Ovulatory menstrual cycles are essential for women’s fertility and needed to prevent bone loss. There is a medical/cultural expectation that clinically normal menstrual cycles are inevitably ovulatory. Currently within the general population it is unknown the proportion of regular, normal-length menstrual cycles that are ovulatory. Thus, the objective of this study was to determine the population point prevalence of ovulation in premenopausal, normally menstruating women. The null hypothesis was that such cycles are ovulatory. This is a single-cycle, cross-sectional, population-based study—a sub-study of the HUNT3 health study in the semi-rural county (Nord Trøndelag) in mid-Norway. Participants included >3,700 spontaneously (no hormonal contraception) menstruating women, primarily Caucasian, ages 20–49.9 from that county. Participation rate was 51.9%. All reported the date previous flow started. A single, random serum progesterone level was considered ovulatory if ≥9.54 nmol/L on cycle days 14 to -3 days before usual cycle length (CL). Ovulation was assessed in 3,168 women mean age 41.7 (interquartile range, [IQR] 36.8 to 45.5), cycle length 28 days (d) (IQR 28 to 28) and body mass index (BMI) 26.3 kg/m2 (95% CI 26.1 to 26.4). Parity was 95.6%, 30% smoked, 61.3% exercised regularly and 18% were obese. 1,545 women with a serum progesterone level on cycle days 14 to -3 were presumed to be in the luteal phase. Of these, 63.3% of women had an ovulatory cycle (n = 978) and 37% (n = 567) were anovulatory. Women with/ without ovulation did not differ in age, BMI, cycle day, menarche age, cigarette use, physical activity, % obesity or self-reported health. There were minimal differences in parity (96.7% vs. 94.5%, P = 0.04) and major differences in progesterone level (24.5 vs. 3.8 nmol/L, P = 0.001). Anovulation in a random population occurs in over a third of clinically normal menstrual cycles.

Background: Although the 2017 Endocrine Society Guidelines for gender dysphoria stipulated that cross-sex hormone therapy (CHT) achieve gonadal steroid levels equivalent to those of a cisperson of the chosen sex, for transgender women (male-to-female gender dysphoria), current gonadal therapy is usually estradiol. Accumulated evidence indicates that normally ovulatory menstrual cycles are necessary for ciswomen’s current fertility, as well as for later-life bone and cardiovascular health and the prevention of breast and endometrial cancers.Evidence Acquisition: Extensive past clinical experience with transgender women’s CHT using estradiol/estrogen combined with progesterone/medroxyprogesterone and pioneering the addition of spironolactone. Comprehensive progesterone physiology research plus a brief review of transgender women’s literature to assess current therapy and clinical outcomes, including morbidity and mortality.Purpose: To emphasize that both ovarian hormones, progesterone as well as estradiol, are theoretically and clinically important for optimal transgender women’s CHT.Evidence Synthesis: It is important to add progesterone to estradiol and an antiandrogen in transgender women’s CHT. Progesterone may add the following: (i) more rapid feminization, (ii) decreased endogenous testosterone production, (iii) optimal breast maturation to Tanner stages 4/5, (iv) increased bone formation, (v) improved sleep and vasomotor symptom control, and (vi) cardiovascular health benefits.Conclusions: Evidence has accrued that normal progesterone (and ovulation), as well as physiological estradiol levels, is necessary during ciswomen’s premenopausal menstrual cycles for current fertility and long-term health; transgender women deserve progesterone therapy and similar potential physiological benefits.

Estradiol (E2) is women’s dominant ‘bone hormone’ since it is essential for development of adolescent peak bone mineral density (BMD) and physiological levels prevent the rapid (3-week) bone resorption that causes most adult BMD loss. However, deceasing E2 levels trigger bone resorption/loss. Progesterone (P4) is E2’s physiological partner, collaborating with E2 in every cell/tissue; its bone ‘job’ is to increase P4-receptor-mediated, slow (3–4 months) osteoblastic new bone formation. When menstrual cycles are normal length and normally ovulatory, E2 and P4 are balanced and BMD is stable. However, clinically normal cycles commonly have ovulatory disturbances (anovulation, short luteal phases) and low P4 levels; these are more frequent in teen and perimenopausal women and increased by everyday stressors: energy insufficiency, emotional/social/economic threats and illness. Meta-analysis shows that almost 1%/year spinal BMD loss occurs in those with greater than median (∼31%) of ovulatory disturbed cycles. Prevention of osteoporosis and fragility fractures requires the reversal of stressors, detection and treatment of teen-to-perimenopausal recurrent cycle/ovulatory disturbances with cyclic oral micronized progesterone. Low ‘Peak Perimenopausal BMD’ is likely the primary risk for fragility fractures in later life. Progesterone plus estradiol or other antiresorptive therapies adds 0.68%/year and may be a highly effective osteoporosis treatment. Randomized controlled trials are still needed to confirm progesterone’s important role in women’s bone formation.

Summary: Objective: Many women use combined hormonal contraceptives (CHC) during adolescence during which they are accruing peak areal bone mineral density (BMD) that relates to lifetime fracture risk. To build BMD requires formation with which CHC‐related exogenous oestrogen may interfere. We compared peak BMD accrual in adolescents using and not using CHC.Design/Participants: We performed literature searches for prospective published peer‐reviewed articles providing 12‐ to 24‐month BMD change in adolescent (12‐ to 19‐year‐old) women using CHC vs CHC‐unexposed control women.Methods: Meta‐analyses used random‐effects models to assess BMD change rate at lumbar spine (LS) and other sites in adolescent CHC users vs CHC nonusers.Results: Literature searches yielded 84 publications of which nine were eligible. Adolescent‐only data were sought from cohorts with wider age inclusions. The 12‐month LS meta‐analysis with eight paired comparisons in 1535 adolescents showed a weighted mean BMD difference of −0.02 (95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.05 to 0.00) g/cm² in CHC‐exposed adolescents (P = 0.04). The 24‐month LS meta‐analysis with five paired comparisons in 885 adolescents showed a highly significant weighted mean BMD difference of −0.02 (95% CI: −0.03 to −0.01) g/cm² in CHC‐exposed adolescents (P = 0.0006). Heterogeneities by I² were 96% and 85%, respectively. Insufficient data for other bone sites precluded quantitative analysis.Conclusion: Given that adolescent exposure to CHC appears to be increasing, this evidence for potential impairment of peak spinal BMD accrual is of concern and suggests a potential public health problem. Randomized controlled trial data are needed to determine CHC effects on adolescent bone health.