Abstract
Evidence on whether menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) affects neurological or psychiatric disease is conflicting. As MHT acts by binding to oestrogen receptors (ERα and ERβ), we used drug-target Mendelian randomisation (MR) to test whether perturbing these targets alters the risk of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), brain structure, depression, or anxiety. Genetic variants in the genes encoding these oestrogen receptors (ESR1 and ESR2) that were associated with positive controls were leveraged as instrumental variables. In two-sample MR analyses using large genome-wide association studies, genetically proxied ERα and ERβ perturbation showed no evidence of effect on AD or on cortical grey matter, hippocampal volume, or white matter hyperintensities. Genetically proxied ERβ perturbation significantly increased risk for depression (β = −0.66, 95% CI [−0.99, −0.32], p = 0.002), but not anxiety. Our study highlights psychiatric considerations when targeting oestrogen receptors with MHT, but provides no evidence for either harmful or protective effects on AD risk.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Women are disproportionately affected by psychiatric and neurodegenerative disorders, including depression, anxiety, and Alzheimer’s disease (AD)1,2,3. One potential explanation for this female preponderance is an aetiological role of sex hormones such as oestrogens4,5,6,7. Oestradiol, the most abundant and potent oestrogen in the female body, exerts dynamic effects on brain morphology, neurochemistry, and function8,9,10,11,12, and is generally considered neuroprotective13,14,15,16. During the menopause transition, menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) is often prescribed to alleviate symptoms17,18 by partially replenishing sex hormones19,20. However, the effects of MHT use on mental health, AD risk, and markers of neurodegeneration are widely debated4,21,22,23,24,25, and the risks and benefits remain unclear.
MHT might help to mitigate neurological symptoms during the menopause transition26,27,28,29 with potential long-term implications for brain health28,30. However, findings from observational studies on MHT use are mixed. Some studies report an increased risk of AD or dementia31,32,33, and adverse effects on brain structure and neurodegenerative markers34,35,36. Other studies indicate a decreased AD risk37,38,39,40,41 and beneficial effects on brain health42,43,44, while some research finds no clinically relevant associations with neurological outcomes45,46,47. A meta-analysis of four randomised controlled trials (RCTs), based on data from the Women’s Health Initiative Memory Study (WHIMS), found an increased risk of dementia with MHT use compared to placebo30, though potential limitations of this dataset have been discussed48. The role of MHT in psychiatric disorders is also unclear. Some RCTs report a reduction in depressive symptoms with MHT use in menopausal females with depression49,50, as well as prevention of menopausal depression and anxiety51,52,53. Other RCTs reported no impact of MHT on depression and anxiety27,54,55, while some observational studies have shown an increased risk of depression in MHT users56,57.
Discrepancies in findings across studies may partially arise from reverse causation or confounding factors, particularly in observational studies. For example, individuals with severe menopausal symptoms including cognitive difficulties or mood changes58 may be more likely to be prescribed MHT36,45 or receive it following surgery (i.e., hysterectomy or oophorectomy59,60). Differences in factors such as MHT formulation, dosage, timing of onset, and duration of use are also likely to influence study results4,7,30,36. Furthermore, although RCTs are considered the gold standard in establishing causal effects61, their limited duration may preclude examination of long-term outcomes like AD30,62.
Mendelian randomisation (MR) is an epidemiological method that utilises genetics in a quasi-experimental approach to estimate causal effects63. Random allocation of genetic variants predicting a given phenotype at conception is analogous to random allocation to intervention in RCTs64. Genetic variants cannot be influenced by environmental processes, which minimises concerns about confounding and reverse causation63.
MR can be extended to investigate the causal effects of intervening on drug target proteins65,66,67 (Fig. 1). This includes the two main oestrogen receptors (ERα and ERβ); these proteins are encoded by genes ESR1 and ESR2, respectively, and are targeted by oestrogen therapies such as MHT13,68,69. Genetic variants such as single-nucelotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that are located in the gene encoding the drug targets of interest (in this case, ESR1 and ESR2) can be used to proxy the effects of pharmacological intervention at a specific receptor if they are associated with downstream effects similar to the desired drug response65,70.
Genetic variants in ESR1 and ESR2, which encode oestrogen receptors α and β, and that influence downstream biomarkers similar to the desired drug target effect (e.g., higher bone mineral density), are used as instrumental variables to proxy target perturbation. The causal effects of this genetically proxied perturbation on clinical outcomes (e.g., Alzheimer’s disease) are then estimated using Mendelian randomisation (MR).
These SNPs can be used as instrumental variables in MR analyses to study the effect of these drug target perturbations on psychiatric and neurological outcomes65. With increasing availability of large-scale genetic data71,72, such drug-target MR studies present unprecedented opportunities to assess these relationships while avoiding resource constraints of RCTs and potential confounding in observational studies73.
Here, we performed the first drug-target MR study examining the causal effects of MHT on AD risk, key brain structural outcomes, depression, and anxiety, all of which are more common in females compared to males. To do this, we used genetic variants that mimic the effects of MHT as instrumental variables. Specifically, we selected SNPs in the ESR1 and ESR2 genes that had been associated in genome-wide association studies (GWAS) with relevant biomarkers representing downstream effects of drugs targeting these receptors (bone mineral density, sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG) levels, and haemoglobin levels) at genome-wide significance (p < 5 × 10−8). We tested associations of these variants with AD risk, cortical grey matter (GM) volume, hippocampal volume, white matter hyperintensity (WMH) volume, depression, and anxiety.
Results
Main findings
We identified three instruments to proxy pharmacological perturbation of the oestrogen receptors: seven SNPs in ESR1 associated with bone mineral density, one SNP in ESR1 associated with SHBG levels, and one SNP in ESR2 associated with haemoglobin levels (Table 1).
No significant associations were found between genetically predicted ERα and ERβ perturbation and AD or WMH volume (Fig. 2, Tables 2, 3, and 4).
Forest plot showing beta estimates with 95% confidence intervals for genetically proxied perturbation of the oestrogen receptor α (ERα; proxied by bone mineral density [BMD] and sex hormone-binding globulin [SHBG]) and oestrogen receptor β (ERβ; proxied by haemoglobin [HMG]) on Alzheimer’s disease (AD), grey matter volume (GM vol), hippocampal volume (HC vol), white matter hyperintensity volume (WMH vol), depression, and anxiety. For ERβ associations, all estimated signs have been reversed for illustration. Only inverse-variance weighted (IVW) or Wald ratio estimates are shown. Findings significant at a false discovery rate of 5% are marked with an asterisk.
Genetically predicted ERα perturbation, proxied by bone mineral density, showed associations with higher cortical GM volume (IVW β = 0.171, 95% CI [0.025, 0.317], p = 0.021), as well as lower hippocampal volume (IVW β = −0.192, 95% CI [−0.338, −0.046], p = 0.010), though neither association remained significant after FDR correction (p = 0.160 and p = 0.148, respectively) (Table 2).
Genetically predicted ERβ perturbation, proxied by haemoglobin levels, showed significant associations with higher risk of depression (Wald Ratio β = −0.656, 95% CI [−0.992, −0.319], p < 0.001, FDR-corrected p = 0.002) (Fig. 2, Table 4). Genetically predicted ERα perturbation, proxied by bone mineral density, showed associations with higher anxiety risk (IVW β = 0.655, 95% CI [0.107, 0.319], p = 0.019), but this did not remain significant after FDR correction (p = 0.160) (Table 2).
Discussion
This MR study examined the effects of genetically predicted oestrogen receptor perturbation on neuropsychiatric outcomes and brain structure. In brief, we did not find significant effects on AD, brain structure, and anxiety, but genetically predicted ERβ perturbation was significantly associated with a higher risk of depression.
There was no evidence for significant associations between genetically proxied perturbation of ERα or ERβ and AD, indicating that activity of these receptors, which are targeted by MHT, does not influence AD risk. This finding contrasts with WHIMS74, which reported a doubled risk of developing dementia among postmenopausal women age 65 and older, though primarily for orally administered conjugated equine oestrogen therapy with progesterone30. Other trials enroling younger females or administering MHT closer to menopause have demonstrated mostly neutral effects of MHT on cognition35,52,75,76. This discrepancy could potentially be explained by the critical window hypothesis, which suggests that the benefits of MHT are contingent on early initiation77,78,79. Although MR estimates can provide insights into lifelong effects of genetic variants, they do not equate to the impacts of pharmacological interventions initiated at specific times65. Therefore, despite the lack of evidence for a link between oestrogen receptor perturbation and AD, potential risks and benefits associated with the timing of MHT initiation remain possible.
Furthermore, no evidence was found for associations between genetically predicted ERα or ERβ perturbation and brain structural outcomes, indicating that drugs targeting these receptors do not seem to impact cortical GM volume, hippocampal volume, or WMH volume. Although ERα was associated with higher cortical GM volume and lower hippocampal volume, these findings did not remain significant after FDR correction. In a previous RCT study, recently postmenopausal females receiving conjugated equine oestrogens for four years had greater ventricular volume increases compared to placebo35, but the increase was not different from placebo three years after discontinuation76. In a separate trial, there were no significant differences in total hippocampal volume between multiple doses of oestradiol and placebo following short-term administration, though higher bilateral posterior hippocampal volume was increased after three months at the highest dose80. Overall, the reported impact of MHT on GM changes ranges from volume increases to decreases or null-effects (for a full review, see ref. 6), and comparability of studies is complicated by confounders such as age, mental health status, formulation, and duration of MHT use6,7.
While relationships between MHT use and brain health might depend on formulation, dosage, timing of onset, and duration of use, the previously published GWAS, whose data we relied on, may also be subject to the healthy volunteer effect81 and survivor bias82. These biases, which result from the tendency of healthier individuals to participate and the exclusion of those who have died or experienced severe illness, may affect the generalisability of our findings.
Our analyses used GWAS summary statistics for AD, brain volumes, and depression derived from large meta-analyses. Phenotype definitions may differ across contributing cohorts, particularly for clinical and psychiatric outcomes, and this heterogeneity could introduce measurement error and attenuate causal estimates83. We restricted our analyses to European-ancestry samples to reduce confounding by population stratification, which improves internal validity. However, we primarily relied on variant-biomarker and variant-outcome associations reported in both males and females, mainly due to the low availability of sex-stratified GWAS. While our results are therefore generalisable to both sexes (i.e., no associations between oestrogen receptor perturbation and AD risk in both males and females), mixed-sex summary statistics may limit the precision of female-specific estimates. While these limitations highlight the need for future GWAS with harmonised outcome definitions and sex-stratified analyses, our cis-MR design using variants proximal to drug targets provides a conservative and biologically informed approach to causal inference.
Genetically predicted ERβ perturbation, proxied by haemoglobin levels, was significantly associated with higher depression risk, supporting the role of oestrogens in mental health. Oestrogens are known to influence mood regulation through various mechanisms in the brain, such as modulating neurotransmitter systems and neuroplasticity84,85,86, but the role of both endogenous and exogenous oestrogens in mood disorders is complicated and multifaceted. For instance, studies suggest that sensitivity to fluctuations in sex hormone levels may drive depressive symptoms in premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD) or perimenopause87,88,89. Hormonal contraceptive use has been associated with increased risk of depression in observational studies90,91,92,93, especially in adolescents92. In contrast, a recent network meta-analysis including 14 RCTs concluded that hormonal contraceptive use did not lead to increased depressive symptoms in adult females94. Similarly, MHT use has been shown to be generally neutral54,55 or even protective49,50,51,52 for depressive symptoms in observational studies and RCTs.
Our study indicated an increased risk of depression associated with ERβ perturbation; however, as noted above, while our methods can provide evidence of the presence and direction of causal effects, they are not equivalent to pharmacological intervention65. Additionally, MR studies work under the assumption of constant genetic exposure effects over a lifetime, which may not capture the reality of time-varying effects95. As the relationship between oestradiol and psychiatric outcomes may change across different life stages84, future MR studies could employ methods such as multivariable MR to examine time-varying effects96, though this would require several GWAS on relevant traits across different age groups or timepoints in an individual’s life. Accordingly, we could not assess age- or menopause-specific genetic effects in this study because suitable age-or menopause-stratified GWAS were unavailable.
We did not find evidence supporting a role of ERα in the risk of depression. ERα perturbation was associated with higher anxiety risk, though this was not significant following FDR correction. Both receptor subtypes are located in brain regions associated with cognitive function and emotion97,98, but there is higher expression of ERβ in the thalamus and hippocampus99, areas involved in mood disorders100,101,102, which may explain our findings. Following future research confirming a differential role of ERα and ERβ in depression, oestrogen receptor modulators that selectively act on ERα could be explored to avoid inducing depressive symptoms with hormone therapy use.
There are some limitations in the use of haemoglobin as a proxy for ERβ perturbation. While higher oestrogen has been correlated with lower haemoglobin levels103,104,105,106, we could not identify any RCTs that linked use of exogenous oestrogens to lower haemoglobin, making this proxy less robustly validated than, for example, bone mineral density for ERα perturbation. Additionally, as about two-thirds of the participants in the haemoglobin level GWAS107 were from the UK Biobank, we expected substantial sample overlap between the phenotype and outcome samples, which could introduce population-specific effects affecting the robustness of the results. Finally, using haemoglobin to proxy ERβ assumes it does not influence depression independently of ERβ activity (exclusion restriction). However, plausible pathways exist from low haemoglobin to fatigue and depressive symptoms. Our follow-up standard MR analysis (Supplementary Note 1) showed an association between haemoglobin and depression by IVW, though not across sensitivity methods, suggesting potential partial violation of this assumption. We therefore interpret the ERβ perturbation and depression result cautiously, emphasising that further research with alternative ERβ proxies is needed to confirm this finding.
This study represents an important initial step in using drug target MR studies to identify risks and benefits associated with MHT use. Although these studies cannot fully substitute for the precision and specific temporal dynamics captured in clinical pharmacological trials, this method can validate drug targets, identify relevant side-effects and outcomes, and aid in drug repurposing by identifying new therapeutic uses for existing drugs, without the high cost and long duration associated with RCTs65,66. Triangulation of findings across these different methodological approaches is essential for a robust understanding of the causal effects of MHT.
Although our current results should be interpreted in the context of the discussed limitations, they provide a foundation for future research elucidating biological pathways and evaluating long-term safety and efficacy of MHT use to optimise women’s healthcare oucomes. For example, well-powered sex-stratified GWAS are mostly lacking, and in addition to AD or psychiatric outcomes, GWAS on depression subtypes such as postpartum depression or PMDD would improve our understanding of female-specific findings related to hormonal treatments. Future analyses could also aim to examine the contribution of progesterone receptor perturbation on neuropsychiatric and brain structural outcomes. Exogenous oestradiol, via MHT or hormonal contraception, is commonly combined with progesterone to balance its effects108, and various formulations might differentially affect risk of mental disorders92,109 as well as AD24,30,110. At the time of the current study, genetic variants within the PGR gene had not been associated with relevant biomarkers representing downstream drug effects, and we were thus unable to explore its role in these neuropsychiatric outcomes. Given the variety of MHT combinations, it is vital to conduct future studies that can provide a basis for clarifying the causal effects of these on health outcomes.
In conclusion, this study found no evidence that genetically predicted ER perturbation, as targeted by MHT, significantly affects AD risk or associated brain structural measures, including cortical GM volume, hippocampal volume, and WMH volume. However, ERβ perturbation may be associated with higher depression risk, indicating a potential causal role of oestrogen in mood regulation. Future drug target MR studies can complement observational studies and RCTs by offering critical insights into the causal effects of MHT on various health outcomes. This approach is essential for clarifying inconsistent findings and guiding pharmaceutical research, ultimately optimising patient care and ensuring long-term health benefits for women.
Methods
Study design and instrument selection
Figure 1 illustrates the principles of MR studies used to investigate drug effects. By utilising genetic variants that proxy receptor activity, this approach can help us understand whether the binding of oestrogens to oestrogen receptors, the primary aim of MHT, has a direct impact on AD risk, brain structural outcomes, and mental health.
To proxy oestrogen receptor perturbation, we gathered all reported associations between SNPs located in the ESR1 and ESR2 genes and various biomarkers, based on the NHGRI-EBI GWAS Catalog (www.ebi.ac.uk/gwas/home)111. We selected only SNPs located within 200kb of the gene start and end (genome build 38p14; location for ESR1 = chromosome 6, 151,656,691 - 152,129,619, and for ESR2 = chromosome 14, 64,084,232 - 64,338,112) and associated with biomarkers at genome-wide significance (p < 5 × 10−8). We removed any associations observed in male-only samples to ensure we captured female-specific effects, or non-European samples, given that different genetic ancestries can influence allele frequencies and linkage disequilibrium (LD) patterns112, and the lack of available ancestry-specific outcome GWAS. Table 5 provides an overview of exclusions for instrumental variable selection.
Biomarkers were chosen based on their biological plausibility to mimic drug target protein effects. For ESR1, we selected “bone mineral density" and “sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG) levels". Increased bone mineral density or reduced fracture risk has been observed in participants taking MHT compared to placebo in several RCTs113,114,115,116. SHBG concentrations are significantly higher during use of hormonal contraception (which targets ERα) in a dose-response manner, as highlighted by a meta-analysis of experimental studies117. As there were two plausible biomarkers available, we selected both, as consistent results across these would strengthen our results. For ESR2, we chose the biomarker “haemoglobin levels". Females have lower haemoglobin levels compared to males103, with times marked by increased levels of oestrogens (i.e., pregnancy) resulting in reductions in haemoglobin104. In transgender participants receiving oestradiol therapy, haemoglobin decreased significantly as oestradiol levels increased105,106.
Following biomarker selections, there were 30 SNP associations for bone mineral density, 5 for SHBG levels, and 4 for haemoglobin levels (Table 5); some SNPs were associated with a biomarker in several studies. Where SNPs associated with the same biomarker were in LD (r2 < 0.1), we selected a main SNP and its associated statistics based firstly on whether it had been identified in more than one sample, secondly, the sample size of the study reporting the association, and thirdly, the availability of summary statistics. Where the same SNP association was reported in several studies, summary statistics were obtained from the study with the largest sample size. All SNPs not in LD with any other SNPs were also selected as main SNPs. Summary statistics for the main SNPs were downloaded from the GWAS Catalog or retrieved manually from the publication. Supplementary Tables 1–3 provide the full list of studies reporting associations for SNPs in ESR1 and ESR2 with the biomarkers, including information on LD and availability of summary statistics. Table 1 displays the final selection of SNP associations comprising the three instruments reflecting ERα and ERβ perturbation. We obtained summary statistics from the largest available study for each biomarker rather than meta-analysing across multiple GWAS due to substantial sample overlap between studies (e.g., UK Biobank participants appear in both ref. 118 and ref. 119), differing measurement platforms and phenotype definitions across cohorts, and because most additional studies were considerably smaller and would contribute minimal power while introducing heterogeneity.
Outcome selection
Our primary outcomes of interest were AD, depression, and anxiety, given the female preponderance of these conditions and the conflicting evidence surrounding associations with exogenous oestrogens1,4. We further wanted to investigate associations with relevant brain structural outcomes; GM and hippocampal volume changes have been closely associated with the onset and progression of dementia120, as well as depression121,122 and anxiety123,124. Finally, as recent evidence highlights menopause as a risk factor for WMHs125,126, which have also been associated with increased risk of AD127,128, WMH volume was included as an outcome.
Variant-outcome associations were derived from large previously published GWAS. For AD, we selected a meta-analysis of GWAS on clinically diagnosed late-onset AD with 94,437 individuals129. Genetic associations with brain structural outcomes (cortical GM, hippocampal, and WMH volume), were obtained from the largest GWAS of brain imaging phenotypes from the UK Biobank with 22,138 individuals130. For depression, we selected a meta-analysis of three GWAS on a spectrum of depression phenotypes with 807,553 individuals (246,363 cases and 561,190 controls)131, and for anxiety, we chose a meta-analysis of nine GWAS on anxiety disorders with 17,310 individuals132. All genetic associations were based on GWAS of European ancestry samples. Variant-outcome associations for the genetic instruments are provided in Supplementary Tables 4–9.
Mendelian randomisation
Two-sample MR analyses were used to obtain estimates for the association between genetically predicted oestrogen receptor perturbation, proxied by relevant biomarkers, and AD, cortical GM volume, hippocampal volume, WMH volume, depression, and anxiety. Analyses were conducted using the TwoSampleMR (version 0.5.6) package in R (version 4.2.1). Variants were harmonised between datasets, ensuring that the associations between SNPs and exposure and between SNPs and the outcome reflected the same allele. For instruments with more than two variants, the Inverse Variance Weighted (IVW)70 method was performed as the primary approach, which regresses the effect sizes of the variant-biomarker associations against the effect sizes of the variant-outcome associations. Several other methods, such as weighted median133, weighted and simple mode134, and MR Egger135 were performed to assess the robustness of results, as broadly consistent results across these methods strengthen the causal inference. For instruments with a single variant, the Wald ratio method was employed. To adjust for multiple testing, false discovery rate (FDR; 5%)136 corrected p-values were calculated across all instances of IVW and Wald ratio methods. To assess potential violation of the exclusion restriction where a proxy biomarker might itself causally influence an outcome (e.g., haemoglobin - depression), we conducted standard follow-up MR analyses of the biomarker on the outcome for any significant results (see Supplementary Note 1).
Ethical considerations
This study used publicly available summary statistics from previously published GWAS. No new data involving human participants were collected or analysed by the authors. Ethical approval for all contributing studies was obtained from the respective institutional review boards or ethics committees, and all participants provided written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Studies utilising UK Biobank data107,118,119,130,137 operated under ethical approval from the North West Multi-Centre Research Ethics Committee. For ref. 129, all contributing cohorts obtained approval from local Institutional Review Boards; the AGES Reykjavik Study was approved by the Icelandic National Bioethics Committee (VSN 00-063), the Icelandic Data Protection Authority, and the U.S. NIA IRB; and CHARGE consortium studies received approval from respective local IRBs. For ref. 107, the Icelandic component received approval from the Icelandic National Bioethics Committee (VSNb2015010033-03.12). For ref. 131, UK Biobank data were used under approval from the NHS National Research Ethics Service (11/NW/0382), with additional approvals for Generation Scotland (NHS Tayside Committee on Research Ethics, Ref 15/ES/0040), BiDirect and Münster cohorts (Ethics Committee of the University of Münster and Westphalian Chamber of Physicians), 23andMe (external AAHRPP-accredited institutional review board), and 35 Psychiatric Genomics Consortium cohorts as detailed in the original publication. For ref. 132, contributing cohorts received approvals from MGS (institutional review boards at participating US institutions), PsyCoLaus (local institutional review board, Switzerland), SHIP (Ethics Committee of the University of Greifswald, Germany), QIMR (Human Research Ethics Council of QIMR, Australia), TRAILS (Dutch Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects), Rotterdam Study (appropriate ethical approvals, Netherlands), and NESDA/NTR (Central Ethics Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects of the VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam). To the best of our knowledge, all other contributing studies complied with relevant ethical regulations and obtained informed consent, as detailed in the original publications.
Data availability
This study used publicly available summary statistics from previously published GWAS. No new data was generated. The data is available in the NHGRI-EBI Catalog of human genome-wide association studies or in the summary statistics from published GWAS. The analysis script is publicly available on the GitHub repository: https://github.com/louisesophieschindler/Drug-Target-Mendelian-Randomisation/tree/main.
References
Mauvais-Jarvis, F. et al. Sex and gender: modifiers of health, disease, and medicine. Lancet 396, 565–582 (2020).
Ferretti, M. T. et al. Sex differences in Alzheimer disease - the gateway to precision medicine. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 14, 457–469 (2018).
Kuehner, C. Why is depression more common among women than among men? Lancet Psychiatry 4, 146–158 (2017).
Barth, C., Crestol, A., de Lange, A.-M. G. & Galea, L. A. Sex steroids and the female brain across the lifespan: insights into risk of depression and Alzheimer’s disease. Lancet Diab. Endocrinol. 11, 926–941 (2023).
Kundakovic, M. & Rocks, D. Sex hormone fluctuation and increased female risk for depression and anxiety disorders: from clinical evidence to molecular mechanisms. Front. Neuroendocrinol. 66, 101010 (2022).
Rehbein, E., Hornung, J., Sundström Poromaa, I. & Derntl, B. Shaping of the female human brain by sex hormones: a review. Neuroendocrinology 111, 183–206 (2021).
Jett, S. et al. Endogenous and exogenous estrogen exposures: how women’s reproductive health can drive brain aging and inform Alzheimer’s prevention. Front. Aging Neurosci. 14, 831807 (2022).
Jacobs, E. & D’Esposito, M. Estrogen shapes dopamine-dependent cognitive processes: implications for women’s health. J. Neurosci. 31, 5286–5293 (2011).
Pritschet, L. et al. Functional reorganization of brain networks across the human menstrual cycle. Neuroimage 220, 117091 (2020).
Russell, J. K., Jones, C. K. & Newhouse, P. A. The role of estrogen in brain and cognitive aging. Neurotherapeutics 16, 649–665 (2019).
Hara, Y., Waters, E. M., McEwen, B. S. & Morrison, J. H. Estrogen effects on cognitive and synaptic health over the lifecourse. Physiol. Rev. 95, 785–807 (2015).
Dubol, M. et al. Neuroimaging the menstrual cycle: a multimodal systematic review. Front. Neuroendocrinol. 60, 100878 (2021).
Arevalo, M.-A., Azcoitia, I. & Garcia-Segura, L. M. The neuroprotective actions of oestradiol and oestrogen receptors. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 16, 17–29 (2015).
Azcoitia, I., Barreto, G. E. & Garcia-Segura, L. M. Molecular mechanisms and cellular events involved in the neuroprotective actions of estradiol. analysis of sex differences. Front. Neuroendocrinol. 55, 100787 (2019).
Uddin, M. S. et al. Estrogen signaling in Alzheimer’s disease: molecular insights and therapeutic targets for Alzheimer’s dementia. Mol. Neurobiol. 57, 2654–2670 (2020).
Zárate, S., Stevnsner, T. & Gredilla, R. Role of estrogen and other sex hormones in brain aging. neuroprotection and DNA repair. Front. Aging Neurosci. 9, 322754 (2017).
Lobo, R. A. Hormone-replacement therapy: current thinking. Nat. Rev. Endocrinol. 13, 220–231 (2017).
Stefanick, M. L. Estrogens and progestins: background and history, trends in use, and guidelines and regimens approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. Am. J. Med. 118, 64–73 (2005).
Fait, T. Menopause hormone therapy: latest developments and clinical practice. Drugs Context 8, 212551 (2019).
De Villiers, T. et al. Global consensus statement on menopausal hormone therapy. Climacteric 16, 203–204 (2013).
Scheyer, O. et al. Female sex and Alzheimer’s risk: the menopause connection. J. Prev. Alzheimers Dis. 5, 225–230 (2018).
Hickey, M. et al. An empowerment model for managing menopause. Lancet 403, 947–957 (2024).
Nappi, R. E., Panay, N. & Davis, S. R. In search of a well-balanced narrative of the menopause momentum. Climacteric 27, 223–225 (2024).
Mills, Z. B., Faull, R. L. & Kwakowsky, A. Is hormone replacement therapy a risk factor or a therapeutic option for Alzheimer’s disease? Int. J. Mol. Sci. 24, 3205 (2023).
Rocca, W. A., Kantarci, K. & Faubion, S. S. Risks and benefits of hormone therapy after menopause for cognitive decline and dementia: a conceptual review. Maturitas 184, 108003 (2024).
Maki, P., Gast, M., Vieweg, A., Burriss, S. & Yaffe, K. Hormone therapy in menopausal women with cognitive complaints: a randomized, double-blind trial. Neurology 69, 1322–1330 (2007).
Welton, A. J. et al. Health related quality of life after combined hormone replacement therapy: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 337, a1190 (2008).
Andy, C. et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of menopause hormone therapy on cognition. Front. Endocrinol. 15, 1350318 (2024).
Lobo, R. A. et al. A 17β-estradiol-progesterone oral capsule for vasomotor symptoms in postmenopausal women: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet. Gynecol. 132, 161–170 (2018).
Nerattini, M. et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of menopause hormone therapy on risk of Alzheimer’s disease and dementia. Front. Aging Neurosci. 15, 1260427 (2023).
Løkkegaard, L. E. et al. Systemic hormone therapy and dementia: a nested case-control and co-twin control study. Maturitas 165, 113–119 (2022).
Pourhadi, N., Mørch, L. S., Holm, E. A., Torp-Pedersen, C. & Meaidi, A. Dementia in women using estrogen-only therapy. JAMA 331, 160–162 (2024).
Savolainen-Peltonen, H. et al. Use of postmenopausal hormone therapy and risk of Alzheimer’s disease in Finland: nationwide case-control study. BMJ 364, l665 (2019).
Coughlan, G. T. et al. Association of age at menopause and hormone therapy use with tau and β-amyloid positron emission tomography. JAMA Neurol. 80, 462–473 (2023).
Kantarci, K. et al. Effects of hormone therapy on brain structure: a randomized controlled trial. Neurology 87, 887–896 (2016).
Barth, C. et al. Menopausal hormone therapy and the female brain: Leveraging neuroimaging and prescription registry data from the UK Biobank cohort. eLife 13, RP99538 (2025).
Kim, Y. J., Soto, M., Branigan, G. L., Rodgers, K. & Brinton, R. D. Association between menopausal hormone therapy and risk of neurodegenerative diseases: implications for precision hormone therapy. Alzheimers Dement. Transl. Res. Clin. Interv. 7, e12174 (2021).
Yoo, J. et al. Female reproductive factors and the risk of dementia: a nationwide cohort study. Eur. J. Neurol. 27, 1448–1458 (2020).
Depypere, H. et al. Menopause hormone therapy significantly alters pathophysiological biomarkers of Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement. 19, 1320–1330 (2023).
Saleh, R. N., Hornberger, M., Ritchie, C. W. & Minihane, A. M. Hormone replacement therapy is associated with improved cognition and larger brain volumes in at-risk APOE4 women: results from the European Prevention of Alzheimer’s Disease (EPAD) cohort. Alzheimers Res. Ther. 15, 10 (2023).
de Lange, A.-M. G. et al. Women’s brain aging: effects of sex-hormone exposure, pregnancies, and genetic risk for Alzheimer’s disease. Hum. Brain Mapp. 41, 5141–5150 (2020).
Kim, T.-H., Kim, B., Kim, Y. R., Jeong, C.-W. & Lee, Y. H. Gray matter differences associated with menopausal hormone therapy in menopausal women: a DARTEL-based VBM study. Sci. Rep. 13, 1401 (2023).
Kantarci, K. et al. Early postmenopausal transdermal 17β-estradiol therapy and amyloid-β deposition. J. Alzheimers Dis. 53, 547–556 (2016).
Schelbaum, E. et al. Association of reproductive history with brain MRI biomarkers of dementia risk in midlife. Neurology 97, e2328–e2339 (2021).
Ambikairajah, A. et al. Investigating the synergistic effects of hormone replacement therapy, apolipoprotein E and age on brain health in the UK Biobank. Hum. Brain Mapp. 45, e26612 (2024).
Paganini-Hill, A., Corrada, M. M. & Kawas, C. H. Prior endogenous and exogenous estrogen and incident dementia in the 10th decade of life: the 90+ Study. Climacteric 23, 311–315 (2020).
Steventon, J. J. et al. Menopause age, reproductive span and hormone therapy duration predict the volume of medial temporal lobe brain structures in postmenopausal women. Psychoneuroendocrinology 158, 106393 (2023).
Maki, P. M. & Henderson, V. W. Hormone therapy, dementia, and cognition: the Women’s Health Initiative 10 years on. Climacteric 15, 256–262 (2012).
Tseng, P.-T. et al. Pharmacological interventions and hormonal therapies for depressive symptoms in peri-and post-menopausal women: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Psychiatry Res. 326, 115316 (2023).
Zhang, J. et al. The effect of exogenous estrogen on depressive mood in women: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J. Psychiatr. Res. 162, 21–29 (2023).
Gordon, J. L. et al. Efficacy of transdermal estradiol and micronized progesterone in the prevention of depressive symptoms in the menopause transition: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Psychiatry 75, 149–157 (2018).
Gleason, C. E. et al. Effects of hormone therapy on cognition and mood in recently postmenopausal women: findings from the randomized, controlled KEEPS–cognitive and affective study. PLoS Med. 12, e1001833 (2015).
Linzmayer, L. et al. Double-blind, placebo-controlled psychometric studies on the effects of a combined estrogen-progestin regimen versus estrogen alone on performance, mood and personality of menopausal syndrome patients. Arzneimittelforschung 51, 238–245 (2001).
Demetrio, F. N. et al. Effect of estrogen replacement therapy on symptoms of depression and anxiety in non-depressive menopausal women: a randomized double-blind, controlled study. Arch. Women’s. Ment. Health 14, 479–486 (2011).
Whedon, J. M., KizhakkeVeettil, A., Rugo, N. A. & Kieffer, K. A. Bioidentical estrogen for menopausal depressive symptoms: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Women’s. Health 26, 18–28 (2017).
Lee, D. Y. et al. Impact of symptomatic menopausal transition on the occurrence of depression, anxiety, and sleep disorders: a real-world multi-site study. Eur. Psychiatry 66, e80 (2023).
Wium-Andersen, M. K. et al. Association of hormone therapy with depression during menopause in a cohort of Danish women. JAMA Netw. Open 5, e2239491 (2022).
Hogervorst, E., Craig, J. & O’Donnell, E. Cognition and mental health in menopause: a review. Best. Pract. Res. Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol. 81, 69–84 (2022).
Jang, J.-H., Arora, N., Kwon, J. S. & Hanley, G. E. Hormone therapy use after premature surgical menopause based on prescription records: a population-based study. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Can. 42, 1511–1517 (2020).
Garg, N., Behbehani, S., Kosiorek, H. & Wasson, M. Hormone replacement therapy prescription after premature surgical menopause. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 27, 1618–1623 (2020).
Hariton, E. & Locascio, J. J. Randomised controlled trials - the gold standard for effectiveness research. BJOG 125, 1716 (2018).
Booth, C. & Tannock, I. Randomised controlled trials and population-based observational research: partners in the evolution of medical evidence. Br. J. Cancer 110, 551–555 (2014).
Davey Smith, G. & Ebrahim, S. Mendelian randomization’: can genetic epidemiology contribute to understanding environmental determinants of disease? Int. J. Epidemiol. 32, 1–22 (2003).
Walker, V. M., Davey Smith, G., Davies, N. M. & Martin, R. M. Mendelian randomization: a novel approach for the prediction of adverse drug events and drug repurposing opportunities. Int. J. Epidemiol. 46, 2078–2089 (2017).
Gill, D. et al. Mendelian randomization for studying the effects of perturbing drug targets. Wellcome Open Res. 6, 16 (2021).
Burgess, S. et al. Using genetic association data to guide drug discovery and development: review of methods and applications. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 110, 195–214 (2023).
Schmidt, A. F. et al. Genetic drug target validation using Mendelian randomisation. Nat. Commun. 11, 3255 (2020).
Bustamante-Barrientos, F. A. et al. The impact of estrogen and estrogen-like molecules in neurogenesis and neurodegeneration: beneficial or harmful? Front. Cell. Neurosci. 15, 636176 (2021).
Maggi, A. Liganded and unliganded activation of estrogen receptor and hormone replacement therapies. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1812, 1054–1060 (2011).
Burgess, S., Butterworth, A. & Thompson, S. G. Mendelian randomization analysis with multiple genetic variants using summarized data. Genet. Epidemiol. 37, 658–665 (2013).
Welter, D. et al. The NHGRI GWAS Catalog, a curated resource of SNP-trait associations. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, D1001–D1006 (2014).
Rehm, H. L. Evolving health care through personal genomics. Nat. Rev. Genet. 18, 259–267 (2017).
Woolf, B. et al. A drug target for erectile dysfunction to help improve fertility, sexual activity, and wellbeing: Mendelian randomisation study. BMJ 383, e076197 (2023).
Shumaker, S. A. et al. Estrogen plus progestin and the incidence of dementia and mild cognitive impairment in postmenopausal women: the Women’s Health Initiative Memory Study: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 289, 2651–2662 (2003).
Espeland, M. A. et al. Long-term effects on cognitive function of postmenopausal hormone therapy prescribed to women aged 50 to 55 years. JAMA Intern. Med. 173, 1429–1436 (2013).
Kantarci, K. et al. Brain structure and cognition 3 years after the end of an early menopausal hormone therapy trial. Neurology 90, e1404–e1412 (2018).
Henderson, V. W. & Rocca, W. A. Estrogens and Alzheimer's disease risk: is there a window of opportunity? Neurology 79, 1840–1841 (2012).
Resnick, S. M. & Henderson, V. W. Hormone therapy and risk of Alzheimer disease: a critical time. JAMA 288, 2170–2172 (2002).
Maki, P. M. Critical window hypothesis of hormone therapy and cognition: a scientific update on clinical studies. Menopause 20, 695–709 (2013).
Albert, K. et al. Estrogen enhances hippocampal gray-matter volume in young and older postmenopausal women: a prospective dose-response study. Neurobiol. Aging 56, 1–6 (2017).
Fry, A. et al. Comparison of sociodemographic and health-related characteristics of UK Biobank participants with those of the general population. Am. J. Epidemiol. 186, 1026–1034 (2017).
Weuve, J. et al. Guidelines for reporting methodological challenges and evaluating potential bias in dementia research. Alzheimer's Dement. 11, 1098–1109 (2015).
Escott-Price, V. & Hardy, J. Genome-wide association studies for Alzheimer’s disease: bigger is not always better. Brain Commun. 4, fcac125 (2022).
Albert, K. M. & Newhouse, P. A. Estrogen, stress, and depression: cognitive and biological interactions. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 15, 399–423 (2019).
Halbreich, U. & Kahn, L. S. Role of estrogen in the aetiology and treatment of mood disorders. CNS Drugs 15, 797–817 (2001).
Barth, C., Villringer, A. & Sacher, J. Sex hormones affect neurotransmitters and shape the adult female brain during hormonal transition periods. Front. Neurosci. 9, 37 (2015).
Schmidt, P. J. et al. Premenstrual dysphoric disorder symptoms following ovarian suppression: triggered by change in ovarian steroid levels but not continuous stable levels. Am. J. Psychiatry 174, 980–989 (2017).
Gordon, J. L. et al. Ovarian hormone fluctuation, neurosteroids, and HPA axis dysregulation in perimenopausal depression: a novel heuristic model. Am. J. Psychiatry 172, 227–236 (2015).
Gordon, J. L. & Sander, B. The role of estradiol fluctuation in the pathophysiology of perimenopausal depression: a hypothesis paper. Psychoneuroendocrinology 133, 105418 (2021).
Johansson, T. et al. Population-based cohort study of oral contraceptive use and risk of depression. Epidemiol. Psychiatr. Sci. 32, e39 (2023).
de Kruif, M., Spijker, A. & Molendijk, M. Depression during the perimenopause: a meta-analysis. J. Affect. Disord. 206, 174–180 (2016).
Skovlund, C. W., Mørch, L. S., Kessing, L. V. & Lidegaard, Ø Association of hormonal contraception with depression. JAMA Psychiatry 73, 1154–1162 (2016).
Anderl, C., Li, G. & Chen, F. S. Oral contraceptive use in adolescence predicts lasting vulnerability to depression in adulthood. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 61, 148–156 (2020).
de Wit, A. E. et al. Hormonal contraceptive use and depressive symptoms: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials. BJPsych Open 7, e110 (2021).
Labrecque, J. A. & Swanson, S. A. Interpretation and potential biases of Mendelian randomization estimates with time-varying exposures. Am. J. Epidemiol. 188, 231–238 (2019).
Sanderson, E., Richardson, T. G., Morris, T. T., Tilling, K. & Davey Smith, G. Estimation of causal effects of a time-varying exposure at multiple time points through multivariable Mendelian randomization. PLoS Genet. 18, e1010290 (2022).
Wharton, W., Gleason, C. E., Sandra, O., Carlsson, C. M. & Asthana, S. Neurobiological underpinnings of the estrogen-mood relationship. Curr. Psychiatry Rev. 8, 247–256 (2012).
González, M. et al. Distribution patterns of estrogen receptor α and β in the human cortex and hippocampus during development and adulthood. J. Comp. Neurol. 503, 790–802 (2007).
Österlund, M. K. & Hurd, Y. L. Estrogen receptors in the human forebrain and the relation to neuropsychiatric disorders. Prog. Neurobiol. 64, 251–267 (2001).
Campbell, S., Marriott, M., Nahmias, C. & MacQueen, G. M. Lower hippocampal volume in patients suffering from depression: a meta-analysis. Am. J. Psychiatry 161, 598–607 (2004).
Videbech, P. & Ravnkilde, B. Hippocampal volume and depression: a meta-analysis of MRI studies. Am. J. Psychiatry 161, 1957–1966 (2004).
Gray, J. P., Müller, V. I., Eickhoff, S. B. & Fox, P. T. Multimodal abnormalities of brain structure and function in major depressive disorder: a meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies. Am. J. Psychiatry 177, 422–434 (2020).
Murphy, W. G. The sex difference in haemoglobin levels in adults - mechanisms, causes, and consequences. Blood Rev. 28, 41–47 (2014).
Churchill, D., Nair, M., Stanworth, S. J. & Knight, M. The change in haemoglobin concentration between the first and third trimesters of pregnancy: a population study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 19, 359 (2019).
Vita, R., Settineri, S., Liotta, M., Benvenga, S. & Trimarchi, F. Changes in hormonal and metabolic parameters in transgender subjects on cross-sex hormone therapy: a cohort study. Maturitas 107, 92–96 (2018).
Harper, J., O’Donnell, E., Khorashad, B. S., McDermott, H. & Witcomb, G. L. How does hormone transition in transgender women change body composition, muscle strength and haemoglobin? systematic review with a focus on the implications for sport participation. Br. J. Sports Med. 55, 865–872 (2021).
Oskarsson, G. R. et al. Predicted loss and gain of function mutations in ACO1 are associated with erythropoiesis. Commun. Biol. 3, 189 (2020).
Campagnoli, C., Clavel-Chapelon, F., Kaaks, R., Peris, C. & Berrino, F. Progestins and progesterone in hormone replacement therapy and the risk of breast cancer. J. Steroid Biochem. Mol. Biol. 96, 95–108 (2005).
Fruzzetti, F. & Fidecicchi, T. Hormonal contraception and depression: updated evidence and implications in clinical practice. Clin. Drug Investig. 40, 1097–1106 (2020).
Wu, M. et al. Postmenopausal hormone therapy and Alzheimer’s disease, dementia, and Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review and time-response meta-analysis. Pharmacol. Res. 155, 104693 (2020).
Sollis, E. et al. The NHGRI-EBI GWAS Catalog: knowledgebase and deposition resource. Nucleic Acids Res. 51, D977–D985 (2023).
Peterson, R. E. et al. Genome-wide association studies in ancestrally diverse populations: opportunities, methods, pitfalls, and recommendations. Cell 179, 589–603 (2019).
Prestwood, K. M., Kenny, A. M., Kleppinger, A. & Kulldorff, M. Ultralow-dose micronized 17β-estradiol and bone density and bone metabolism in older women: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 290, 1042–1048 (2003).
Ettinger, B. et al. Effects of ultralow-dose transdermal estradiol on bone mineral density: a randomized clinical trial. Obstet. Gynecol. 104, 443–451 (2004).
Zhu, L., Jiang, X., Sun, Y. & Shu, W. Effect of hormone therapy on the risk of bone fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Menopause 23, 461–470 (2016).
Villareal, D. T. et al. Bone mineral density response to estrogen replacement in frail elderly women: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 286, 815–820 (2001).
Zimmerman, Y., Eijkemans, M., Coelingh Bennink, H., Blankenstein, M. & Fauser, B. The effect of combined oral contraception on testosterone levels in healthy women: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum. Reprod. Update 20, 76–105 (2014).
Morris, J. A. et al. An atlas of genetic influences on osteoporosis in humans and mice. Nat. Genet. 51, 258–266 (2019).
Kim, S. K. Identification of 613 new loci associated with heel bone mineral density and a polygenic risk score for bone mineral density, osteoporosis and fracture. PLoS One 13, e0200785 (2018).
Pini, L. et al. Brain atrophy in Alzheimer’s disease and aging. Ageing Res. Rev. 30, 25–48 (2016).
Arnone, D. et al. State-dependent changes in hippocampal grey matter in depression. Mol. Psychiatry 18, 1265–1272 (2013).
Wise, T. et al. Common and distinct patterns of grey-matter volume alteration in major depression and bipolar disorder: evidence from voxel-based meta-analysis. Mol. Psychiatry 22, 1455–1463 (2017).
Cha, J. et al. Abnormal hippocampal structure and function in clinical anxiety and comorbid depression. Hippocampus 26, 545–553 (2016).
Chen, Y. et al. Progressive brain structural alterations assessed via causal analysis in patients with generalized anxiety disorder. Neuropsychopharmacology 45, 1689–1697 (2020).
Than, S. et al. Interactions between age, sex, menopause, and brain structure at midlife: a UK Biobank study. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 106, 410–420 (2021).
Lohner, V. et al. Relation between sex, menopause, and white matter hyperintensities: the Rhineland study. Neurology 99, e935–e943 (2022).
Debette, S. & Markus, H. The clinical importance of white matter hyperintensities on brain magnetic resonance imaging: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 341, c3666 (2010).
Prins, N. D. & Scheltens, P. White matter hyperintensities, cognitive impairment and dementia: an update. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 11, 157–165 (2015).
Kunkle, B. W. et al. Genetic meta-analysis of diagnosed Alzheimer’s disease identifies new risk loci and implicates Aβ, tau, immunity and lipid processing. Nat. Genet. 51, 414–430 (2019).
Smith, S. M. et al. An expanded set of genome-wide association studies of brain imaging phenotypes in UK Biobank. Nat. Neurosci. 24, 737–745 (2021).
Howard, D. M. et al. Genome-wide meta-analysis of depression identifies 102 independent variants and highlights the importance of the prefrontal brain regions. Nat. Neurosci. 22, 343–352 (2019).
Otowa, T. et al. Meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies of anxiety disorders. Mol. Psychiatry 21, 1391–1399 (2016).
Bowden, J., Davey Smith, G., Haycock, P. C. & Burgess, S. Consistent estimation in Mendelian randomization with some invalid instruments using a weighted median estimator. Genet. Epidemiol. 40, 304–314 (2016).
Hartwig, F. P., Davey Smith, G. & Bowden, J. Robust inference in summary data Mendelian randomization via the zero modal pleiotropy assumption. Int. J. Epidemiol. 46, 1985–1998 (2017).
Bowden, J., Davey Smith, G. & Burgess, S. Mendelian randomization with invalid instruments: effect estimation and bias detection through Egger regression. Int. J. Epidemiol. 44, 512–525 (2015).
Benjamini, Y. & Hochberg, Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Methodol. 57, 289–300 (1995).
Haas, C. B., Hsu, L., Lampe, J. W., Wernli, K. J. & Lindström, S. Cross-ancestry genome-wide association studies of sex hormone concentrations in pre-and postmenopausal women. Endocrinology 163, bqac020 (2022).
Acknowledgements
The authors received funding from the Swiss National Science Foundation (AM.G.dL; PZ00P3_193658, B.D.; NCCR Synapsy, project grants Nr 32003B_135679, 32003B_159780, 324730_192755, and CRSK-3_190185), the Leenaards Foundation, the European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (L.T.W.; 802998), the European Union Horizon Europe (‘environMENTAL’; 101057429), the UK Research and Innovation under the UK government’s Horizon Europe (10041392 and 10038599), the Research Council of Norway (L.T.W.; 273345, 249795, 298646, 300768, 223273), the South-East Norway Regional Health Authority (C.B.; 2023037, 2022103, L.T.W.; 2018076, 2019101), and the Wellcome Trust (A.T.; 216462/Z/19/Z). The funders had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the manuscript. This work was initiated while L.S.S., B.D., and A.M.G.dL. were affiliated with the Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV) and University of Lausanne, Switzerland.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
L.S.S. conceptualised the study, designed the methodology, conducted the data analysis, interpreted the results, and wrote the original draft. D.G. provided methodological expertise, contributed to data interpretation, and edited the manuscript. H.O., C.B., O.A.A., B.D., and L.T.W. reviewed and edited the manuscript. A.T. and A.M.G.dL. jointly supervised the project, contributed to study's conceptualisation and design, interpreted the results, reviewed and edited the manuscript, and provided resources and funding. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
D.G. is chief executive officer of Sequoia Genetics, a private limited company that works with investors, pharma, biotech, and academia by performing research that leverages genetic data to help inform drug discovery and development, but declares no non-financial competing interests. All authors declare no financial or non-financial competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Schindler, L.S., Gill, D., Oppenheimer, H. et al. Menopausal hormone therapy and risk of neuropsychiatric disease: a drug target Mendelian randomisation study. npj Womens Health 4, 10 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44294-026-00130-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Version of record:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44294-026-00130-1
