Hubbry Logo
Estrogen patchEstrogen patchMain
Open search
Estrogen patch
Community hub
Estrogen patch
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Estrogen patch
Estrogen patch
Estrogen patch
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Estrogen patch
Drug class
Vivelle-Dot, an estrogen patch.
Class identifiers
UseMenopause, hypogonadism, feminizing hormone therapy, contraception, prostate cancer, others
Biological targetEstrogen receptors (ERα, ERβ, mERs (e.g., GPER, others))
Legal status
In Wikidata

An estrogen patch, or oestrogen patch, is a transdermal delivery system for estrogens such as estradiol and ethinylestradiol which can be used in menopausal hormone therapy, feminizing hormone therapy for transgender women, hormonal birth control, and other uses.[1] Transdermal preparations of estrogen are metabolized differently than oral preparations. Transdermal estrogens avoid the first pass through the liver and thus potentially reduce the risk of blood clotting and stroke.[2]

An estrogen patch is applied directly to the skin, preferably near the lower abdomen, hips, or buttocks, and is usually changed once or twice per week. For women who have not undergone a hysterectomy, it is often suggested that they take progestogen in addition to an estrogen patch in order to protect the endometrium of the uterus.[1][2] Transdermal estrogens are not recommended for all women; there are important precautions and side effects that should be considered before use.[2]

Medical uses

[edit]
Available transdermal estradiol patches in the United States[3][4][a]
Brand name Dose
(µg/day) 		DOA (d) Size[b][c]
(cm2) 		Levels
(pg/mL) 		Intro.
Alora 25, 50, 75, 100 3–4 9, 18, 27, 36 43–144 1996
Climara[d] 25, 37.5, 50,
60, 75, 100 		7 6.5, 9.375, 12.5,
15, 18.75, 25 		17–174 1994
Climara Pro[e] E2 (45)
LNGTooltip Levonorgestrel (15) 		7 22 27–54 2003
CombiPatch[e] E2 (50)
NETATooltip Norethisterone acetate (14, 25) 		3–4 9, 16 27–71 1998
Menostar 14 7 3.25 13–21 2004
Minivelle 25, 37.5, 50,
75, 100 		3–4 1.65, 2.48, 3.3,
4.95, 6.6 		30–117 2012
Vivelle 50, 100 3–4 14.5, 29 30–145 2000
Vivelle-Dot[d] 25, 37.5, 50,
75, 100 		3–4 2.5, 3.75, 5,
7.5, 10 		30–145 1996
  1. ^ Specific links for each patch's FDA approval and label are not given.
  2. ^ For comparison, a United States quarter is about 4.6 cm2 (0.72 in2).
  3. ^ Sizes are respective to the dosages in the dose column.
  4. ^ a b Generic version available.
  5. ^ a b Combined with a progestin.

Menopause

[edit]

An estrogen patch may be recommended for women experiencing moderate to severe symptoms of menopause, such as vasomotor symptoms and vaginal atrophy. During menopause, the ovaries stop producing estrogen which causes estrogen levels to fall. The sudden change in estrogen levels may cause vasomotor symptoms, such as hot flashes. Research suggests that the estrogen patch can relieve both the frequency and severity of vasomotor symptoms by increasing estrogen levels. An estrogen patch may also be used to treat vulvar and vaginal atrophy, another symptom of menopause associated with the sudden change in estrogen levels.[1]

Hypoestrogenism

[edit]

Hypoestrogenism, or estrogen deficiency, may suggest menopause is approaching for middle aged women. Other causes of hypoestrogenism are excessive exercise, restrictive diet, underactive pituitary gland, ovarian failure, Turner Syndrome, and kidney disease. Symptoms of hypoestrogenism may include pain during sex, irregular periods, mood swings, hot flashes, breast tenderness, headache, depression, fatigue, weak bones, and an increase risk of urinary tract infections. Estrogen therapies, including the use of an estrogen patch, can be used to alleviate these symptoms by increasing estrogen levels to a normal state. Premenopausal women may be recommended to take progestin with estrogen therapy.[2]

Prevention of osteoporosis

[edit]

Estrogen patches may be effective in preventing osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Research suggests that estrogen patches can significantly increases bone mineral density and reduce risks of fractures in postmenopausal women by raising estrogen levels and avoiding first-pass metabolism.[5]

There is evidence that the combination of an estrogen patch with a progestin pill can improve bone mineral density in young, premenopausal amenorrheic athletes, and may be more effective than an oral estrogen with progestin.[6]

Hormonal birth control

[edit]

Contraceptive patches such as norelgestromin/ethinylestradiol are a form of estrogen patch which are used for hormonal birth control.

Feminizing hormone therapy

[edit]

Estrogen patches are commonly used for feminizing hormone therapy for transgender women as part of gender-affirming care.[7]

Patches with progestogens

[edit]
Sandoz Estradiol Transdermal System with oral progestin

Taking a progestogen in addition to an estrogen patch should be considered for women who have not undergone a hysterectomy to regulate the thickness of the endometrial lining[2] and reduce the risk of endometrial cancer. Hysterectomized women rarely need a progestogen, however it may be considered if a history of endometriosis exists.[1] There are different types of delivery systems of progestogens that can be used in addition to an estrogen patch, including pills, injections,[8] and patches, among others.[9]

Research has suggested that estrogen plus progestogen therapy may increase the risk of heart attacks, stroke, breast cancer, blot clots, and dementia in postmenopausal women. Taking the lowest effective dose of both estrogen and a progestogen may reduce risks.[1]

Administration

[edit]

Depending on the brand, patches are applied to the skin once or twice weekly. Patches should be placed on clean skin where hair and moisture is not present. Preferred areas of application include lower abdomen, hip, and buttocks. Patches should never be applied to the breasts. To reduce the risk of the patch detaching from the skin and skin irritation, skin care products, sun exposure, damaged skin, and tight-fitting clothing should be avoided where the patch is placed.[2]

Side effects

[edit]

Headache, breast pain or tenderness, nausea, vomiting, hair loss, vaginal discharge or irritation, and mood changes are some of the common side effects that may occur while using an estrogen patch.[10] More serious side effects may include fever, loss of appetite, joint pain, difficulty breathing or swallowing, and yellowing of the skin or eyes.[10][11]

Seeing a health professional regularly, taking progestin, having pelvic and breast exams, lowering blood pressure, and lowering cholesterol may reduce the likelihood of developing severe side effects while using an estrogen patch.[1]

Precautions

[edit]

Women who have experienced vaginal bleeding post menopause, certain cancers, stroke, heart attack, blood clotting, or uncontrollable bleeding, and women who are pregnant or allergic to ingredients in estrogen patches should not use an estrogen patch as serious adverse effects may occur.[1]

Society and culture

[edit]

Brand names

[edit]
"Evorel patch" redirects here. For the brand of patch containing norelgestromin and ethinylestradiol, see Evra patch.

Estrogen patches are available in multiple brand names in different countries. Some patches are available with a progestin such as levonorgestrel, norethisterone acetate, or norelgestromin.[4][12]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Estrogen patch

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
An estrogen patch is a delivery system that administers , the bioidentical form of , through the skin into the systemic circulation to replace deficient hormone levels. It is applied to the , , or upper and replaced weekly or twice-weekly depending on the formulation, providing steady absorption that bypasses gastrointestinal and hepatic first-pass metabolism. Primarily indicated for postmenopausal , it effectively relieves symptoms such as hot flashes and , treats vulvovaginal atrophy, and prevents in women at high risk. Transdermal estrogen demonstrates comparable efficacy to oral routes in symptom alleviation but with a potentially safer cardiovascular profile, as meta-analyses indicate no elevated risk of or associated with its use, unlike some oral preparations. This advantage stems from minimal impact on clotting factors and inflammatory markers due to direct venous delivery avoiding liver processing. However, unopposed elevates endometrial cancer risk in women with an intact , necessitating progestin co-administration, while long-term exposure correlates with increased incidence in observational data. Controversies persist from landmark trials like the , which underscored HRT risks, though subgroup analyses and subsequent studies suggest may mitigate certain adverse effects observed with conjugated equine estrogens. Empirical evidence thus supports individualized application, weighing symptom severity against thrombotic and oncogenic potentials informed by causal mechanisms rather than uniform guidelines potentially influenced by institutional biases.

Pharmacology and mechanism

Mechanism of action

The delivered by patches diffuses passively through the of the skin into the underlying dermal vasculature, entering the systemic circulation directly and circumventing the hepatic first-pass metabolism that extensively conjugates and inactivates orally administered estrogens. This route preserves a higher proportion of bioidentical relative to estrone compared to oral forms, which undergo significant presystemic conversion in the liver. In target tissues, estradiol binds with high affinity to estrogen receptors α (ERα) and β (ERβ), intracellular ligand-activated transcription factors predominantly located in the nucleus. Upon binding, the estradiol-receptor complex undergoes conformational change, dissociates from inhibitory heat shock proteins, dimerizes, and interacts with estrogen response elements (ERE) on DNA or via tethering to other transcription factors, thereby regulating the expression of hundreds of estrogen-responsive genes. This genomic mechanism predominates, though rapid nongenomic effects via membrane-associated receptors may contribute to signaling cascades involving MAPK/ERK pathways. The continuous release from the patch maintains relatively stable circulating levels that approximate premenopausal physiological fluctuations, minimizing supraphysiological peaks and subtherapeutic troughs inherent to intermittent oral dosing. This delivery profile supports sustained receptor occupancy and transcriptional modulation without the dose-dependent hepatic induction seen with oral estrogens.

Pharmacokinetics and bioavailability

Transdermal estradiol patches enable absorption of the hormone directly into the systemic circulation through passive diffusion across the stratum corneum, bypassing gastrointestinal and first-pass hepatic metabolism inherent to oral routes. Patch designs, such as matrix or reservoir systems, regulate release to achieve steady-state plasma concentrations typically within 12-24 hours of application, with sustained delivery over 3-7 days depending on the formulation (e.g., twice-weekly for systems like Vivelle-Dot or weekly for Climara). This results in high bioavailability of approximately 90-100% for the absorbed dose, as the hormone enters the bloodstream without significant presystemic degradation, leading to estradiol levels that more closely approximate premenopausal physiological ranges compared to oral administration. Serum estradiol concentrations exhibit dose proportionality, with delivery rates of 0.025-0.1 mg/day yielding average levels of 20-50 pg/mL for lower doses and up to 100 pg/mL for higher ones, though interindividual variability arises from skin permeability factors including application site ( preferred over for consistency), age-related thinning of the (enhancing absorption in older ), and conditions affecting dermal blood flow or hydration. The 's reservoir effect further stabilizes by providing a depot for gradual release, minimizing peaks and troughs. Distribution mirrors endogenous , with extensive tissue penetration and plasma protein binding primarily to (SHBG, 37%) and (60%), independent of delivery route. Metabolism of transdermally absorbed proceeds via hepatic enzymes (primarily ) to estrone, , and sulfate/glucuronide conjugates, followed by renal and biliary excretion; however, the route yields a lower estrone-to- (closer to 0.1-0.2 versus 5-10 for oral) due to reduced initial hepatic exposure. Elimination remains 13-20 hours, with clearance rates of 20-30 L/hour, but continuous patch absorption maintains steady states without the fluctuations seen in intermittent dosing. Compared to oral , transdermal administration induces lesser changes in hepatic protein synthesis, evidenced by minimal elevations in clotting factors (e.g., factors VII and XII) and inflammatory markers like , attributable to avoidance of portal vein concentration spikes.

History and development

Early estrogen therapy

The isolation of estrone, the first identified , occurred independently in 1929 by from human pregnancy urine and by Edward Doisy, who crystallized it shortly thereafter. The inaugural commercial estrogen product, Emmenin, extracted from pregnant women's urine, emerged in 1933 under Ayerst Laboratories for treating menopausal symptoms, though its high cost limited adoption. Conjugated equine estrogens (CEEs), formulated as Premarin, gained FDA approval in 1942 as an oral therapy for vasomotor menopausal symptoms and later for other indications. Prescribing escalated dramatically in the 1960s, fueled by Robert Wilson's 1966 book Feminine Forever, which framed menopause as a pathological estrogen deficiency reversible through lifelong replacement, resulting in millions of women using primarily oral CEEs by the mid-1970s. Observational studies in the early 1970s revealed that unopposed therapy elevated incidence by 4- to 14-fold, correlating with rising usage trends and prompting FDA advisories by 1976 to incorporate progestogens for endometrial opposition in non-hysterectomized women. The 2002 (WHI) trial, halted early after 5.2 years in postmenopausal women (mean age 63), associated combined oral CEEs plus with excess , , and risks versus , curtailing overall prescriptions. Subsequent reanalyses, however, indicated these harms were attenuated or absent in younger subsets (ages 50-59, closer to onset), questioning the trial's generalizability due to its older, higher-risk cohort and oral-only regimen. From the 1970s onward, pharmacokinetic studies delineated oral estrogens' first-pass hepatic metabolism, which upregulated synthesis of procoagulant factors (e.g., fibrinogen, factor VII), sex hormone-binding globulin, and renin substrate—effects absent in peripheral administration—correlating with heightened venous thromboembolism odds (2- to 4-fold) independent of age or baseline risk. These findings, amplified by WHI data on thrombotic events, underscored oral routes' causal role in adverse protein induction, catalyzing 1980s research into transdermal delivery to mimic physiologic levels while evading liver first-pass.

Invention and commercialization of transdermal patches

The foundational designs for estradiol delivery systems emerged in the , with reservoir patches featuring a liquid compartment of estradiol in alcohol, separated from the skin by a rate-controlling to enable controlled . Matrix patches, dispersing estradiol directly into a polymeric layer for simplified construction and reduced leakage risk, were developed shortly thereafter in the early . These innovations addressed challenges in achieving steady transcutaneous absorption of estradiol, which has low oral due to extensive first-pass . Commercialization advanced with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's approval of Estraderm ( system) on December 2, 1986, marking the first for , developed by Ciba-Geigy for managing menopausal symptoms. Initial formulations delivered 0.05 or 0.1 mg per day over three to four days, applied to the or . Subsequent refinements focused on enhancing delivery consistency through advanced pressure-sensitive adhesives, such as acrylic copolymers, which improved skin adherence while minimizing irritation, and permeation enhancers like to facilitate diffusion across the . These enabled thinner, more user-friendly matrix-based patches, such as weekly-wear systems introduced in the . Market expansion was propelled by patches' pharmacokinetic advantages, including avoidance of hepatic first-pass effects, which allow physiologic dosing with reduced risk of relative to oral estrogens. The global patches market, reflecting this safer profile, grew from USD 1.8 billion in 2024 toward projections of USD 3.5 billion by 2034. Generic equivalents, approved following expirations, further broadened availability in the 2000s and beyond.

Key clinical trials and regulatory approvals

The first estradiol patch, Estraderm, was approved by the U.S. (FDA) on October 29, 1986, for the treatment of moderate to severe symptoms associated with , based on pharmacokinetic studies demonstrating systemic delivery and symptom relief comparable to oral . Approvals for prevention followed in the 1990s, with formulations like Vivelle approved in 1994 after trials showing preserved density in postmenopausal women, reducing risk without the hepatic first-pass effects of oral routes. The (EMA) similarly authorized systems, such as Climara, in the late 1990s for symptoms and prophylaxis, supported by equivalence data to oral therapies in symptom control and bone outcomes. Post hoc analyses of the (WHI) trial and subsequent observational studies in the 2010s highlighted estrogen's safer thrombotic profile. A 2010 Danish of over 800,000 women found no increased venous (VTE) risk with estrogen (adjusted 0.95; 95% CI, 0.75-1.20), contrasting with oral estrogen's 2-fold elevation, attributing the difference to avoidance of prothrombotic liver protein synthesis. Meta-analyses, including one in 2013 reviewing 11 studies, confirmed routes conferred lower VTE odds (OR 0.9; 95% CI, 0.6-1.5) versus oral (OR 2.5; 95% CI, 1.9-3.3), influencing guidelines to prefer for women with clotting risk factors. These findings, derived from large registries rather than randomized trials, underscored causal differences in but warranted caution due to potential in observational designs. In , the trial's randomized arm, reported at ASCO GU 2025, evaluated estradiol patches as (ADT) in men with metastatic disease. Among 193 patients receiving patches (up to 4x100mg weekly) plus androgen receptor pathway inhibitors, PSA progression-free survival at 12 months was comparable to LHRH agonists (89% vs. 92%), with similar overall survival and fewer hot flushes, though incidence rose to 45%. This phase III evidence supported estradiol patches as a non-injectable ADT alternative, preserving efficacy while mitigating injection-related burdens, though long-term cardiovascular monitoring remains advised. Regulatory updates in 2025 addressed warnings stemming from WHI data. An FDA advisory panel unanimously recommended revising labels for systemic products, including patches, to differentiate risks by age and timing: for women under 60 or within 10 years of , absolute risks of , , and VTE were deemed low (e.g., <1 additional event per 1,000 users annually), justifying removal of blanket warnings while retaining cardiovascular cautions for older initiators. This shift, informed by reanalyses showing WHI's conjugated equine estrogen-progestin harms not generalizable to unopposed or routes, aims to align labeling with empirical perimenopausal benefits outweighing harms in select populations.

Medical uses

Menopause symptom management

estrogen patches deliver systemically to mitigate symptoms, including hot flashes and , in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women. Randomized controlled trials have shown that doses of 0.05 to 0.1 mg/day reduce the frequency of moderate to severe hot flashes by 65% to 84% compared to baseline or , with statistically significant improvements observed as early as 2 weeks after initiation. This efficacy stems from 's restoration of hypothalamic thermoregulatory function, leading to fewer episodes and associated disruptions in quality. The patches also alleviate urogenital symptoms of , such as vaginal dryness, , and urinary urgency, by replenishing levels that support mucosal integrity and tissue elasticity. Evidence from clinical studies indicates improvements in these symptoms with systemic , though local vaginal may be targeted for isolated genitourinary syndrome of (GSM). Per the 2022 North American Menopause Society (NAMS) position statement, , including , remains the most effective intervention for bothersome symptoms and , particularly recommended for symptomatic women under age 60 or within 10 years of onset, where symptom relief demonstrably enhances . Ongoing trials continue to affirm rapid symptom onset and sustained benefits with weekly or biweekly patch applications.

Hypoestrogenism treatment

Estrogen patches deliver transdermal estradiol to treat hypoestrogenism resulting from primary ovarian insufficiency (POI) or surgical menopause, restoring serum levels to physiological ranges typical of premenopausal women. In POI, defined as ovarian failure before age 40, guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommend initiating hormone therapy promptly after diagnosis to mitigate risks of estrogen deficiency, including premature bone loss and cardiovascular deterioration. Transdermal administration avoids first-pass hepatic metabolism, potentially reducing thrombotic risks compared to oral routes, with typical starting doses of 50–100 μg/day of 17β-estradiol. Cohort studies demonstrate that replacement in POI preserves density (BMD), countering accelerated loss observed in untreated cases where levels drop abruptly to postmenopausal ranges years earlier than in natural . For instance, systematic reviews indicate that formulations, including , maintain or restore BMD in women with POI, reducing prevalence compared to non-users. This early intervention is critical, as POI and surgical involve higher long-term needs due to decades of potential deficiency, unlike the shorter post-natural- period. Cardiovascular benefits are suggested by observational data showing reduced early decline in women starting therapy young, though randomized remains limited. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) endorses estrogen therapy continuation until approximately age 51, the average natural menopause age, to optimize outcomes, with transdermal options preferred for those at higher venous thromboembolism risk. In surgical menopause following bilateral oophorectomy, estradiol patches alleviate hypoestrogenic states more steadily than oral forms, supporting psychological and metabolic stability per clinical observations. Progestogen addition is required if the uterus is intact to prevent endometrial hyperplasia, typically via sequential or continuous regimens. Long-term adherence is emphasized, as poor compliance correlates with persistent BMD deficits.

Osteoporosis prevention

Transdermal patches are indicated by the U.S. (FDA) for the prevention of postmenopausal in women at significant risk, such as those with low density (BMD) or prior fractures, when other treatments are not suitable. This approval is based on evidence demonstrating preservation of BMD and reduction in bone turnover markers, with formulations like Menostar delivering low-dose (14 mcg/day) specifically for this purpose. Clinical trials and meta-analyses using (DEXA) scans have shown that estrogen increases BMD by 2-5% at the lumbar spine and after 1-2 years of use compared to , with effects comparable to oral . This preservation stems causally from 's direct stimulation of activity and inhibition of osteoclast-mediated resorption, countering the accelerated bone loss following menopause-induced . In randomized controlled trials, transdermal estrogen has demonstrated superiority over placebo in reducing vertebral fracture rates, with one study in women with established osteoporosis reporting a significant decrease in new vertebral fractures after two years of therapy. Meta-analyses of hormone therapy, including transdermal routes, confirm a 20-40% relative risk reduction for vertebral fractures, primarily attributable to maintained BMD and improved bone microarchitecture rather than indirect effects. For women without contraindications, long-term use (beyond five years) is supported by observational data showing sustained BMD gains and protection, positioning transdermal as a viable alternative to bisphosphonates for early postmenopausal prevention when symptoms coexist. Discontinuation may lead to accelerated loss, underscoring the need for individualized risk-benefit assessment based on empirical endpoints rather than surrogate markers alone.

Hormonal contraception

Transdermal estrogen patches, such as Ortho Evra (norelgestromin/ethinyl estradiol), deliver combined hormonal contraception via weekly application, releasing ethinyl estradiol at a steady rate to achieve ovulation suppression through gonadotropin inhibition. Approved by the FDA on November 20, 2001, this system provides approximately 60% higher estrogen exposure compared to a typical 35 μg ethinyl estradiol oral contraceptive, yet maintains pharmacokinetic profiles that support consistent follicular suppression and endometrial alterations conducive to contraception. Contraceptive efficacy of the patch mirrors that of oral combined hormonal contraceptives, with method-failure Pearl Indices around 0.90 (95% CI: 0.44–1.35) in clinical trials involving over 3,000 women, translating to 91% typical-use effectiveness and near 99% with perfect adherence. Pooled data from pivotal phase III studies confirm rates below 1% during treatment cycles, comparable to oral options. Regarding venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk, patch users exhibit rates equivalent to those on oral contraceptives containing 35 μg ethinyl and norgestimate, with observational analyses indicating no statistically significant elevation despite higher systemic levels. The weekly dosing regimen enhances user adherence over daily pill-taking, reducing compliance failures observed in up to 30–50% of oral contraceptive users in real-world settings.

Prostate cancer androgen deprivation

Transdermal estradiol patches suppress testosterone production in men with advanced by providing to the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis, mimicking the effects of endogenous to inhibit and secretion. This approach serves as an alternative to luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists (LHRHa) for (ADT), avoiding the estrogen depletion associated with traditional methods. In the trial platform, a randomized phase 2 evaluation in men with metastatic (M1) demonstrated that estradiol patches combined with pathway inhibitors (ARPIs) achieved comparable (PSA) responses to LHRHa plus ARPIs, with similar rates of PSA at 12 months (87% vs. 89%). Quality-of-life outcomes favored estradiol, with reduced incidence of hot flushes (affecting fewer patients) and less compared to LHRHa, attributed to preserved systemic estrogen levels that mitigate and metabolic symptoms. These 2025 findings from ASCO GU confirm non-inferiority in efficacy while highlighting tolerability advantages. Cardiovascular safety profiles are comparable to LHRHa, with no significant increase in thrombotic or cardiac events observed in long-term STAMPEDE data, contrasting with higher risks from oral estrogens due to first-pass hepatic metabolism. Transdermal delivery bypasses portal circulation, reducing coagulopathy and preserving bone mineral density without exacerbating metabolic disturbances. In select cohorts, lower cardiovascular morbidity has been noted versus oral formulations. Emerging evidence supports estradiol patches as a viable ADT option in guidelines for M1 , particularly when combined with ARPIs, offering patients alternatives with potentially improved symptom profiles and adherence due to weekly application. Ongoing analyses continue to evaluate long-term oncologic outcomes in this setting.

Feminizing hormone therapy in transgender individuals

Transdermal estradiol patches deliver exogenous estrogen to transgender women seeking feminizing effects, primarily by mimicking physiological estradiol levels while facilitating testosterone suppression when combined with anti-androgens such as spironolactone or cyproterone acetate. Doses typically range from 0.1 to 0.2 mg per 24 hours, achieved via one or two 0.1 mg patches changed twice weekly, which in retrospective analyses suppress serum testosterone to female-typical ranges (<50 ng/dL) in most patients within 2 months. This suppression, alongside elevated estradiol, induces secondary sex characteristics including breast glandular development (Tanner stages 2-5 over 1-3 years), subcutaneous fat redistribution to hips and thighs, decreased muscle mass, and reduced body hair growth. Observational cohort studies document these physiological changes, with self-reported satisfaction in body feminization reaching 70-90% among adherent patients after 1 year, though randomized controlled trials assessing causality or comparative efficacy of patches versus other routes remain limited due to methodological challenges. Empirical evidence from non-randomized studies supports short-term alleviation of , with improvements in psychological distress scores (e.g., via ) observed in 60-80% of transgender women on -based regimens within 6-12 months, potentially linked to alignment between physical appearance and . However, these outcomes derive largely from uncontrolled observational data, with confounding factors like concurrent or in clinic populations unadjusted for in most reports. delivery achieves steady-state levels comparable to women (100-200 pg/mL), avoiding first-pass hepatic metabolism, which may contribute to more consistent feminization than oral forms in some individuals. Adverse effects include a dose-dependent risk of venous (VTE), estimated at 0.5-2% annually in women on therapy, though patches at ≤0.1 mg/day show lower incidence (odds ratio <1.5 versus non-users) compared to oral due to minimal impact on clotting factors like factor VII and fibrinogen. Other empirical risks encompass elevated levels (in 5-10% of cases, prompting monitoring for pituitary effects) and potential persistence post-discontinuation, with long-term data indicating incomplete reversibility of some changes after 2+ years of use. Clinical guidelines recommend baseline cardiovascular , given observational links to and shifts, though causation remains understudied in rigorous trials.

Administration and formulations

Patch application and dosing

Transdermal estrogen patches, delivering , are typically applied to clean, dry, intact on the lower or upper , avoiding areas such as the breasts, waistline, or regions with excessive hair, oil, cuts, or to ensure optimal absorption. The application site should be rotated with each patch change, maintaining at least a one-week interval between uses of the same site to minimize reactions and promote compliance. Patches are generally changed twice weekly, every 3 to 4 days, with the protective liner removed and the side pressed firmly onto the skin for about 10 seconds. Initial dosing for symptom relief or often starts at 0.025 to 0.05 mg of per day, delivered via patches applied twice weekly, with adjustments made incrementally based on symptom response or serum levels measured periodically. Monitoring typically involves clinical assessment alongside blood tests for and, if relevant, other hormones, aiming for levels mimicking premenopausal ranges while using the lowest effective dose to enhance adherence and reduce risks. Adhesion challenges, affecting up to 20% of users, can be addressed by applying the patch to the skin after gentle warming with a hairdryer for 10-15 seconds and pressing firmly, while folding loose edges over and securing if needed. irritation, such as redness or from adhesives like , occurs in a subset of patients and is managed by strict site rotation, allowing adhesive residue to dry before removal, and consulting providers for potential brand switches or topical treatments if persistent. These strategies improve long-term compliance by mitigating local reactions that might otherwise lead to discontinuation.

Available formulations and delivery systems

Estrogen patches deliver estradiol transdermally through two primary technological systems: reservoir and matrix designs. Reservoir patches contain estradiol in a liquid or gel compartment separated from the skin by a rate-controlling membrane that governs release kinetics, as exemplified by early formulations like Estraderm. This setup enables precise dosing but poses risks of leakage or inconsistent delivery if the membrane integrity is compromised during wear. Matrix patches, a more contemporary iteration, disperse uniformly within an adhesive matrix that directly contacts the , facilitating drug without an intermediary . Products such as Climara and Vivelle-Dot employ this system, which promotes steadier absorption profiles and superior skin tolerability compared to types, with lower rates of localized . Matrix configurations also simplify , reducing patch layers and enhancing bioadhesion for reliable application over 3-7 days. Available estradiol-only patches span strengths from 0.025 mg/24 hours to 0.1 mg/24 hours, including intermediate doses like 0.0375 mg and 0.075 mg to accommodate individualized therapy needs. Generic equivalents to these branded systems, approved following expirations, have broadened access and lowered costs without compromising pharmacokinetic equivalence.

Combinations with progestogens or other agents

Estrogen patches are frequently combined with in regimens for postmenopausal women with an intact to oppose estrogen's stimulatory effects on the and thereby prevent . Continuous combined systems, such as CombiPatch delivering (0.05 mg/day) and norethindrone acetate (0.14 or 0.25 mg/day), have demonstrated efficacy in reducing the incidence of estrogen-induced , with clinical trials involving 900 participants showing minimal cases after one year of treatment. Similarly, a randomized study confirmed that continuous combined with norethindrone acetate effectively prevented in healthy postmenopausal women over extended periods. Other combination patches, like Climara Pro (estradiol 0.045 mg/day with 0.015 mg/day), provide continuous opposition, maintaining endometrial safety while alleviating symptoms, as evidenced by reduced hot flush frequency in week 12 of treatment compared to . Sequential regimens, involving estrogen-only patches cycled with addition (e.g., 10-14 days monthly), also mitigate hyperplasia risk but may result in periodic withdrawal bleeding. These combined approaches preserve estrogen's benefits on symptoms and bone health without evidence of elevated endometrial cancer risk over 96 weeks in continuous formulations. As alternatives to synthetic progestins like norethindrone acetate, which can exhibit androgenic side effects such as or , regimens pairing patches with oral micronized progesterone (e.g., 100-200 mg/day continuously or sequentially) offer bioidentical opposition to endometrial proliferation. Micronized progesterone is associated with fewer progestogenic adverse effects, including reduced tenderness and mood disturbances compared to synthetic counterparts, while still providing adequate endometrial protection as indicated by controlled endometrial thickness in postmenopausal users. Clinical evaluations support this combination's tolerability, with lower rates of certain side effects like spotting or .

Efficacy evidence

Clinical benefits supported by trials

Randomized controlled trials of estradiol patches in postmenopausal women have shown substantial reductions in symptoms, with meta-analyses indicating 65-90% decreases in frequency and severity compared to . These benefits are observed across various doses, such as 0.025 to 0.1 mg/day, and persist for up to two years of treatment. In trials focused on bone health, estrogen delivery at doses of 0.025-0.1 mg/day effectively prevents postmenopausal bone loss, increasing or maintaining bone mineral density at the lumbar spine and by 1-3% over one to two years, comparable to oral estrogen. Low-dose patches, like Menostar (0.014 mg/day), have been approved specifically for prevention based on RCTs demonstrating sustained BMD preservation without uterine stimulation in hysterectomized women. Post-WHI meta-analyses support cardiovascular benefits from early initiation of menopausal , including routes, with reduced coronary heart disease risk in women starting within 10 years of or under age 60, showing hazard ratios of 0.66-0.80 for major events. Quality-of-life improvements, including better and reduced symptom interference, are reported in RCTs comparing patches to or oral . For deprivation, phase 3 RCTs from the PATCH and platforms demonstrate that patches achieve testosterone suppression equivalent to LHRH agonists, with non-inferior metastasis-free survival (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.84-1.25) and overall survival in men with locally advanced or metastatic disease. When combined with pathway inhibitors, patches yield comparable PSA responses and radiographic . for risk reduction with estrogen remains observational and less robust than for oral forms, with no dedicated RCTs confirming prevention benefits.

Long-term outcomes data

Observational studies and extended follow-ups of randomized trials indicate that estrogen patch therapy sustains density (BMD) gains in postmenopausal women over periods of up to 10 years, with spine BMD increases of approximately 3-5% maintained relative to baseline or groups in adherent users. These outcomes align with physiological restoration of levels approximating premenopausal ranges, achieved through steady delivery that bypasses hepatic first-pass , thereby supporting activity and reducing without the peaks and troughs seen in oral regimens. However, maintenance of gains is contingent on continuous use, as discontinuation leads to accelerated bone loss resuming at rates comparable to untreated postmenopausal decline. In women initiating therapy before age 60 or within 10 years of onset, long-term use (5-10+ years) shows no excess all-cause mortality and, in meta-analyses of trials and cohorts, a potential reduction in total mortality risk ( 0.70-0.84), attributed to cardiovascular and skeletal benefits outweighing rare adverse events in this age window. routes specifically exhibit neutral or lower mortality associations compared to oral , with observational data from large cohorts confirming hazard ratios near 1.0 for death in users under 60, contrasting with null or slightly elevated risks in older starters. Data limitations arise from declining adherence rates, with transdermal patch continuation dropping to 50-70% by 5 years due to skin irritation, application inconvenience, or resolved symptoms, thereby restricting insights into lifelong effects. Follow-ups beyond 15-20 years remain sparse, particularly for patch-specific formulations, underscoring the need for individualized risk-benefit assessments based on baseline health, age at initiation, and monitoring of serum estradiol levels to ensure therapeutic mimicking of endogenous production. Peer-reviewed trial extensions provide robust evidence for durability up to a , but broader observational biases—such as healthier user selection—necessitate caution in generalizing to non-adherent or comorbid populations.

Risks and adverse effects

Cardiovascular and thrombotic risks

estrogen, delivered via patches, exhibits a more favorable profile for venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk compared to oral estrogen formulations, primarily because it bypasses first-pass hepatic and does not significantly elevate prothrombin fragment 1+2 or other procoagulant factors. In postmenopausal women, meta-analyses and cohort studies report odds ratios (OR) for VTE of 0.9 (95% CI 0.5-1.6) to 1.2 for users versus non-users, contrasting with ORs of 2.0 to 4.0 for oral estrogen. Large observational data, including from the UK's Research Database and French study, confirm no significant VTE elevation with use alone or combined with progestogens ( [RR] 0.96-1.01). For arterial cardiovascular events like (MI) and , risks with estrogen patches in menopausal vary by initiation age. Recent reviews indicate neutral or non-elevated risks when started early in (under 60 years), aligning with the "timing hypothesis" where endogenous-like levels may preserve endothelial function without the prothrombotic hepatic effects of oral routes. In contrast, initiation after age 60 associates with modestly elevated and MI risks (hazard ratios ~1.2-1.5), though absolute increases remain low and avoids the small stroke excess seen with oral . In women undergoing with estrogen, including patches, cardiovascular mortality and thrombotic events show 2- to 3-fold elevations compared to referents, driven by factors like baseline risks, dosing, and estrogen type. Cohort data report adjusted hazard ratios for MI, , and VTE up to 3.1, with overall CVD mortality risks heightened regardless of delivery method, though may mitigate some hepatic effects observed in oral or use. These findings underscore the need for individualized in this population.

Cancer associations

Transdermal , as used in , is associated with a modest elevation in among long-term users, with relative risks ranging from 1.2 to 1.5 observed in cohort studies of similar estrogen-only regimens, though absolute incidence remains low due to the baseline lower in individuals with male-typical breast tissue. Direct data from cohorts, such as a 2019 review of reported cases, indicate no statistically significant elevation in incidence compared to age-matched males, potentially reflecting shorter typical durations of or differences in estrogen dosing and . Large randomized trials in postmenopausal women, like the estrogen-only arm, report neutral effects on (hazard 0.77-1.0), supporting the view that delivery avoids prothrombotic metabolites that may amplify risks in oral formulations. In contexts involving progestogens (e.g., combined regimens for endometrial protection in women), breast cancer risk may rise slightly higher (RR 1.2-1.5), but this is less common in standard feminizing protocols for women, where antiandrogens predominate over progestins. Long-term registries highlight the need for ongoing surveillance, as emerging data from transgender health studies suggest risks may align more closely with female patterns after 10+ years of exposure, though confounding factors like screening adherence and genetic predispositions complicate attribution. Endometrial cancer risk increases with unopposed in individuals with intact uteri (e.g., RR up to 2-10-fold in HRT users depending on duration), but co-administration mitigates this by inducing endometrial ; alone shows no differential risk elevation over oral routes in meta-analyses. This association is largely irrelevant for women post-orchiectomy or without , as no target exists, though rare cases with retained reproductive organs warrant opposition. Ovarian cancer exhibits a potential signal of increased incidence (RR 1.1-1.4) in long-term users from postmenopausal cohorts, with risks accruing after 5+ years and persisting post-cessation, but evidence from randomized trials attributes this partly to by indication (e.g., early as a shared ) rather than direct causation, and routes lack specific promotion data. No ovarian tissue exists in women following gonadectomy, rendering this inapplicable, though pre-surgical exposure merits consideration in comprehensive risk profiles. For in women, estrogen-mediated deprivation achieves castrate testosterone levels akin to standard ADT protocols, which are employed therapeutically to suppress tumor growth (e.g., PSA reductions in 80-90% of metastatic cases within 12 weeks), with phase III trials confirming non-inferior efficacy and no evidence of promotion; instead, metabolic and bone-sparing benefits may reduce progression risks in subclinical disease. Registries of patients report low detection rates post-HRT initiation, supporting a net suppressive rather than oncogenic effect.

Other side effects and precautions

Common side effects of patches include local reactions at the application site, such as , pruritus, and , with reported incidences ranging from 2% to over 25% depending on the formulation and patient factors. Other frequent non-serious effects encompass headaches, breast tenderness, , and or discomfort. Precautions include caution in patients with a history of migraines, as estrogen fluctuations may precipitate attacks. is advised against, as it amplifies thrombotic and other risks associated with . In individuals with preexisting , monitoring of levels is recommended, since can elevate them, potentially leading to complications like , though routes may pose lower risk than oral forms. Contraindications encompass undiagnosed abnormal genital bleeding and active or recent , due to potential exacerbation of these conditions by . Upon discontinuation, a gradual taper is preferable to abrupt cessation to mitigate rebound menopausal symptoms such as intensified hot flashes and .

Comparisons to alternative delivery methods

Versus oral estrogen

Transdermal estrogen patches provide more stable serum levels compared to oral , which undergoes hepatic first-pass leading to fluctuating peaks and troughs. This steadier delivery may contribute to reduced breakthrough bleeding in regimens, particularly when combined with progestogens, though direct head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on bleeding patterns are limited. Multiple meta-analyses and observational studies indicate that transdermal estrogen is associated with a lower risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) than oral estrogen. For instance, a 2015 systematic review found oral estrogen therapy increased VTE risk by 66% ( [RR] 1.66, 95% CI 1.42–1.93) compared to , with consistent findings in subsequent analyses showing conferring no elevated VTE risk even in women with predisposing factors. Similarly, routes are preferred in guidelines for patients at thrombotic risk, such as those with prior VTE or , due to avoidance of prothrombotic hepatic effects from . Oral is linked to a greater rise in and incidence than . A 2023 cohort study of over 90,000 postmenopausal women reported a 14% higher risk (hazard ratio [HR] 1.14, 95% CI 1.08–1.20) with oral versus . This difference arises from oral 's stimulation of hepatic angiotensinogen production, exacerbating , whereas bypasses this. Regarding lipid profiles, oral estrogen typically produces more pronounced changes, increasing high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and decreasing low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, but also elevating triglycerides due to hepatic effects. Transdermal estrogen shows marginal or neutral impacts on these lipids, with potential benefits in lowering triglycerides without the first-pass burden. Despite these variations, RCTs demonstrate no significant difference in efficacy for relieving menopausal vasomotor symptoms between the routes.

Versus other transdermal or non-oral routes

Transdermal estrogen patches provide steady estradiol delivery over 3–7 days, offering pharmacokinetic advantages over daily-applied gels, which exhibit greater inter- and intra-individual variability in absorption due to skin application factors like site, sweating, and occlusion. Patches demonstrate more consistent serum estradiol levels compared to gels, potentially improving symptom control in menopausal hormone therapy while reducing the risk of under- or overdosing from inconsistent gel adherence. User preference studies indicate patches may enhance compliance by requiring less frequent application than daily gels, though direct head-to-head trials on long-term adherence are limited. In comparison to subcutaneous or intramuscular estradiol injections, patches avoid supraphysiological peaks and subsequent valleys in hormone levels, which can occur with weekly or biweekly injections and may contribute to mood fluctuations or variable efficacy. Injections achieve therapeutic concentrations similar to patches at comparable doses (e.g., 3.75–4 mg weekly), but their fluctuating profiles contrast with the continuous release of matrix patches, potentially making patches preferable for patients seeking stable systemic exposure without injection-related discomfort or site reactions. Vaginal rings or creams deliver primarily locally to treat vulvovaginal , with minimal systemic absorption at low doses, rendering them less suitable for addressing widespread menopausal symptoms like instability compared to patches' full-body distribution. While vaginal formulations exhibit lower serum elevations and reduced endometrial stimulation risk, patches provide broader therapeutic effects for systemic deficiencies, though they require monitoring for skin irritation absent in intravaginal methods. Cost-wise, patches occupy a mid-range position, with monthly generics averaging $30–$100 depending on dose and , versus potentially lower upfront costs for injections (under $50 per with discounts) but higher administration burdens, and gels showing variable pricing tied to compounded formulations' inconsistent . Access to patches may be constrained by supply issues in some markets, favoring gels or injections for uninterrupted in resource-limited settings.

Controversies and debates

Hormone replacement therapy risk reassessments

The (WHI) trial's 2002 primary results, reporting elevated relative risks of coronary events, stroke, and with oral conjugated equine estrogen plus , prompted sharp declines in HRT prescriptions, with usage dropping over 70% in the subsequent years due to perceived dangers. Later WHI follow-ups and subgroup analyses from 2004 onward clarified that absolute risks were minimal—typically 1-2 additional cardiovascular or thrombotic events per 1,000 women-years—and primarily affected women aged 60-79 with advanced , not those initiating therapy earlier. This overemphasis on relative risks in initial interpretations, amplified by media, ignored baseline event rates and led to underuse among perimenopausal women who derived symptom relief without comparable harm. Reassessments in the validated the timing hypothesis, demonstrating cardiovascular benefits or neutrality for HRT started before age 60 or within a decade of , with hazard ratios for composite outcomes like or reduced by 20-50% in such cohorts across randomized trials and meta-analyses. For estrogen delivery via patches, which bypass hepatic first-pass metabolism, recent meta-analyses (2016-2024) show no excess venous thromboembolism risk ( ≈1.0 versus non-users) and lower clotting factor elevations than oral forms, supporting safer profiles in early postmenopausal use. These empirical shifts underscore that estrogen replacement restores physiological levels conducive to endothelial function and in recently menopausal women, rather than exacerbating in those with longstanding estrogen deficiency and vascular damage; absolute rates remain below 0.5% annually in low-risk groups, favoring individualized application over blanket avoidance.

Application in transgender medicine: benefits versus harms

Transdermal estrogen, administered via patches, is utilized in for women to induce secondary sex characteristics such as , softer skin, and fat redistribution, with onset typically within 3-6 months and maximal effects after 2-3 years. Observational studies suggest these physical changes may alleviate in the short term, though randomized controlled trials (RCTs) confirming causal benefits remain scarce, with most evidence derived from non-randomized cohorts prone to and confounding factors like concurrent . Transdermal routes may confer a lower risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) compared to oral estrogens due to avoidance of first-pass hepatic , with data from menopausal and cohorts showing no significant VTE elevation over baseline in low-risk individuals. Despite these potential advantages, women on , including transdermal forms, exhibit 2- to 5-fold higher rates of cardiovascular events, , , and VTE compared to males, and elevated risks relative to females, based on large cohort studies from 2011-2023. Long-term data gaps persist, as no large-scale RCTs assess net outcomes beyond 1-2 years, limiting causal inferences on whether offsets morbidity; ethical barriers to , including withholding care, further hinder rigorous evaluation. density (BMD) can decline if testosterone suppression precedes adequate dosing or monitoring, particularly in those with prior low BMD or without DEXA scans, leading to risks in up to 11% pre-therapy and variable post-therapy trajectories. Mental health benefits are asserted but empirically contested: while some cross-sectional analyses report reduced depression and suicidality post-therapy, population registries and longitudinal Swedish data (1973-2003 follow-up) indicate persistently elevated suicide rates—19 times higher than cisgender peers—even after transition, with no demonstrated causal reduction from hormones alone. Systematic reviews highlight high baseline suicidality (up to 40% attempt rates) that therapy does not normalize, raising questions of unmet underlying comorbidities. Detransition and regret rates, while reported as low (0.3-3.8% in surgical cohorts), are likely underestimated due to loss to follow-up exceeding 20-30% in clinics and exclusion of informal reversals; youth-specific studies suggest higher fluidity, with 10-30% desistance post-puberty suppression in dysphoric adolescents. Critics, including clinicians citing first-principles causal analysis, argue irreversible changes (e.g., , permanent breast tissue) lack proven net benefit absent RCTs proving resolution outweighs harms, especially in minors where brain maturation influences identity stability; ethical concerns amplify for youth, as European reviews (e.g., Cass 2024) recommend caution due to weak evidence for interventions extending to hormones. Sources affirming universal benefits often stem from advocacy-influenced cohorts, whereas registry data reveal unaddressed morbidity, underscoring the need for independent, long-term trials over observational optimism.

Society, availability, and recent developments

Brand names and market availability

Major brand names for estradiol patches include Climara, Vivelle-Dot, Minivelle, Alora, Dotti, Estraderm, and Menostar, primarily used for menopausal . These products deliver through the skin to mimic natural levels, with variations in patch size, dosage strength (typically 0.025 to 0.1 mg per day), and release duration (weekly or twice-weekly). Generic versions of patches became available following patent expirations for several brands in the 2000s, increasing accessibility and reducing costs; for instance, generic equivalents to Vivelle-Dot were approved and marketed by multiple manufacturers including and Teva. By 2025, generics constitute a significant portion of the market, offered in similar dosages and formats. These patches are widely available in the United States and through prescription, supported by established manufacturing and distribution networks, though global supply chains have faced disruptions. In contrast, shortages have persisted in and the during 2024-2025 due to manufacturing constraints, affecting brands like Estradot and Climara, with Australian supplies limited until at least July 2026 and UK protocols extended for alternatives. The broader estrogen replacement therapy market, including transdermal patches, is projected to reach approximately $19 billion by 2035, fueled by aging populations and rising demand for hormone management in postmenopausal women.

Regulatory changes and shortages

In 2025, the U.S. (FDA) initiated revisions to warnings on replacement therapies, including transdermal patches, following an expert panel review that highlighted lower risks for low-dose transdermal formulations in younger postmenopausal women or those without cardiovascular contraindications. These updates differentiate transdermal delivery's reduced thromboembolic and cardiovascular risks compared to oral estrogens, based on post-2002 data from trials like the , prompting relaxed labeling for low-risk users while retaining warnings for , endometrial risks, and in older women. The (EMA) has echoed similar risk reassessments, endorsing transdermal routes in guidelines for minimizing first-pass liver effects and associated clotting hazards in select patients, though without equivalent overhauls as of October 2025. In , 2025 updates from bodies like the () have expanded recommendations for transdermal estradiol patches as an alternative in , citing randomized trial data showing equivalent suppression to LHRH agonists when combined with inhibitors, alongside benefits like preserved and reduced fatigue. Global shortages of estradiol patches persisted from 2023 into 2025, driven by manufacturing constraints and demand surges from expanded prescriptions, affecting supplies in regions like , , and . Regulatory agencies, including Australia's (TGA), responded by approving interim alternatives such as generic patches or gels and advising switches to oral formulations, with some shortages projected to resolve only by late 2025 amid single-supplier vulnerabilities.

Economic and access issues

In the , the annual out-of-pocket cost for patches typically ranges from $660 to $1,800 without , based on monthly prices of $55 to $150 for generic formulations depending on dosage strength and needed (e.g., eight patches per month for twice-weekly application). coverage for these patches varies by plan; while many policies reimburse FDA-approved (HRT) when prescribed for menopausal symptoms, copays can reach $10 to $50 monthly, and some employer-sponsored or Medicare plans impose step therapy requirements or exclude certain brands, disproportionately affecting low-income individuals who face higher barriers to access. Ongoing shortages of patches, reported by the as extending into late 2025 for specific products like Combipatch, have intensified disparities by forcing patients to switch formulations or forgo treatment, with global demand surges outpacing supply and impacting availability in pharmacies. The emergence of generic has reduced prices by up to 50% compared to branded versions in some markets, improving affordability, though quality concerns persist with compounded bioidentical alternatives, which lack standardized dosing and have been linked to elevated risks of adverse events like venous due to variability in hormone levels. Cultural stigma surrounding further hinders uptake of patch-based HRT, with surveys revealing that taboos and trivialization of symptoms delay treatment-seeking; for instance, qualitative studies identify and as key barriers, while ethnic minority women report even lower initiation rates (e.g., 8% versus 15% in white women) attributable to differing cultural norms viewing as a natural process not warranting intervention. These factors compound economic challenges, as underutilization perpetuates inequities in symptom management for underserved populations.

References

  1. https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/estradiol-transdermal-route/description/drg-20075306
  2. https://medlineplus.gov/druginfo/meds/a605042.html
  3. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2018/206685Orig1s000Lbl.pdf
  4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10147786/
  5. https://www.dovepress.com/clinical-efficacy-of-estradiol-transdermal-system-in-the-treatment-of--peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-RRTD
  6. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20670199/
  7. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3626805/
  8. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/research-news/2958
  9. https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/drugInfo.cfm?setid=e7e6da3b-8485-1382-61c9-e9b369018b98
  10. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7334883/
  11. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6780820/
  12. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2083514/
  13. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2880349/
  14. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK549797/
  15. https://go.drugbank.com/drugs/DB00783
  16. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3205885/
  17. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2008/020375s026lbl.pdf
  18. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8901155/
  19. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12147738/
  20. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22011208/
  21. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/1943/doisy/biographical/
  22. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12188799/
  23. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16414329/
  24. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12649555/
  25. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2002/10/hormone-receptor-variation-linked-to-cancer-risk/
  26. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/195120
  27. https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/98/5/1771/2536695
  28. https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/276107-overview
  29. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK548539/
  30. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317161521_Transdermal_estrogens_in_the_changing_landscape_of_hormone_replacement_therapy
  31. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0002937887901724
  32. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4403087/
  33. https://www.ogpnews.com/2011/12/the-development-of-transdermal-hormone-replacement-therapy/445
  34. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2012/019081s042lbl.pdf
  35. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10142343/
  36. https://www.insightaceanalytic.com/report/estradiol-transdermal-patches-market/3057
  37. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20601871/
  38. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.642280
  39. https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.k4810
  40. https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.2025.43.5_suppl.21
  41. https://www.urotoday.com/conference-highlights/asco-gu-2025/asco-gu-2025-prostate-cancer/158247-asco-gu-2025-transdermal-oestradiol-patches-as-androgen-deprivation-therapy-efficacy-and-safety-of-combining-with-androgen-receptor-pathway-inhibitors-in-metastatic-m1-prostate-cancer-randomised-comparison-from-the-stampede-trial-platform.html
  42. https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/07/25/nx-s1-5477644/menopause-hormone-therapy-fda-health
  43. https://19thnews.org/2025/10/fda-black-box-warning-menopause-estrogen-treatments/
  44. https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/02/health/menopause-hrt-warning-change-makary
  45. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7573298/
  46. https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343%2805%2900891-0/fulltext
  47. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10649149/
  48. https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/100/11/3975/2836060
  49. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.061559
  50. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35797481/
  51. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378512201002973
  52. https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/committee-opinion/articles/2017/05/hormone-therapy-in-primary-ovarian-insufficiency
  53. https://www.endocrinology.org/endocrinologist/147-spring-23/features/premature-ovarian-insufficiency-which-hormonal-therapy-should-we-choose/
  54. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1807593225001644
  55. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378512222002146
  56. https://gremjournal.com/journal/02-03-2023/bone-in-women-with-premature-ovarian-insufficiency-a-review/
  57. https://www.asrm.org/practice-guidance/practice-committee-documents/evidence-based-guideline-premature-ovarian-insufficiency--2024/
  58. https://academic.oup.com/jsm/article/19/12/1778/7012910
  59. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0164638
  60. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2014/020538s032lbl.pdf
  61. https://www.fda.gov/consumers/free-publications-women/menopause-medicines-help-you
  62. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5423263/
  63. https://e-jmm.org/DOIx.php?id=10.6118/jmm.2014.20.3.111
  64. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10009319/
  65. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/0003-4819-117-1-1
  66. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC59898/
  67. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1521690X21000683
  68. https://www.osteoporosis.foundation/health-professionals/treatment/mht-serm
  69. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanhl/article/PIIS2666-7568%2825%2900048-0/fulltext
  70. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15966567/
  71. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2001/021-180_Ortho.cfm
  72. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/postmarket-drug-safety-information-patients-and-providers/ortho-evra-norelgestrominethinyl-estradiol-information
  73. https://gremjournal.com/journal/02-03-2023/statement-on-transdermal-contraception-as-an-underused-option-for-unmet-needs-in-contraception-the-importance-of-structured-counselling/
  74. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0015028201032757
  75. https://community.the-hospitalist.org/content/how-does-vte-risk-patch-and-vaginal-ring-compare-oral-contraceptives
  76. https://www.jwatch.org/wh200603210000007/2006/03/21/does-patch-increase-thrombosis-risk
  77. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301211505000540
  78. https://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/fulltext/2001/11000/efficacy_and_safety_of_a_transdermal_contraceptive.16.aspx
  79. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7614681/
  80. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0936655523003953
  81. https://dailynews.ascopubs.org/do/transdermal-estrogen-may-offer-another-option-adt-men-metastatic-prostate-cancer
  82. https://ascopost.com/issues/april-25-2021/cardiovascular-events-with-transdermal-estradiol-vs-lhrh-agonists-for-androgen-suppression-in-advanced-prostate-cancer/
  83. https://www.urotoday.com/conference-highlights/esmo-2024/esmo-2024-prostate-cancer/154894-esmo-2024-prostate-cancer-efficacy-results-from-a-randomized-phase-3-evaluation-of-transdermal-estradiol-versus-lhrh-agonists-for-androgen-suppression-in-m0-prostate-cancer.html
  84. https://www.2minutemedicine.com/transdermal-estrogen-shows-similar-cardiovascular-safety-profile-to-traditional-luteinizing-hormone-therapy-in-patients-with-prostate-cancer/
  85. https://journals.lww.com/oncology-times/fulltext/2025/05000/estrogen_patch_plus_arpis_offer_alternative_for.19.aspx
  86. https://www.auajournals.org/doi/10.1097/01.JU.0001110200.18879.65.37
  87. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11220669/
  88. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5182227/
  89. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10089290/
  90. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6368014/
  91. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6628137/
  92. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1538783624002988
  93. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11665511/
  94. https://www.topdoctors.co.uk/medical-articles/mastering-hrt-patch-application-your-comfortable-guide-to-hormone-balance/
  95. https://www.vfppharmacygroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Estradiol-Patch-Application-Guide-1.pdf
  96. https://www.droracle.ai/articles/298006/what-is-the-recommended-starting-dose-for-an-estradiol-estrogen-patch
  97. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK493191/
  98. https://transcare.ucsf.edu/guidelines/feminizing-hormone-therapy
  99. https://www.thesurmenoconnection.com/troubleshooting-estrogen-patches
  100. https://www.jaadcasereports.org/article/S2352-5126%2821%2900006-0/fulltext
  101. https://www.sps.nhs.uk/articles/managing-problems-when-using-transdermal-patches/
  102. https://www.jwatch.org/jd199710010000018/1997/10/01/estrogen-patches-and-skin-irritation
  103. https://www.endocrinologyadvisor.com/clinical-charts/oral-and-transdermal-estrogen-dose-equivalents/
  104. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2761184/
  105. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S037851220000222X
  106. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11910618/
  107. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0011393X95850058
  108. https://www.medsafe.govt.nz/Profs/Datasheet/e/Estradiolpatch.pdf
  109. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2017/020870s023lbl.pdf
  110. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10511348/
  111. https://hcp.climarapro.com/moderate-to-severe-vasomotor-symptoms
  112. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1521690X23000891
  113. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17080587/
  114. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/progesterone-hrt-side-effects
  115. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00404-025-08161-w
  116. https://www.healthline.com/health/progesterone-for-menopause
  117. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0149291800800570
  118. https://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/fulltext/2005/02000/menostar__a_low_dose_estrrogen_patch_for.36.aspx
  119. https://bmcwomenshealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12905-023-02788-0
  120. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK614933/
  121. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2754905/
  122. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8922661/
  123. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/reproductive-health/articles/10.3389/frph.2025.1542746/full
  124. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6343111_The_effects_of_short-term_hormone_replacement_therapy_on_long-term_bone_mineral_density
  125. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1492478/
  126. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9178928/
  127. https://www.cda-amc.ca/sites/default/files/pdf/htis/2025/RD0073-MHT_Rapid_Review-final.pdf
  128. https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1471-0528.18220
  129. https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343%2809%2900666-4/abstract
  130. https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/100/11/4021/2836077
  131. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1538783622075080
  132. https://www.jthjournal.org/article/S1538-7836%2822%2912423-2/fulltext
  133. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/atvbaha.109.199083
  134. https://www.bmj.com/content/387/bmj-2023-078784
  135. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13697137.2023.2273524
  136. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10035588/
  137. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.119.13080
  138. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587%2821%2900185-6/fulltext
  139. https://academic.oup.com/ejendo/article/190/2/S13/7596368
  140. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9818520/
  141. https://gmr.scholasticahq.com/article/7774-evaluating-risks-reported-cases-and-screening-recommendations-for-breast-cancer-in-transgender-patients
  142. https://www.breastcancer.org/risk/risk-factors/using-hormone-replacement-therapy
  143. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1521690X24000630
  144. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/medical-treatments/menopausal-hormone-replacement-therapy-and-cancer-risk.html
  145. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36964935/
  146. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8801732/
  147. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11289688/
  148. https://dailynews.ascopubs.org/do/estrogen-only-hormone-therapy-linked-increased-gynecologic-cancer-risk-but-estrogen
  149. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6639989/
  150. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0011393X9780032X
  151. https://www.goodrx.com/estradiol/estradiol-patch-side-effects
  152. https://www.drugs.com/sfx/estradiol-patch-side-effects.html
  153. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10791067/
  154. https://www.drugs.com/mtm/estradiol-patch-skin-patch.html
  155. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9039020/
  156. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2758567/
  157. https://www.goodrx.com/conditions/estrogen-replacement/stopping-hormone-replacement-therapy-hrt
  158. https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/100/11/4012/2836071
  159. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13697137.2020.1806816
  160. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40488293/
  161. https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/committee-opinion/articles/2013/04/postmenopausal-estrogen-therapy-route-of-administration-and-risk-of-venous-thromboembolism
  162. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/20533691251369205
  163. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37272379/
  164. https://newsroom.heart.org/news/women-taking-oral-estrogen-hormones-may-have-increased-risk-of-high-blood-pressure
  165. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/01.cir.102.22.2687
  166. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8133793/
  167. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13697137.2023.2273530
  168. https://www.droracle.ai/articles/324566/id-the-patch-better-than-gel
  169. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36868378/
  170. https://www.health.harvard.edu/womens-health/does-vaginal-estrogen-have-the-same-risks-as-oral-or-patch-estrogen
  171. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4354766/
  172. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK541051/
  173. https://www.goodrx.com/conditions/estrogen-replacement/how-much-does-estrogen-cost
  174. https://www.goodrx.com/conditions/estrogen-replacement/hrt-cost
  175. https://theconversation.com/menopause-hormone-patches-are-in-short-supply-what-are-they-and-how-do-they-compare-with-other-therapies-245166
  176. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4834454/
  177. https://www.menopauselearning.com/images/hodis-paper-2.pdf
  178. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-27731-z
  179. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30484736/
  180. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11959720/
  181. https://epicresearch.org/articles/blood-clot-risk-influenced-by-hormone-therapy-administration-route-in-women-50-and-older
  182. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1505241
  183. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352906718301957
  184. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5010234/
  185. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10072899/
  186. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11268232/
  187. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6709704/
  188. https://www.clinicaladvisor.com/features/hrt-and-bone-density-in-transgender-patients/
  189. https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X%2821%2900568-1/fulltext
  190. https://www.cureus.com/articles/201512-risk-of-suicide-and-self-harm-following-gender-affirmation-surgery
  191. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10403892/
  192. https://segm.org/regret-detransition-rate-unknown
  193. https://apnews.com/article/transgender-treatment-regret-detransition-371e927ec6e7a24cd9c77b5371c6ba2b
  194. https://mentalhealth.bmj.com/content/27/1/e300940
  195. https://www.goodrx.com/estradiol/patch-over-pill
  196. https://www.drugs.com/ingredient/estradiol.html
  197. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/drugs/18198-estradiol-skin-patches
  198. https://www.rxlist.com/estradiol_transdermal/generic-drug.htm
  199. https://www.drugpatentwatch.com/p/generic-api/estradiol
  200. https://www.drugs.com/availability/generic-vivelle-dot.html
  201. https://www.northwestpharmacy.com/special-features/women%25E2%2580%2599s-health/vivelle-dot-vs-generic-estradiol-comparing-hormone-patches
  202. https://thebms.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Availabilty-of-menopausal-hormone-therapy-products-worldwide-1.pdf
  203. https://www.tga.gov.au/safety-and-shortages/shortages-and-supply-disruptions/medicine-shortages/major-or-ongoing-medicine-shortages/about-shortage-transdermal-hrt-patches
  204. https://thelimbic.com/gp/hrt-shortages-set-to-drag-into-late-2025/
  205. https://cpe.org.uk/our-news/ssps-for-estradot-patches-ssp079-ssp080-ssp081-ssp082-further-extended/
  206. https://www.factmr.com/report/estrogen-replacement-therapy-market
  207. https://www.fda.gov/patients/fda-expert-panels/fda-expert-panel-menopause-and-hormone-replacement-therapy-women-07172025
  208. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/referrals/estradiol-containing-001-w-w-medicinal-products-topical-use
  209. https://www.cbc.ca/radio/day6/hormone-replacement-therapy-shortage-1.7602722
  210. https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/clinical/tga-approves-hrt-patch-alternatives
  211. https://www.ashp.org/drug-shortages/current-shortages/drug-shortages-list
  212. https://www.ashevillerx.com/cost-of-bioidentical-hormone-replacement-therapy/
  213. https://www.joinmidi.com/post/hrt-cost
  214. https://www.healthline.com/health/is-hrt-covered-by-insurance
  215. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6808563/
  216. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10657761/
  217. https://www.drlouisenewson.co.uk/knowledge/menopause-in-ethnic-communities
  218. https://pharmaceutical-journal.com/article/research/should-menopause-management-differ-between-ethnic-groups
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.