investigated. She discussed access to care and clinician-patient interactions as possible contributors. Medical conditions and personal knowledge or attitudes were other possibilities, not demonstrated explanations.
The claims analysis also did not establish whether treatment relieved symptoms. It measured neither sexual function nor relationship outcomes. Its figures therefore do not show whether systemic hormone therapy improved desire, intimacy or sexual satisfaction.
There are reporting limits as well. The work was presented as abstract S-8, “Patterns of systemic hormone therapy initiation following natural menopause.” The available material does not provide a full study paper. The article describes data from 2009 to 2022, while Sriprasert says in the interview that the records extended through 2021.
Finally, the data ended before the FDA labeling changes discussed below. Sriprasert said the study could not establish the effect of those changes on treatment use.
These limits matter because a prescription record describes an event without necessarily explaining the decision behind it. The findings identify patterns that deserve attention. They do not supply a single explanation for those patterns.
The study sits alongside guidance about who may benefit from treatment. In its October 2026 guidance, ACOG strongly recommends menopausal hormone therapy for vasomotor symptoms and related sleep disturbance in appropriate patients without contraindications. It recommends considering treatment before age 60 or within 10 years of natural menopause.
That timing guidance does not imply universal eligibility. It places treatment within an assessment of symptoms and personal health. Sexential’s discussion of why timing needs individual context addresses this distinction between a general window and a personal decision.
The claims analysis and the guidance answer different questions. ACOG addresses the circumstances in which treatment should be considered. The study describes recorded treatment use after diagnosis. A recommendation about suitable care does not establish how many people in a claims database should have received it.
The FDA’s October 21, 2026 update addressed another part of the decision: product labeling. The agency requested removal of certain cardiovascular disease, breast cancer and probable-dementia risk statements from hormone therapy boxed warnings. It said relevant risk information should remain elsewhere in labeling.
In particular, the FDA said cardiovascular and breast-cancer risks should remain in the Warnings and Precautions section. Moving risk language out of a boxed warning is not the same as eliminating the risks. The agency framed the changes as supporting informed decisions rather than establishing suitability for every patient.
Read together, these sources support individualized discussion rather than a target uptake rate. Neither the guidance nor the labeling update turns the study’s initiation percentage into a measure of how many women made the right decision.
For readers, the practical value of this report is a clearer way to think about the treatment process. Eligibility, starting treatment and continuing it are separate questions. Each belongs in a discussion with a qualified clinician rather than being answered by a population statistic.
If menopause symptoms affect comfort, sleep or intimacy, the relevant discussion concerns those specific experiences. A broad question about “needing hormones” can become more useful when it identifies the concern that care is intended to address.
A conversation might include:
These are questions about the decision process rather than prompts toward a predetermined answer. They leave room for a person’s priorities and the clinician’s assessment. They also distinguish choosing an option from deciding whether that option continues to fit.
Sriprasert recommended discussing menopause before symptoms arise and following up after treatment starts. That was her clinical perspective, not a follow-up program tested by the analysis. It nevertheless identifies a practical issue raised by the continuation findings: a first prescription need not be the last conversation.
Follow-up can provide a place to discuss benefit and tolerability alongside concerns or changing preferences. The purpose is not simply to keep a prescription going. It is to revisit whether the care being discussed remains appropriate for the person receiving it.
Sexual wellbeing also deserves its own language in these conversations. Readers may want to distinguish a concern about comfort from a concern about desire or intimacy. Sexential’s coverage of the wider context of sexual wellbeing through menopause provides a broader educational frame for those questions.
For someone reading the headline with uncertainty, there is no need to treat either starting or not starting hormones as a verdict on how menopause should be managed. The useful question is which concerns deserve attention and how a qualified clinician can help assess them.
A prescription records a beginning. The more personal story is whether care continues to make sense in a woman’s life.
Hormone therapy uptake is only one part of understanding midlife sexuality; Sexential approaches the subject through education rather than individual treatment decisions. For adults aged 35 to 65 who are unsure what influences sexual function, its coverage links hormones with confidence and relationship circumstances to make research easier to place in context.
Follow Sexential for thoughtful guidance on desire, sexual function, hormones, confidence, relationships and intimacy. Explore new articles and evidence-aware resources for sexual wellbeing across adulthood.
A German survey linked post-COVID syndrome with greater self-reported sex-life impairment. Read the study's context, limits and practical meaning.
A 2026 review linked SSRIs with orgasmic dysfunction. Read the findings, their limits and what they mean for treatment conversations.
PROTEUS substudy results add context on testosterone recovery and erectile dysfunction after prostate cancer treatment, with key limits and questions for care.
Explore practical resources on desire, function, hormones, confidence, intimacy and sexual wellbeing.
Read the Blog
